Category Archives: Interviewing
Should Your Spouse Interview for You? (IO Psychology)
How well can your spouse sing your praises? Well enough to help you get that job you’ve always wanted?
This article discussed the ethical and legal issues surrounding spousal interviews for employment. Ever heard of it? Some companies are choosing to include spousal interviews as a part of their hiring process, especially for sales roles. As sales jobs can include varying hours and unpredictable income, some organizations want to make sure that the spouse fully understands and is on board with what could come. I don’t personally know of any organizations doing this, but it honestly scares the crap out of me (that is one of those phrases I should probably try to stop using).
As a spouse-less individual, I am a bit overwhelmed by the idea of this. Are you telling me that in my hunt for a mate, I now have to add “awesome interviewer on my behalf” to my list of requirements? Isn’t dating hard enough already?!
The argued business rationale is that by making sure the spouse is on board, it will prevent salesperson turn and subsequent revenue loss. But what risk does this introduce? First of all, requesting a spousal interview reveals the candidate’s marital status before a conditional offer of employment. Marital status is not protected by federal law, but it is in many states. The simple act of revealing of whether or not a candidate has a spouse could lead to intentional or unintentional discrimination. In addition, what if that spouse happens to be a same-sex spouse? That could open a whole new can of legal worms (seriously, I need to update my phrases). And what if you don’t have a spouse to conduct an interview? Does that give you an advantage because there is no one the organization has to make sure is “on board”, or do you lose the opportunity to have someone speak on your behalf?
Regardless of the legalities, the author argues that it could cast a “veil of suspicion on the hiring process” (p. 123). And what could this veil do to the reputation of the organization? How do you even make a hiring decision…Think of the different scenarios to deal with; if a candidate is very qualified but the spouse isn’t on board, do you hire? What about the flip scenario? The organization could get screwed either way. The only way the organization wins is if they find an amazing candidate with a spouse who is up for the unpredictable nature of the job. Is it even worth it? Most likely not.
Think what job hunting and hiring processes would be like if they all included a spousal interview. Oh the madness…
Strike a Pose! (IO Psychology)
Topic: Interviewing
Publication: Psychological Science (2010)
Article: Power posing: Brief nonverbal displays affect neuroendocrine levels and risk tolerance
Authors: Dana R. Carney, Amy J.C. Cuddy, & Andy J. Yap
Reviewed By: Scott Charles Sitrin
Before an interview, you review your CV and letter of intent and familiarize yourself with the company or school that you are applying to. Do you also strike a pose? If not, you could be negatively affecting how you come across to the interviewer. According to research by Carney, Cuddy, & Yap, posing in a position of power may increase your levels of testosterone, decrease your levels of cortisol, and leave you feeling more powerful and tolerant of risk, and in contrast, posing in a non-power pose may decrease your levels of testosterone, increase your levels of cortisol, and make you feel weak and nervous.
In their study, 42 male and female participants were randomly assigned to the high-power pose or low-power-pose condition. A high power-pose involves taking up a lot of physical space and making the body and limbs open, whereas a low-power pose involves taking up little physical space (e.g., fetal position) with limbs closed and close to the body. Saliva samples measured levels of testosterone and cortisol, a gambling task evaluated participants’ willingness to take risks, and self-reports assessed feelings of power.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
source for picture: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Business_People_g201-Business_Meeting_Agreement_Customer_p36550.html
Why Are You Asking Me This? Investigating Reactions to Puzzle Interviews (IO Psychology)
Topic: Interviewing, Selection
Publication: Journal of Applied Social Psychology
Article: Why Are Manhole Covers Round? A Laboratory Study of Reactions to Puzzle Interviews (in press)
Authors: Chris W. Wright, Chris J. Sablynski, Todd M. Manson, & Steven Oshiro
Reviewed By: Thaddeus Rada
Despite controversy over their effectiveness, interviews remain a tool that many organizations rely on when making hiring decisions. There is a great deal of variability in the way that interviews are organized, and in the content that they assess. Familiar to many I-O psychologists is the distinction between structured and unstructured interviews; however, one type of interview that is less well-known is the puzzle interview. Originally pioneered by Microsoft in the 1990s, puzzle interviews continue to be used in many well-known organizations, such as Google and Amazon.com.
