Job interview

src: hiring-assets.careerbuilder.com

Job Interview is an interview consisting of a conversation between job applicants and a representative of the company undertaken to assess whether the applicant should be employed. Interviews are one of the most popular devices used for employee selection. Interviews vary the extent to which questions are composed, from completely unstructured and free conversations, to structured interviews in which the requester is asked for a list of predetermined questions in a particular order; Structured interviews are usually a more accurate predictor of where the applicant will make good employees, according to the study.

Job interviews usually precede hiring decisions. Interviews are usually preceded by evaluation of rÃÆ' Â © sumÃÆ'Â Â © s who are submitted from interested candidates, perhaps by checking job applications or reading many resumes. Furthermore, after this screening, a small number of candidates for the interview are selected.

Potential job interview opportunities also include networking events and career expositions. Job interviews are considered as one of the most useful tools for evaluating potential employees. It also demands significant resources from employers, but has proven to be extremely unreliable in identifying the optimal person for the job. Interviews also allow candidates to assess the corporate culture and job demands.

Several rounds of job interviews and/or other candidate selection methods can be used where there are many candidates or jobs that are very challenging or desirable. The previous round sometimes called 'screening interviews' may involve fewer staff than employers and will usually be much shorter and less profound. The more common early interview approach is the telephone interview. This is very common when a candidate does not live near an employer and has the advantage of keeping costs low for both parties. Since 2003, interviews have been held via video conferencing software, such as Skype. After all candidates are interviewed, employers usually choose the most desirable candidates and start negotiating job offers.

Video Job interview

Build

Researchers have sought to identify an interview or "construction" strategy that can help the interviewer select the best candidate. Research shows that the interview captures the various attributes of the applicant. Constructs can be classified into three categories: work-relevant content, interviewed performance (unrelated behavior but which affect evaluation), and interviewer bias that is not relevant to the job.

Job-relevant interview content Interview questions are generally designed to tap on the attributes of an applicant that are particularly relevant to the job the person is employing. Applicant attributes that are relevant to the work to which the supposedly valued questions are deemed necessary for a person to successfully perform the job. The construction relevant to the job that has been assessed in the interview can be classified into three categories: general nature, experience factors, and core work elements. The first category refers to the relatively stable nature of the applicant. The second category refers to the job knowledge the applicant obtains over time. The third category refers to work-related knowledge, skills, and skills.

Common characters:

• Mental Ability: The ability of the applicant to learn and process information
• Personality: Conscientiousness, agreeableness, emotional stability, openness, openness to new experiences
• Interests, goals, and values: Applicant motives, goals, and organizational matches of people

Experience factors:

• Experience: Knowledge relevant to work originating from previous experience
• Education: Knowledge relevant to work comes from previous education
• Training: Knowledge relevant to work originating from previous training

Primary work element:

• Declarative knowledge: The applicant's learned knowledge
• Procedural skills and abilities: Applicants ability to complete tasks required to perform work
• Motivation: The willingness of the applicant to exert the necessary effort to do the work

Interview performance The interviewer's evaluation of the applicant's responses also tends to be colored by how an applicant behaves in the interview. This behavior may not be directly related to the construct of interview questions designed to assess, but may be related to the aspect of the job they are applying for. Applicants without realizing it can engage in a number of behaviors that affect their performance appraisal. Applicants may acquire this behavior during training or from previous interview experience. The performance constructs interviewed can also be classified into three categories: social effectiveness skills, interpersonal presentation, and personal/contextual factors.

Social effectiveness skills:

• Impression management: Attempt applicants to ensure the interviewer makes a positive impression about them
• Social skills: The ability of the applicant to adjust his behavior according to the demands of the situation to positively affect the interviewer
• Self-monitoring: Regulation of the behavior of the culprit to control the image presented to the interviewer
• Relational control: Applicant attempts to control the conversation flow

Interpersonal presentation:

• Verbal expression: Pitch, rank, pause
• Nonverbal behavior: Gaze, smile, hand gestures, body orientation

Personal/contextual factors:

• Interview training: Training, artificial interview with feedback
• Interview experience: Number of previous interviews
• Interview of self-efficacy: Applicants' perceived ability to do well in interviews
• Motivation interview: Motivation applicant to succeed in interview

Job interviewer biased bias The following are the personal and demographic characteristics that could potentially affect the interviewer's evaluation of the interviewee's response. These factors are usually irrelevant to whether the individual can do the job (ie, unrelated to job performance), so, their influence on the interview rank should be minimized or excluded. In fact, there are many laws in many countries that prohibit the consideration of many of these protected classes when making selection decisions. Using structured interviews with multiple interviewers combined with training can help reduce the effects of the following characteristics on the interview rankings. The list of interviewer bias that is not relevant to the job is presented below.

