When recruiting, most leaders believe that they are good interviewers, particularly those who have been doing it for a long time. Comments like: “I am very experienced at this; I usually know in the first few minutes whether they are suitable.” Or “I have a really good instinct for people, so I am very good at deciding who is best” may be true, but it is more likely that decisions made on actual evidence provided by interviewees will be more accurate. This accuracy will lead to the selection of candidates who are very well suited to the positions based on the capabilities that are actually important for success in the roles.
Interviewers need to ensure that they are very familiar with all the skills and capabilities being assessed and what success looks like for each competency at the position level, and how to effectively measure this.
The responsibility of the interviewer, or selection panel member in government organisations, is to gather enough factual information from each interviewee to be able to make an evidence-based decision on which applicant is the most suitable for the position being interviewed for. The more evidence there is to base a decision on, the less reliance there is on unconscious, and sometimes even conscious, biases. Basing selection decisions on capability-based evidence also encourages diversity.
Evidence based questions that start with “Describe a situation where…..” or “Give an example of….” are great initial questions. It allows each interviewee to provide real and specific evidence of their past experience. Most applicants will provide standard pre-prepared STAR (Situation, Task, Action, Result) responses to these initial questions. But even when this opening answer covers the basics, there is always more a good interviewer will want to know.
The most important skill an interviewer can master is the ability to ask job-relevant follow-up questions after this first answer has been provided by the interviewee. To do this effectively, the interviewer must be able to ask insightful questions which are potentially not in the script. The questions are often inspired by natural curiosity, where the interviewer genuinely wants to know more, or where further probing delivers additional evidence. It provides the interviewees with an opportunity to add details to their initial answers that it may not have occurred to them to include.
These questions range from the basic factual or clarification questions like: “What was the budget on the project?” OR “How many team members did you manage?” to questions which examine the how or why. The answers provide further insight into the candidate’s critical thinking process, problem solving methodology or ability to self-reflect. Examples are: “What was your thought process behind that?” OR “How did that make it more challenging than other projects you have been on?” OR “On reflection, would you have approached anything differently?” OR “What was the knock-on effect of that outcome? How did it impact other team members?”
This further questioning will also enable the interviewer to assess the level of each of the interviewee’s capabilities. For example, the decision-making process will be very different when explained by an operational level team member than when an executive candidate describes their approach.
This more detailed probing and additional evidence will make it easier for the interviewer to compare candidates to each other on each of the relevant capabilities and select the most suitable applicant.
So, add this advanced technique to your interviewing skills and improve the accuracy of your selection decisions.
If you need further assistance with developing the interview skills of your leaders, please reach out to JJ Talent Solutions.
