One man, asked if he does much interviewing, thinks of the time he chose his secretary and of the day he had to counsel one of the management trainees- and answers practically none. Another man with a similar job thinks of the many informal discussions he has with his superior and with customers, with colleagues and subordinates- and answers that he is interviewing all the time.
The difference lies not in their work but in their interpretation of the word interview. The interviewer must use the same skills, whether he is concerned with formal pre-arranged meetings typified by the selection interview, or with unprepared discussions with staff or visitors. Basically all these situations involve two people meeting to solve some problem. If they are to achieve anything one, and often both of them, must exercise various skills. For instance, they need to think clearly about what they are trying to do- whether they are concerned with selection or with an apparent injustice or with a failure to carry out some task. Then, if they are to exchange useful information, they must be able to inspire each other at least with some confidence and preferably with liking. Essential in formal interviewing, this skill is no less important in informal discussions. One party at least, preferably both, must be able to listen.
The quality of relationships established in this way does much to establish the effectiveness of communication in an organization. Is traditions of relationships, its levels of morale and industrial peace are, establish or profoundly influenced by the many hundreds of brief meetings and discussions that are taking place within it all the time. Some interviews are so important that they have serious and long-term consequences for a company and for the personal fortunes of the individual concerned. The skills needed in all these types of communication are required everyone who has responsibility over others. They make for healthy constructive human groups and contribute immensely to the development of the individual.
Types of Interviews
Although we tend to think of selection interviewing as a conversation between two people there are several variations on this theme.
Individual, or one-to-one, interviews
These are by far the most common, and offer the best opportunity for rapport to be developed between the interviewer and the candidate. They do, however have a number of problems. For instance, if the interviewer lacked objectivity, then since he is the sole judge this weakness will go unchecked. Additionally the interviewer may find that he lacks knowledge of some of the areas in which he has to question the candidates. The judgment may then be made more on how the person answers rather then on what is actually said.
A further more problem may be that the very fact the interviewer and the candidate did establish a rapport may act to cloud the judgment of the interviewer, to the extend that the person appointed is the one with whom the interviewer got on best, rather than the most suitable candidate in terms of experience and qualifications. Once again this would go unchecked.
Panel interviews
One of the variations is the panel interview, where several people interview candidates. These tend to be used by very large companies, by companies or organizations where group discussions and committee work are a noticeable feature, and by very small organization where everybody is regarded as equally important and may want a say in what is going on. There are quite a number of advantages and disadvantages of panel interview, as a matter of fact, the disadvantages for outweigh the advantages.
Some of the advantages are:
(a) They allow people with different areas of expertise to question the candidate more closely than one general interviewer.
Some of the disadvantages are:
(a) A major difficulty is getting all the appropriate people to be available at the required time, which may well run several days if there are a lot of candidates.
(b) Because it is difficult to get everyone together, too little time and consideration will be given to making the final decision, which may well be made simply to bring the meeting to a close because one or other member of the panel has to get away.
Sequential interviews
Another variation is the sequential interview. Many people think that this combines the good points of the one-to-one interview with those of the panel interview.
With this method all the people who wish to be involved in the selection of a candidate do so one after the other and not as one un widely group. They are able to ask question and form opinions without being self-conscious about the other members of the selection group.
There are 3 minor drawbacks; the candidates themselves may have to commit more time to the interview selection process; the interviewers will have to ensure they leave enough time for discussion between themselves as well as making their own post interview notes; time will have to be set aside for the interviewers to meet and finalize their decision.
Group interviews
Often these take the form of a problem-solving exercise or a leaderless group discussion, with the interviewers acting as observers.
Group interviews are probably best used when dealing with young applicants, such as new university graduates, or as part of an assessment center process.
Computer interviewing
A recent interviewing innovation is the use of computers to conduct preliminary screening interviews. The applicant is questioned without the presence of an interviewer. The typical computer-aided interview has about 100 questions and can be completed in less than 20 min. Some, however, are highly sophisticated and are designed to generate information on the candidates intelligence, leadership, verbal assertiveness, drive, emotional control and other personal qualities. A lot of information from a large number of candidates can thus be obtained quickly. The well-designed computer system avoids the common weakness of face-to-face interviews. According to Mitchell, the computer is an ideal interviewer as it conducts the interview with perfect memory, patience, accuracy and consistency that enhance cognitive power and decision making capability of the subsequent human interviewer.
Video interviewing
Another recent approach to employment interviewing involves the use of video. This is particularly advantageous for organizations when conducting interview with applicants who are resident interstate or overseas. Cost saving in management time, transportation and accommodation charges obviously can be considerable. A disadvantage is where a candidate expresses reluctance to being video interviewed. There is also complaining about lack of feedback and the lack of the human element. One of the example where video interviewing is applied is in the field of education;
The University of East London has used video conferencing in order to interview an applicant for an academic post. The applicant had only recently returned to the United States following a visit to the United Kingdom, when she found that se had been short-listed and invited to return to the UK to attend an interview. Problems / Limitation (Recommendations) of Interviews
Interviews has been recorded and observed but not with the purpose of testing hypothesis and making meaningful measurements. The most important reason for the neglect of the interview is its complexity. No statement can overemphasise the complicated structure of the interview. It is dynamic, not static. It involves not only the present but also much of the past of the two participants. It includes verbal behavior and all numerous interactions possible. Reducing the interview to its behavioral elements is difficult. Experimental methods for dealing with many problems of the interview have not yet been devised and the difficulty of work in this field makes one hesitate before proceeding. Its unsystematic nature makes the interview quite different from more objective selection techniques, such as psychological testing.
The conditions for testing, the time allowed, and the questions asked are much, much more systematic and rigidly controlled than is the case in the interview. The examiner consistently must use the same timing and procedures for all applicants. He comes out with objective scores of their performance on the tests. Test scores are handled as one would handle the measurement of, for example, hardness of steel, with no differences in treatment allowable from one sample to another. Regardless of the examiner, the same score would be expected to result for the individual if the same setting and directions were used during the examination. A disadvantage of the use of tests for selection, some say, is that the examiner does not get what has been called a clinical picture of the individual.
While psychological testing is highly objective, subjectivity is a problem inherent in the nature of the interview. The word subjective here implies that the decisions of the interviewer are based upon his opinion, which is subject to his personal biases and prejudices. His attitudes may differ from one applicant to the next. These attitudes contain bias-errors often made in judging others.
Another problem in the interview is how to qualify the results. To be sure, the interviewer may use a form to rate the applicant on his suitability for the job; these ratings may themselves be scored by some coding system applied to the scale. However, this procedure yields results quite unlike the quantitative measurements available from psychological tests.