• Appeal: The applicant's physical attractiveness may affect an interviewer's evaluation of a person's interview performance
• Race: Whites tend to score higher than blacks and Hispanics; racial similarity between the interviewer and the applicant, on the other hand, has not been found to influence the interview rankings
• Gender: Women tend to receive slightly higher interview scores than their male counterparts; gender equality does not seem to affect interview rankings
• Equality in background and attitude: Interviewers feel that interpersonal attraction is found to affect interview appraisal
• Culture: Applicants with ethnic names and foreign accents are considered less favorable than applicants only with ethnic names and no accents or applicants with a traditional name with or without an accent

The extent to which performance ratings are interviewed reflects particular constructs varies greatly depending on the level of the interview structure, the type of question asked, the interviewer or the applicant's bias, the professional clothing applicant or the nonverbal behavior, and a number of other factors. For example, some studies show that applicants' cognitive skills, education, training, and work experience may be better captured in unstructured interviews, whereas applicant's job knowledge, organizational fit, interpersonal skills, and applied knowledge may be better captured in structured interviews.

Furthermore, interviews are usually designed to assess a number of constructs. Given the social nature of the interview, the answers of applicants to interview questions and interview evaluations of interviewees are sometimes influenced by constructs beyond the questions intended to be assessed, making it very difficult to tease him from the particular constructs measured during the interview. Reducing the number of interview constructions intended to assess can help reduce this problem. Also, what matters most is whether the interview is a better measure of some constructs compared to the paper and pencil tests of the same construction. Indeed, certain constructs (mental and skill capabilities, experience) may be better measured by paper and pencil tests than during interviews, whereas personality-related constructs seem to be better measured during interviews than with paper and pencil tests of the same personality. construction. In summary, the following points are suggested: Interviews should be developed to assess the relevant construction work identified in the job analysis.

Assessment

Neighborhood matches

People-environment matches are often measured by the organization when recruiting new employees. There are many Personal-environment types that match the two most relevant for interviews with Person-job and Person-fit fit. The interviewer usually emphasizes Person-job fit and asks twice as many questions about Person-job fit as compared to Person-fit fit. Interviewers are more likely to provide good job applicants according to hiring recommendations than applicants with good Person-organizers fit.

The applicant's knowledge, skills, abilities, and other attributes (KSAOs) are the most frequently measured variables when the interviewer judges a Work-person's suitability. In one survey, all interviewers reported that their organization measured KSAO to determine the suitability of the Persons job. The same study found that all interviewers use personality traits and 65% of interviewers use personal values ​​to measure Person-Organizational fit.

While it fits into attention among organizations, how to determine matches and the types of questions used vary. When questionable interviews are examined, only 4% of the questions are used in similar interviews in most organizations. 22% of questions are commonly used by recruiters in some organizations. In contrast, 74% of questions have no similarities between organizations. Although the notion of matches is similar in many organizations, the questions used and how the information is assessed may be very different.

Person-job fit and Person-fit organizations have different levels of importance at different stages of a proven multi-stage interview. Nevertheless, Person-job fit is considered very important throughout the process. Organizations focus more on job-related skills early on to screen potential unqualified candidates. Thus, more questions are devoted to Person-job matching during the initial interview phase. After the applicant goes through the initial stages, more questions are used for Person-Organizational fit in the final interview stage. Although there is more focus on suitable Person-organizers in the later stages, the employment-person fit is still considered more important.

In one-stage interviews, both are suitable for assessment during a single interview. The interviewer still emphasizes Person-job fit questions on People-organization questions in this situation as well. Again, the Person-job fit question is used to filter and reduce the number of applicants.

Potential applicants also use job interviews to assess their compatibility within an organization. It can determine whether the applicant will take a job offer when offered. When applicants judge their compatibility with the organization, the experience they have during a job interview is the most influential.

Applicants feel that they have the highest compatibility with the organization when they can add information not covered during the interview they want to share. Applicants also like when they can ask questions about the organization. They also when they can ask follow-up questions to make sure they answer the interviewer's questions to the level the interviewer wants. The behavior of the interviewer that encourages the appropriate perception of the applicant includes praising applicants in their resume and thanking them for traveling to the interview. Applicants want to be given contact information if follow-up information is required, the interviewer makes eye contact, and asks if the applicant is comfortable.

Interviewers can prevent perceptions that fit their way of acting during the interview as well. the biggest negative behavior for applicants is that the interviewer does not know the information about their organization. Without information about the applicants the organization can not judge how well they fit. Other negative behaviors do not know the background of the applicant's information during the interview. The interviewer can also hurt the corresponding perception by not paying attention during the interview and not greeting the applicant.

