3 ms·
But surely structured interviews just test a candidate's ability to improvise plausible stories? Whether they are truthful or not is a different matter..
by Boothroid 10y ago
But surely structured interviews just test a candidate's ability to improvise plausible stories? Whether they are truthful or not is a different matter..
- scarmig 10y agoBeing able to improvise plausible stories is an important aspect of job performance, both internally and externally.
- Boothroid 10y agoOne aspect amongst many?
- threatofrain 10y agoStructured interviews improve the ability to systematically test the relationship between policy and results. Real experiments are then possible. As opposed to a situation where your interviewers are asking off-the-cuff questions, and you're uncertain whether the questions have a systematic bias toward a bad direction -- racism, sexism, or just selecting for something idiosyncratic that adds unnecessary constraint to your candidacy pool. You also now don't know whether it's your policy that's systematically bad (or good!), or that your interviewers are systematically bad.
- vacri 10y agoAnd yet unstructured interviewing basically works and the world keeps spinning. If 'random' truly was a better result (as the article suggests), then in a hiring round for a programmer last year, we might have discarded our candidate that won and is awesome for the one that couldn't conceptually 'get' FizzBuzz. Or put another way: if 'random' was better than 'unstructured', you'd never have a round of hiring where there were no unsuitable candidates - one will have been chosen.
- Boothroid 10y agoBetter to give someone a job related task perhaps?
- jotux 10y agoThe best part about structured interviews is that it gives you historical data on the interviews performance.