The document discusses the historical and contemporary issues surrounding employee selection processes, focusing particularly on the effectiveness of structured interviews versus unstructured ones. It highlights the lack of adherence to structured methods among organizations and outlines common objections from hiring managers regarding the perceived inflexibility and ineffectiveness of structured interviews. The document emphasizes the importance of validation studies to demonstrate the correlation between selection procedures and job performance outcomes.

1. HR’s Powerful
Influence
EMPLOYEE SELECTION:
HOW TO TALK YOUR HIRING MANAGER OUT OF DISMISSING
A CANDIDATE FOR HAVING MUSTARD ON HIS TIE

2. Setting
Expectations
Responding
to Objections
Guiding Post-
Interview
Analysis
OVERVIEW

3. SETTING EXPECTATIONS

4.  Early 1900s: “Studies…did not appear to agree in their
results.” (Schmidt & Hunter 264)
 1970s: “Most of the differences across studies were due
to…the use of small samples in the studies.”
 1970s-1980s: “Studies based on meta-analysis provided
more accurate estimates.”
 1980s-1990s: “________ interviews had mean validity
coefficients twice those of _________ interviews.” (Wiesner &
Cronshaw)
HISTORY OF ACADEMIC STUDY ON
ASSESSMENT TESTS FOR EMPLOYMENT

5.  “The reduction in procedural variability across applicants.”
 Reduction in interviewer discretion
 Standardization of:
 Interviewer questions
 Response scoring
STRUCTURE DEFINITION
Huffcutt & Arthur p 186

6. 1. Validity: Job analysis, core competencies, targeted
questions.
2. Reliability: Ask the same questions of each candidate.
3. Create rater agreement (BARS, calibration).
EEOC Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection
Procedures.
HSI OVERVIEW

7. STRUCTURE DEFINITION
Huffcutt & Arthur p 187

8.  “Evidence for criterion-related validity typically consists of a
demonstration of a relationship…between the results of a
selection procedure (predictor) and one or more measures of
work-relevant behavior or work outcomes (criteria).”
 Is there a correlation between interview “scores” and on the
job performance “scores?”
CRITERION-RELATED VALIDITY IN
SELECTION TESTING
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
Inc. p 13

9.  Is there really any evidence to support using a structured
approach?
MAKING THE CASE FOR THE (H)SI

10.  Conduct your own validation study internally
 Correlation between criterion and predictors
 Same process as validating a pre-employment test (e.g.
cognitive abilities test)
MAKING THE CASE (CONTINUED)

11. RESPONDING TO
OBJECTIONS

12.  One study found just 29% of large organizations use
structured interviews.
 That same study found that only 24% of organizations
performed validation studies.
 “The dominant class of explanations for not using structured,
standardized interviews was beliefs concerning the usefulness
of the staffing practice.”
Terpstra & Rozell p 483, 487
EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT…

13.  What reasons have hiring managers given to support their
reticence to using a structured interviews?
WHAT OBJECTIONS HAVE YOU HEARD?

14.  Structured interviews aren’t effective
 Structure restricts HM satisfaction (sterile, impersonal, don’t
allow for connections)
 Structure restricts interviewer discretion and flexibility
(boring, beneath skillset of interviewer)
 Formality of structure is socially unpleasant
Lievens & De Paepe
HM OBJECTIONS FROM STUDIES

15.  Structure requires preparation
 Structure restricts an “experienced” HM from using their
expertise
 Complex jobs (e.g. Sales Mgr) aren’t conducive to structure
HM RESISTANCE (CONTINUED)

16. GUIDING THE
POST-INTERVIEW
ANALYSIS DISCUSSION

17.  Complete the structured guide in its entirety before discussion
begins (including scoring)
 Then frame discussion by talking through the interview guide
sections
 Start with scores, and ask HMs to support their answers
YOU SET THE AGENDA

18.  Start with the score
 Weight the predictors in the event of a tie
 Take legitimate “X-Factors” into consideration (carefully)
 Interviewing is one part of the overall assessment picture
COMPARISONS

19.  “Fit”
 Halo/Horns
 Common network/connection
 Common school, club, or other affiliation (e.g. sports)
 Dress/appearance
 Buzzwords
 Pet peeves
 Wrong answer (to one question)
 HM memory limitations
 Personality conflict
MUSTARD

20.  Three Brave Volunteers
THREE CANDIDATE EXERCISE

21. REFERENCES
 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Civil Service Commission, Department of
Labor, Department of Justice. (1978). Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection
Procedures. Federal Register. 43. 38290-38315.
 Huffcutt, Allen I., & Arthur, Jr., Winfred. “Hunter and Hunter (1984) Revisited: Interview
Validity for Entry -Level Jobs.” Journal of Applied Psychology. 1994. V79 N2.
 Lievens, Filip & De Paepe, Anneleen. “An empirical investigation of interviewer -related
factors that discourage the use of high structure interviews.” Journal of Organizational
Behavior. V25. 2004.
 Murphy, Joseph P., et. al. Practical Rigor: Evidence-Based Management to Improve Hiring
in High Population Jobs. Creelman Research, Inc. 2013.
 Pulakos, Elaine. “Selection Assessment Methods.” SHRM Foundation’s Effective
Practice Guidelines. Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). 2005.
 Schmidt, Frank L., & Hunter, John E. “The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in
Personnel Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research
Findings.” Psychological Bulletin. 1998. V 124 N2.
 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc. Principles for the Validation
and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures. Fourth Edition. 2003.
 Terpstra, David E. and Rozell, Elizabeth J. “Why Some Potentially Effective Staffing
Practices are Seldom Used.” Public Personnel Management. V26 N4. Winter 1997.
 Wiesner, Willi H., & Cronshaw, Steven F. “A meta-analytic investigation of the impact of
interview format and degree of structure on the validity of the employment interview.”
Journal of Occupational Psychology. 1988. V61.