There are some issues with the right perception in the interview. Applicants' personal-organizational match scores can be altered by the number of ingratiation performed by the applicants. The interviewer deviates from the Person-Organizers compatibility score made by the more ingratiating applicants during the interview. By applicants who emphasize the similarity between them and the interviewer, this leads to a higher perception of the appropriate Individual by the interviewer. This higher perception of compatibility leads to a greater likelihood of the employed candidate.

Maps Job interview

Process

One way to think about the interview process is as three separate phases, although related, (1) the preinterview phase that occurs before the interviewer and the candidate meet, (2) the interview phase in which the interview is conducted, and (3) the post-interview phase where the interviewer establishes a candidate qualification assessment and makes a final decision. Though separated, these three phases are interrelated. That is, the impression the interviewers formed early on can influence how they perceive the person in the next phase.

Preinterview Phase : The preinterview phase includes information available to previous interviewers (eg, resumes, test scores, social networking site information) and the interviewer's perception formed about applicants from this information before the actual face-face-to-face interaction between two individuals. In this phase, the interviewer is likely to have an idea of ​​the characteristics that will make a person ideal or qualify for the position. The interviewer also has information about the applicant usually in the form of a resume, test score, or prior contact with the applicant. Interviewers then often integrate the information they have with applicants with their ideas about the ideal employee to shape a prospective pre-interview evaluation. In this way, the interviewer usually has your impression even before the actual face-to-face interview interaction. Nowadays with recent technological advances, we should be aware that interviewers have a greater amount of information available on some candidates. For example, interviewers can get information from search engines (eg Google, Bing, Yahoo), blogs, and even social networks (eg Linkedin, Facebook, Twitter). While some of this information may be related to work, some may not exist. In some cases, Facebook reviews may reveal unwanted behaviors such as intoxication or drug use. Despite the relevance of information, any information the interviewer obtains about applicants prior to the interview is likely to affect their pre-interview impression of the candidate. And why is this important? This is important because what the interviewer thinks about you before they meet you can influence how they treat you in the interview and what they remember about you. Furthermore, researchers have found that what interviewers think about applicants before the interview (initial interview phase) is related to how they evaluate candidates after the interview, despite how the candidate may have been conducted during the interview.

Interview phase : The interview phase involves the actual conduct of the interview, the interaction between the interviewer and the applicant. The initial interviewer's impression of the applicant before the interview can affect the amount of time an interviewer spends in interviews with the applicant, interviewer behavior and questions of the applicant, and post interview interview evaluation. Interview impressions can also influence what the interviewer knows about the interviewee, recall from the interview, and how the interviewer interprets what the applicant says and does in the interview.

Because interviews are usually conducted face-to-face, over the phone, or via video conferencing (eg Skype), they are a social interaction between at least two individuals. Thus, the interviewer's behavior during the interview tends to "leak" the information to the person being interviewed. That is, you can sometimes say during the interview whether the interviewer thinks positive or negative about you. Knowing this information can really affect how the applicant behaves, producing a self-satisfying divination effect. For example, the interviewee who feels the interviewer does not think that they qualify may be more anxious and feel they need to prove that they qualify. Such anxiety can impede how well they perform and present themselves during the interview, meeting the original mind of the interviewer. Or, the interviewee who sees the interviewer believes that they qualify for the job may feel more comfortable and comfortable during the exchange, and consequently actually perform better in the interview. It should be noted, however, that because of the dynamic nature of the interview, the interaction between behavior and thinking from both sides is an ongoing process in which information is processed and informs subsequent behavior, thought, and evaluation.

Postinterview Phase : After the interview, the interviewer should establish a qualified evaluation of the person interviewed for the position. The interviewer is likely to consider all information, even from the preinterview phase, and integrate it to form an interview post evaluation of the applicant. In the final stages of the interview process, the interviewer uses his evaluation of the candidate (ie, in the form of assessment or interview appraisal) to make a final decision. Sometimes other selection tools (eg, work samples, cognitive ability tests, personality tests) are used in conjunction with interviews to make final recruitment decisions; However, interviews remain the most commonly used selection tool in North America.