What is a puzzle interview? Essentially, it an interview consisting of unconventional questions that are designed to assess applicants’ creativity, problem-solving skills, and ability to handle unexpected circumstances (i.e. many job applicants may receive some coaching on how to perform well in an interview, but this training rarely includes coverage of puzzle interviews). An example of a question that might be asked during a puzzle interview is “How would you measure exactly 4 gallons of water using only a 3-gallon bottle and a 5-gallon bottle?”
Despite their popularity in some organizations, research on puzzle interviews is scarce. A recent study by Chris Wright and colleagues examined reactions to puzzle interviews, especially in terms of perceptions of fairness and effectiveness. The authors found that, among a sample of college students, reactions to the puzzle interview were quite poor when compared with reactions to a behavioral interview. As noted previously, research on puzzle interviews remains in its infancy, and a great deal more work remains to be done. However, at the present time, the authors conclude that organizations should use caution when using puzzle interviews; not only does their overall effectiveness remain unknown, but people appear to have rather negative reactions to them. Such reactions can contribute to a host of problems for organizations, and so it may be best for organizations to refrain from emphasizing puzzle interviews in their hiring process.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Distracted Interviewing: The Case of Facial Scars (IO Psychology)
Topic: Interviewing, Fairness
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (MAR 2012)
Article: Discrimination Against Facially Stigmatized Applicants in Interviews:
An Eye-Tracking and Face-to-Face Investigation
Authors: J.M. Madera, M.R. Hebl
Reviewed By: Ben Sher
It’s easy to imagine reasons why a job interviewer might be distracted: Workplace politics, trouble at home, unnecessarily detailed fantasies of winning the lottery, March Madness. But according to troubling new research by Madera and Hebl (2012), we can add one more thing to that list. If the person interviewing for the job has a facial scar, it could be enough to distract the interviewer and cause negative outcomes.
So how did they figure that out? The researchers conducted two experiments. The first experiment simulated job interviews by asking participants to look at a picture of an applicant while listening to a recording of an interview. Sometimes the applicant had a distinct facial scar and sometimes the applicant did not. Using high-tech eye-tracking equipment, the researchers found that when a job applicant had a facial scar, the participants spent more time looking at it then other parts of the face.
Well that doesn’t seem so surprising, right? But what happened next really stood out. Participants who were distracted by the scar recalled fewer facts about the applicant. When asked to rate the job applicants, remembering fewer facts led to lower ratings. Now you can see the problem.
To strengthen their case, the researchers repeated a similar study with participants who had managerial and interviewing experience. This time they used actors to play the role of job applicants, and applied an artificial facial scar in half of the trials. Again, the results were clear: When applicants had facial scars, their interviewers remembered fewer facts and provided lower ratings.
What does this mean? The authors note that distractions naturally compromise the integrity of job interviews, especially when these distractions lead to bias. For those of us who do conduct interviews, the authors discuss using structured interviews and careful note-taking as possible ways to remain as unbiased and factual as possible. They also add that sometimes mere awareness of possible sources of bias is the best way to avoid unfair outcomes.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Are cognitive ability tests insulting your applicants? (IO Psychology)
Topic: Organizational Justice, Fairness, Interviewing, Assessment, Selection
Publication: Personnel Psychology (WINTER 2011)
Article: Status and organizational entry: How organizational and individual status affect justice perceptions of hiring systems
Authors: Sumanth, J. J., & Cable, D. M.
Reviewed by: Alexandra Rechlin
It is well known in the field of IO psychology that cognitive ability tests are very predictive of employee performance. However, applicants often see them as unfair and do not like taking them; more informal and much less valid methods (like informal interviews) tend to be preferred by applicants. In this study, Sumanth and Cable (2011) investigated the effect that the status of the organization and the career status of the applicant would have on applicants’ perceptions of the selection system’s fairness.
In this quasi-experimental study, the authors tested their hypotheses with two samples of adults (one of MBA alumni in the United States, one of executives in the United Kingdom). All participants were told that the hiring organization would use behavioral interviews, and half of the participants were told that they would also need to complete a cognitive ability test.
Organizational status is the reputation of an organization; a high-status organization (e.g., Google) is seen as being very reputable and prestigious. High-status organizations tend to be known for the rigor of their selection systems. The authors found that when low-status organizations (as opposed to high-status organizations) used cognitive ability tests as part of their selection system, applicants were less likely to view the organization attractively.