For the interviewee : Although the interview process descriptions above focus on the interviewer's perspective, the job applicant also collects information about the job and/or organization and forms an impression before the interview. Interviews are a two-way exchange and applicants also make decisions about whether the company is suitable for them. Basically, the process model illustrates that the interview is not an isolated interaction, but a complex process that begins with two parties forming an assessment and gathering information, ending with the final interviewer's decision.

src: www.stutteringhelp.org

Type

There are many types of interviews that can be done by the organization. What is the same in all types of interviews, however, is the idea of ​​an interview structure. How many interviews are structured, or developed and performed in the same way in all applicants, depends on the number of specific elements included in the interview. Overall, interviews can be standardized both with regard to the content (ie, what questions are asked) and for the evaluative process (ie, how the applicant's response to the question is scored). When the interview is standardized, it increases the likelihood that the rankings being interviewed is due to the quality of the response, rather than unrelated and often disruptive factors, such as appearance. A more appropriate interview structure is considered to be in a continuum, from completely unstructured to fully structured. However, structures are often treated as having only two categories (ie, structured vs unstructured), which many researchers believe the approach is too simple.

Unstructured

Unstructured interviews, or interviews that do not cover many elements of standardization, are the most common form of interviews today. Unstructured interviews are usually seen as free flow; the interviewer may exchange or change the question because he feels the best, and different interviewers may not assess or assess the applicant's response in the same way. Also there is no clue as to how the interviewer and the interviewee should interact before, during, or after the interview. Unstructured interviews basically allow the interviewer to conduct interviews but he thinks is best.

Given an unstructured interview may change based on who the interviewer might be, it is not surprising that unstructured interviews are usually favored by the interviewer. Interviewers tend to develop confidence in their ability to accurately assess the person being interviewed, to detect whether the applicant is falsifying their answers, and to trust their judgment about whether the person is a good candidate for the job. Unstructured interviews allow the interviewer to do it more freely. Research shows, however, that unstructured interviews are actually very unreliable, or inconsistent between interviews. That means that two interviewers who are interviewing the same person may disagree and look at the candidate in the same way even if they are in the same interview with the applicant. Often interviewers who conduct unstructured interviews fail to identify high-quality candidates for the job. See the section on the problem of interview structures for a more in-depth discussion.

Structured

The structure of the interview is the extent to which the interview is identical and performed equally throughout the applicant. Also known as guided interviews, systematic, or patterned, structured interviews aim to create good content (information handled as well as interaction administration) and evaluation (how applicant is judged) the same no matter what the applicant is being interviewed. In particular, researchers generally discuss 15 elements that can be used to create interview content and similar evaluation processes. The level of the interview structure is often regarded as to what extent these elements are included when conducting interviews.

Content structure:

• Make sure the question is relevant to the job, as shown by job analysis
• Ask the same questions from all the people interviewed
• Limit requests, or follow-up questions, which the interviewer may ask
• Ask a better question, like the behavior description question
• Have longer interview
• Additional information controls available to the interviewee, such as resume
• Do not allow questions from applicants during the interview

Structure of evaluation:

• Rate each answer instead of making an overall evaluation at the end of the interview
• Use rating scale anchored (for example, see BARS)
• Have the interviewer take a detailed note
• Have more than one interviewer view each applicant (ie have a panel interview)
• Have the same interviewer rate each applicant
• Do not let any discussion about the applicant between the interviewer
• Train the interviewer
• Use statistical procedures to create an overall interview score

Several studies have shown that using these elements to design interviews improves interviewing skills to identify high performing individuals. As mentioned, the interview structure is on a scale ranging from unstructured to structured, but it remains unclear which or how many structural elements to include before the interview can be considered 'structured'. Some researchers argue that including at least some, but not all, elements in the interview should be considered "semi-structured." Others have attempted to create structural levels, such as Huffcutt, Culbertson, and the four-level Weyhrauch structure, which show varying degrees of standardization at every level. While it is difficult to say what is meant by structured interviews, structured interviews are widely seen as preferable to unstructured interviews by organizations if accurate and consistent measures of the applicant are desirable.

Quest type

Regardless of the structure of the interview, there are several types of questions that the interviewer asks the applicant. The two main types that are often used and which have broad empirical support are situational questions and behavioral questions (also known as characteristic pattern description interviews). Best practices include basing both types of questions on "critical incidents" needed to do the job but they differ in their focus (see below for description). Critical incidents are the relevant tasks required for the job and can be collected through interviews or surveys with existing employees, managers, or problem experts. One of the first critical incident techniques ever used in the US Army asked war veterans to report specific incidents of effective or ineffective behavior of a leader. The question posed to the veterans is "Explain the officer's actions.What did he do?" Their responses are compiled to create factual definitions or "essential requirements" about what an effective combat leader is.

Previous research has found mixed results as to whether behavioral or situational questions will predict the best future job performance of the applicant. It is likely that the unique variables for each situation, such as the specific criteria being researched, the applicant's work experience, or the interviewed nonverbal behaviors make a difference as to which type of question is best. It is advisable to include both situational and behavioral questions into the interview to get the best of both types of questions. The use of high-quality questions represents structural elements, and it is important to ensure that candidates respond meaningfully reflecting their ability to do the job.

Situational interview questions

Situational interview questions ask job applicants to imagine a set of circumstances and then show how they will respond in that situation; hence, the questions are future-oriented. One advantage of situational questions is that everyone interviewed responds to the same hypothetical situation rather than describing the unique experiences of their past. Another advantage is that situational questions allow respondents who do not have direct work experience relevant to a particular question to provide hypothetical responses. Two core aspects of SI are the development of situational dilemmas facing employees on the job, and assessment guides for evaluating responses to any dilemmas.

Question of behavioral interview

Behavioral interviews (experience-based or behavioral patterns) are oriented in the past because they ask respondents to relate what they are doing in a past job or life situation relevant to a particular job that is relevant to the knowledge, skills and abilities needed for success. The idea is that past behavior is the best predictor of future performance in the same situation. By asking questions about how job applicants have handled situations in the past that are similar to those they will face in the workplace, employers can measure how they perform in future situations.

Behavioral interview questions include:

• Describe a situation where you can use persuasion to successfully convince someone to see things in your way.
• Give me an example of a time when you set goals and can fulfill or accomplish them.
• Tell me about the time when you had to use your presentation skills to influence one's opinion.
• Give me an example of a time when you have to adjust to policies that you disagree with.

Examples include STAR and SOARA techniques.

Other question types

Possible other types of questions that may be asked along with structured interview questions or in separate interviews include: background questions, job knowledge questions, and puzzle type questions. The following brief explanation follows.

• Background questions include a focus on work experience, education, and other qualifications. For example, the interviewer might ask, "What experience do you have with a direct selling phone call?" Interviews that mainly consist of these types of questions are often labeled "conventional interviews".
• Job knowledge questions may require candidates to describe or demonstrate knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) that are relevant to the job. This is usually a very specific question. For example, one question might be "What step do you take to conduct a manager's safety training session?"
• Interview puzzles were popularized by Microsoft in the 1990s, and are now used in other organizations. The most common type of question either asks the applicant to solve a puzzle or brain teaser (eg, "Why is a round-pea cover?") Or to solve unusual problems (eg, "How would you weigh a plane without a scale?").

Custom format

Case

Case interviews are an interview form used mostly by management consulting firms and investment banks where job applicants are given questions, situations, problems or challenges and are asked to resolve the situation. Case problems are often business situations or business cases interviewed by the interviewer in real life. In recent years, companies in other sectors such as Design, Architecture, Marketing, Advertising, Finance, and Strategy have adopted similar approaches to interviewing candidates. Technology has transformed the Case-based and Technical interview process from pure personal experience into the exchange of online work skills and support.

Panel

Other types of job interviews found across professional and academic ranks are panel interviews. . In this type of interview, candidates are interviewed by a group of panelists representing various stakeholders in the recruitment process. In this format there are several approaches for conducting interviews. Examples of formats include;

• Presentation format - Candidates are given a general topic and asked to make a presentation to the panel. Often used in academic or sales interviews.
• Role format - Each panel is assigned to ask questions related to the specific role of the position. For example, one panelist may ask technical questions, others may ask management questions, others may ask questions related to customer service etc.
• Skeet shooting format - Candidates are given questions from a series of panelists in order to test their ability to handle stressful situations.

Benefits of the panel approach for interviews include: time savings through serial interviews, more focused interviews as there is often less time to build relationships with small talk, and "apple to apple" comparison as each shareholder/interviewer/panelist hears the answer for the same question.

Groups

In group interviews, some applicants are interviewed at one time by one or more interviewers. This type of interview can be used for team selection, promotion or assessment of skills. Interviewers can also use group interviews to assess the applicant's stress management skills or assertiveness because within the group the settings of the applicant will be surrounded by other applicants who also want to get a job. Group interviews can be cheaper than one-on-one or panel interviews, especially when many applicants need to be interviewed in a short period of time. Also, since fewer interviewers are needed, fewer interviewers need to be trained. The positive qualities of these group interviews have made them more popular.

Although there are potential benefits for group interviews, there is a problem with this interview format. In group interviews, the interviewer must do multitasking more than when interviewing one applicant at a time. The interviewer in one-on-one interview has been busy doing many things. This includes attending what the applicant says and how they act, taking notes, assessing the applicant's response to questions, and managing what they say and how they act. Interviewing more than one applicant at a time makes it more challenging for the interviewer. This can have a negative impact on the interviewer and his job as an interviewer. Another problem with group interviews is that the applicants interviewed later in the interview have more opportunities to think about how to answer questions that the interviewer has asked. This may provide applicants who are questioned later on in an interview about the advantages of the previously asked applicants. These problems can reduce the likelihood of group interviews to accurately predict who will work well in the workplace.