Individual career status refers to one’s beliefs about his or her career accomplishments and status (i.e., respect, prominence) within and outside of an organization. It is plausible that applicants with high status might be insulted by having to take a cognitive ability test when applying for a job; for example, they may think that their accomplishments should speak for themselves. Procedural justice is the fairness of the procedures used to make decisions. The authors found that when an individual’s status was high and cognitive ability tests were included, that person was more likely than low-status individuals to have lower perceptions of procedural justice. In other words, the process was seen as unfair. High-status individuals also were more insulted by the inclusion of a cognitive ability test.
These results indicate that even though cognitive ability tests are highly valid, they may repel high-status applicants who may see the process as unfair and insulting. My recommendation based on these findings would be to make it clear to applicants why cognitive ability tests are being used (i.e., their high validity) and that the exact same procedure will be used for all applicants.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Successful Strategies for Job Interviewing (IO Psychology)
Topic: Interviewing
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (NOV 2011)
Article: Managing and Creating an Image in the Interview: The Role of Interviewee Initial Impressions
Authors: B. W. Swider, M. R. Barrick, T. B. Harris, A. C. Stoverink
Reviewed By: Ben Sher
When we think about job interviews, we think about making good impressions. Interviewees often make a conscious effort to influence the impression they make on interviewers, sometimes truthfully and sometimes untruthfully. Trying to understand how different impression-making strategies influence hiring decisions has long been the role of IO psychologists. Research by Swider, Barrick, Harris, and Stoverink (2011) has found the significance of telling the truth and the effects of good rapport on job interview outcomes.
The researchers explain that interviewees might use one of three approaches to persuade interviewers that they are right for the job. The first category is called impression management. This is when interviewees honestly describe their accomplishments and skills in a way that suggests that they are a good fit for the job. The second tactic is called slight image creation, and involves small distortion of the truth. Interviewees using this strategy will either misrepresent information, or tailor their answers to what they think the interviewer wants to hear. The final strategy is called extensive image creation. As you might have guessed, this is when interviewees completely fabricate experiences, stories, or skills.
After staging an experiment involving simulated interviews, the researchers found that interviewees who used the truthful impression management strategies received higher ratings from interviewers. When interviewees tried one of the other methods that involves dishonesty, slight image creation or extensive image creation, the interviewees received lower scores from the interviewers. When people are dishonest, say the authors, they must use extra effort and concentration to avoid inconsistencies in their story and ensure that they are using appropriate body language. The extra effort required to streamline information makes responses shorter and less-detailed, and could negatively impact the interview outcome.
But there was also another factor. After initial rapport building, interviewees rated how they thought they were being perceived by the interviewer. When interviewees thought that they were not perceived well, the advantage provided by truthful impression management strategies was even greater. Similarly, when interviewees thought that they were not perceived well, the harmful effects of untruthful image creation was mitigated. This is because interviewees who think the interview is not going well are inspired to try harder and be more creative as the interview progresses, even if it means trying harder to concoct an untruthful story.
Because interviews play such an integral role in selection, it is important for IO psychologists to continue to investigate the factors that help influence interview decisions. This study provides key information about the influence of interviewee strategy on decisions, as well as groundbreaking research about the dynamic changes that occur as the interview is taking place.
human resource management,organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Follow the Yellow Brick Road: the Path to the Understanding Interview Constructs
Topic: Interviewing, Selection, Human Resources
Publication: International Journal of Selection and Assessment (March, 2011)
Article: An Empirical Review of the Employment Interview Construct Literature
Author: Allen I. Huffcutt
Reviewed by: Jade L. Peters
It can be very easy to assume a structured interview is the best technique when interviewing. It can be easier to forget about what important constructs feed into an interview that makes the interviewers’ ratings change. Much of the Employment Interview literature only focuses on a narrow selection of important constructs. While this article addresses these critical constructs, it reviews and quantifies past literature to strongly support the ideas that both (a) important constructs are being ignored and (b) the structured interview is not error proof.
Like many reviews, a theoretical model was developed to solidify the already scattered literature of the construct related variance. Constructs refer to what is being measured, in this case during an interview. Essentially, the constructs being assessed can create a bias and effect the interviewers’ rating scores, which can accurate measurement of the construct. Job-Related Interview Content, Interviewee Performance, and Personal/Demographic Characteristics are three posits of the implied model that contribute to important constructs in employment interview ratings and represent a gap in the research that struggles to be filled. The structured interview in itself still deserves a fair amount of research, as do any construct used widely in practice.
Though the review was extensive and addressed knowledge summarized many times before, employment interview literature is still up and coming and deserves continued assessment with more critical constructs in mind.