Group interviews have not been studied as much as one-on-one interviews, but research has shown that in the field of interviews the education group can be an effective selection method. For example, a 2016 study found that applicants for teaching jobs thought that group interviews were fair. A 2006 study found conflicting findings. This includes that applicants in group interviews who were questioned later in the interview gave a more complete and higher-quality response and that group interviews were viewed as unfair. They also found that group interviews were not as effective as one-on-one interviews. Further research needs to be done to broadly evaluate the usefulness of interview groups for various purposes. This research needs to be done in various domains outside the education sector. The research also needs to clarify conflicting findings by determining where the results of a situation study can be applied.

Stress

Stress interviews are still commonly used. One type of stress interview is where employers use consecutive interviewers (one by one or en masse ) whose mission is to intimidate the candidate and make him unbalanced. The real purpose of this interview: to find out how candidates deal with stress. Stress interviews may involve testing the behavior of the requester in a busy environment. Questions about handling workloads, handling multiple projects, and dealing with conflicts are common.

Another type of stressful interview may involve only one interviewer who behaves in a way that is neither interested nor hostile. For example, the interviewer may not make eye contact, may roll his eyes or sigh at the candidate's answers, interrupt, reverse his back, receive phone calls during interviews, or ask questions in a demeaning or challenging style. The goal is to assess how the interviewee handles pressure or deliberately evokes an emotional response. This technique is also used in research protocols that study stress and type A (coronary-prone) behaviors because it will generate hostility and even changes in blood pressure and heart rate in the study subjects. The key to success for a candidate is to personalize the process. The interviewer acts the role, deliberately and counted trying to "poke around". Once the candidate realizes that there is nothing personal behind the interviewer approach, it is easier to handle questions with confidence.

Examples of stress interview questions:

• The difficult situation: "If you catch a colleague cheating on his expenses, what would you do?"
• Put one in place: "How do you feel this interview is going on?"

"Popping the balloon": (take a deep breath) "Well, if that's the best answer you can give..." (shake your head) "Okay, what about this one...?"

• Oddball Question: "What would you change about the design of hockey sticks?"
• Doubt someone's honesty: "I do not feel like we're getting to the heart of the matter here. Start over - tell me what really makes you tick."

Candidates may also be required to submit presentations as part of the selection process. One stress technique is to tell applicants that they have 20 minutes to prepare the presentation, and then return to the room five minutes later and demand that presentations be given immediately. The "Test Platform" method involves making candidates create presentations for selection panels and other candidates for the same job. This is obviously very stressful and therefore useful as a predictor of how candidates will perform in similar situations in the workplace. The selection process in academia, training, airlines, law and teaching often involves this kind of presentation.

Technical

This kind of interview focuses on problem solving and creativity. Questions addressed the problem solving skills interviewed and likely demonstrated their ability to solve the challenges faced in the job through creativity. Technical interviews are being conducted online in progressive companies before direct talk as a way to screen job applicants.

Technology in interview

Technological advancement along with increased usage has led to interviews becoming more common through telephone interviews and through video conferencing rather than face-to-face. Companies use technology in interviews because of their low cost, time-saving benefits, and ease of use. Also, technology allows companies to recruit more applicants from afar. Although they are more widely utilized, it is still not fully understood how technology can affect how well the interviewer chooses the best person for the job when compared to the direct interview.

The theory of media wealth suggests that more detailed forms of communication will convey complex information better. The ability to convey this complexity enables more media-rich communication to deal with better uncertainty (like what can happen in an interview) than a more shallow and less detailed communication medium. Thus, in the context of a job interview, face-to-face interviews will be richer in media than video interviews because of the amount of data that can be more easily communicated. The verbal and nonverbal cues are read deeper now and in relation to what happens in the interview. The video interview may have a pause between two participants. Poor latency can affect the understanding of verbal and nonverbal behaviors, because minor differences in behavioral time can change their perceptions. Likewise, behaviors such as eye contact may not work as well. Video interviews will be richer in media than phone interviews due to the inclusion of visual and audio data. Thus, in richer media interviews, interviewers have more ways to collect, remember, and interpret the data they get about the applicants.

So is this kind of new technology interview better? Research on different interview methods has tested this question using media wealth theory. According to theory, interviews with more wealth are expected to yield better results. In general, research has found results consistent with media wealth theory. Applicant interview scores and recruitment ratings have been found to be worse in phone and video interviews than in face-to-face interviews. Applicants are also considered to be less favored and tend not to be supported for work in video interviews. Applicants have a voice too. They think that interviews use less fair and less work-related technologies. From the interviewer's point of view, there are difficulties for the interviewer as well. The interviewer was viewed as less friendly in a video interview. Furthermore, applicants are more likely to accept jobs after face-to-face interviews than after phone or video interviews. Because of these findings, companies should consider the costs and benefits of using technology through face-to-face interviews when deciding on selection methods.

src: fm.cnbc.com

The strategy and behavior of the interviewee

When preparing for the interview, the prospective employee usually looks at what the job post or job description is saying to get a better understanding of what is expected of them if they are employed. The interviewee is very good at seeing the needs and needs of the job posting and showing how good they are at the ability during the interview to impress the interviewer and increase their chances of getting a job.

Researching the company itself is also a good way for people interviewed to impress a lot of people during the interview. It shows the interviewer that the interviewee is not only knowledgeable about the goals and objectives of the company, but also that the interviewee has done their homework and that they make great efforts when they are given the task. Researching the company ensures that employees are not completely unaware of the company they are applying to, and by the end of the interview, the interviewee may ask some questions to the interviewer about the company either to learn more information or to clarify some points they may find during their research. In any case, it impresses the interviewer and it shows that the interviewee is willing to learn more about the company.

Most respondents also found that practicing answering the most common questions asked in the interview helped them prepare the truth. This minimizes their chances of being caught for certain questions, preparing their minds for conveying appropriate information in the hope of impressing the interviewer, and also ensuring that they are not inadvertently saying something that might not fit in an interview. situation.

The interviewee is generally dressed properly in business attire for interviews, making it look professional in the eyes of the interviewer. They also carry rÃÆ'Ã… © sumÃÆ'Â ©, a cover letter and a reference to an interview to give the interviewer the information they need, and also to cover it if they forget to bring any paper. Items such as cell phones, coffee and chewing gum are not recommended to be brought to the interview, as they may cause the interviewer to perceive the interviewee unprofessional and in some cases, even rude.

Above all, the interviewee should be confident and courteous to the interviewer, as they take time off to participate in the interview. Interviews are often the first time an interviewer sees the first hand being interviewed, so it's important to make a good first impression.

Nonverbal behavior

This may not be just what you say in an important interview, but also how you say it (eg, how fast you talk) and how you behave during the interview (eg, hand gestures, eye contact). In other words, although the applicant's response to the interview question affects the interview's assessment, their nonverbal behavior may also affect the interviewer's judgment. Nonverbal behavior can be divided into two main categories: vocal cues (eg, articulation, pitch, fluency, pause frequency, speed, etc.) and visual cues (eg smile, eye contact, body orientation and lean, hand gestures, posture, etc..). Often physical attraction is included as part of nonverbal behavior as well. There is some debate about how big the role of nonverbal behavior can play in the interview. Some researchers maintain that nonverbal behavior affects many interview ratings, while others have found that they have a relatively small impact on interview results, especially when considered with qualified applicants presented in the rÃÆ'Ã… © sumÃÆ'Â © s. The relationship between nonverbal behavior and interview results was also stronger in structured interviews than unstructured, and stronger when interviewed answers were of high quality.

The applicant's nonverbal behavior may affect the rank of the interview through the interviewer's conclusions about the applicant based on their behavior. For example, applicants who engage in nonverbal positive behaviors such as smiling and leaning forward are considered more fun, credible, credible, warmer, successful, qualified, motivated, competent, and socially skilled. These applicants are also predicted to be better received and more satisfied with the organization if employed.

The applicant's verbal response and their nonverbal behavior can convey some of the same information about the applicant. However, while there is information shared between content and nonverbal behavior, it is clear that nonverbal behavior predicts an interview's rankings far beyond the content of what is said, and thus it is important that both the applicant and the interviewer are equally aware of the impact. You may want to be careful about what you may communicate through the nonverbal behavior you display.

Physical attractiveness

To hire the best applicants for the job, the interviewer forms an assessment, sometimes using the applicant's physical attractiveness. That is, physical attractiveness is usually not always related to how well a person can do the job, but has been found to influence the evaluations and assessments of the interviewer about how suitable an applicant is for the job. Once individuals are categorized as interesting or uninteresting, the interviewer may have expectations about individuals who are physically attractive and physically unattractive and then assess applicants based on how well they fit that expectation. As a result, interviewers typically assess individuals who attract better on job-related factors rather than assessing unattractive individuals. People generally agree on who and who are not attractive and interesting individuals are judged and treated more positively than unattractive individuals. For example, people who think others are physically attractive tend to have a positive initial impression of the person (even before formally meeting them), see the person being smart, socially competent, and have good social skills and health mental general.