Huffcutt, A.I. (2011). An empirical review of the employment interview construct literature. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19(1), 62-81.
human resource management,organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
The Curious Case of Recruiters
Topic: Interviewing, Selection
Publication: International Journal of Selection and Assessment (JUN 2011)
Article: How Accurate are Recruiters’ First Impressions of Applicants in Employment Interviews?
Authors: Mast, M. S., Bangerter, A., Bulliard, C., & Aerni, G.
Reviewed By: Thaddeus Rada
Recruiters are still used by a variety of organizations to evaluate applicants and identify candidates that exhibit the potential to become successful employees in the organization. Recruiters typically have a relatively long time in which to form a first impression of a candidate; the authors of the current study, Marianne Mast and colleagues, were interested in knowing if recruiters are able to more accurately (compared to a layperson) assess the personality of job applicants if they have a shorter amount of time in which to make their assessment. Does this shorter time frame inhibit their ability to make accurate assessments about others?
Participants in this study came from one of two groups: recruiters, and students. The students acted as a sort of control group, with their performance thought to be representative of how laypeople might perform on the assessment task. Participants viewed videotapes of mock job applicants; compared to a typical job interview, the videos were much shorter, exposing participants to each applicant for an average of only two minutes. Participants then assessed each applicant’s personality (the assessment utilized the Big 5 personality components). The accuracy of the participants’ assessments were measure against self-assessments completed by the applicants, as well as peer assessments completed by two friends of each applicant. The researchers found that students were able to accurately assess more personality traits (openness, extraversion, and conscientiousness) than the recruiters were (openness only), while recruiters were better able to assess the complete personality profile of each applicant.
Ultimately, the authors argue that recruiters’ skill at assessing personality profiles gives support to the notion that recruiters should continue to be utilized in the personnel selection process. However, it may also be worth considering whether there are instances in which a specific personality dimension is more important than the entire personality profile. The authors note that previous research has found that conscientiousness is the personality dimension most predictive of job performance, in a variety of occupations. In the current study, the authors found that students were able to accurately assess conscientiousness, while recruiters were not. It is my belief that the necessity of “total” personality assessment, as it applies to personnel selection, should continue to be evaluated.
Putting U in Unique in Selection Interviews: Understanding how being unique will give you the Better Advantage
Topic: Selection, Interviewing
Publication: Personnel Psychology (SPRING 2011)
Article: The uniqueness effect in selection interviews
Authors: N. Roulin, A. Bangerter, & E. Yerly
Reviewed By: Jade Peters
The absence of past and present interview selection literature revolving around the Uniqueness Effect is shocking. The Uniqueness Effect is when an applicant gives unique or individual answers to traditional interview questions that are different than what is expected in the interview and the interviewer sees this as a good quality. This is entirely different from the contrast effect in which a poor interviewee performance can make the next interviewee look even better than it should to the interviewer (the two concepts are often confused).
Generally, the Uniqueness Effect can significantly impact how the interviewer perceives the interviewee and can change the result of their selection decision. However, because candidates want to sound intelligent and prepared for an interview this could also work to their disadvantage: when interviewees use nontraditional answers, it appears that there is a degree of faking or lying at play.
Less Isn’t More: Structure in Employment Interviews
Topic: Interviewing, Selection, Human Resources
Publication: Personnel Psychology (SPRING 2011)
Article: Is more structure really better? A comparison of frame-of-reference training and descriptively anchored rating scales to improve interviewers’ rating quality.
Authors: K. G. Melchers, N. Lienhardt, M. V. Aarburg, & M. Kleinmann
Reviewed By: Thaddeus Rada
Interviews remain one of the most common methods that organizations use to select new employees. Additionally, one of the most consistent recommendations in I/O psychology is that structuring interviews improves their ability to improve the selection process and make successful hires. Although the strength of structured interviews over unstructured interviews is well-documented, previous research has been inconsistent in identifying how different methods of adding structure to interviews may relate to one another. A new study by Melchers and colleagues begins to address this issue.
Melchers and his colleagues’ study compared the effectiveness of two methods of adding structure to interviews: frame-of-reference (FOR) training and descriptively anchored rating scales (DARS). FOR training is used to provide interviewers with information about the content addressed by each question, as well as a common standard by which the performance of applicants and their answers to the interview questions can be judged. DARS are a bit more specific, giving interviewers examples of what poor, average, and good answers to each interview question might consist of.