In the business domain, physically attractive individuals have been shown to have advantages over unattractive individuals in a variety of ways, including, but not limited to, perceived job qualifications, recruitment recommendations, job prediction success, and compensation rates. As noted by some researchers, attractiveness may not be the most influential decision-making factor, but may be a determining factor when applicants have the same qualification level. In addition, attractiveness does not provide an advantage if applicants in the pool are of high quality, but provide an advantage in increasing the hiring rate and more work-related positive outcomes for attractive individuals when the quality of applicants is low and average.

Vocal Attraction Just as physical attraction is visual cues, vocal appeal is a hearing signal and may result in different interviewer evaluations in the interview as well. The vocal appeal, defined as an interesting mix of level of speech, violence, pitch, and variability, has been found to be related both to interview ratings and job performance. In addition, the personality trait of consent and sincerity predicts a stronger performance for people with a more attractive voice than those with a less attractive voice.

Just as important as understanding how physical attractiveness can affect the interview's judgments, behaviors, and final decisions, it is equally important to find ways to reduce potential biases in job interviews. Conducting interviews with structural elements is one possible way to reduce bias.

Train

Much information is available to instruct informants about strategies to improve their performance in job interviews. The information used by resource persons comes from a variety of sources ranging from popular books to formal coaching programs, sometimes even provided by recruitment organizations. In a more formal coaching program, there are two types of general coaching. One type of coaching is designed to teach the people interviewed how to do better in the interview by focusing on how to behave and present themselves. This type of coaching is focused on improving the aspects of the interview that are not always related to the specific elements in doing the job task. This type of coaching can include how to dress, how to display nonverbal behaviors (nods of heads, smiles, eye contact), verbal cues (how fast speaking, speaking volume, articulation, pitch), and impression management tactics. The other type of coaching is designed to focus on resource persons on content that is particularly relevant to describe a person's qualifications for the job, to help improve their answers to interview questions. The training, therefore, focuses on improving the interviewee's understanding of the skills, abilities, and nature of the interviewer seeking to assess, and respond with the relevant experience that demonstrates this skill. For example, this type of training might teach the interviewee to use the STAR approach to answer behavioral interview questions.

The training program may include sections that focus on various aspects of the interview. This may include sections designed to introduce the interviewee to the interview process, and explain how the process works (eg, interview administrations, day logistics interviews, different types of interviews, the advantages of structured interviews). It may also include sections designed to provide feedback to assist the interviewee to improve their performance in the interview, as well as the part that involves the practice of answering interview sample questions. Additional sections that provide general interview tips on how to behave and present themselves can also be included.

It is important to consider coaching in the context of the competing objectives of the interviewer and the interviewee. The purpose of the interviewee is usually to perform well (ie get a high rank interview), to be accepted. On the other hand, the purpose of the interviewer is to obtain information relevant to the job, to determine whether the applicant possesses the skills, abilities, and traits that the organization believes to be a successful job performance indicator. Research has shown that how well an applicant in an interview can be improved by coaching. The effectiveness of coaching is due, in part, to improving the knowledge being interviewed, which in turn results in better interview performance. Knowledge of the interviewee refers to the knowledge of the interview, such as the type of questions to be asked, and the content that the interviewer is trying to examine. Research also shows that coaching can increase the likelihood that interviewers using structured interviews will accurately select those who will ultimately be most successful at work (ie, increase the reliability and validity of structured interviews). In addition, studies have shown that interviewees are likely to have a positive reaction to coaching, which is often the underlying purpose of the interview. Based on the research so far, the coaching effect tends to be positive both for the interviewee and the interviewer.

Fake

Interviewers should be aware that applicants may falsify their responses during a job interview. Such counterfeit applicants may affect the results of the current interview. One concept related to pretend is impression management (IM: when you mean or not intend to influence how well you look during interaction). Impression management can be honest or deceiving. The honest IM jutsu is used to describe explicitly about experiences, achievements, and profitable job-related skills. The deceptive IM tactics are used to embellish or create the ideal image for the work in question. Honest IM tactics such as self-promotion (positively highlighting achievement and previous experience) may be considered necessary by the interviewer in the context of the interview. As a result, candidates who do not use these tactics may be considered not interested in the job. This can lead to a less favorable ranking. Falsifying can then be defined as "impression management or distorting deliberate answers in interviews to obtain better interview ratings and/or create favorable perceptions". Thus, pretending in a job interview is deliberate, deceptive, and aimed at improving perceived performance.

Pretending in a job interview can be broken down into four elements:

1. The first involves the interviewee describing himself as an ideal job candidate by exaggerating correct skills, adjusting answers to fit the job, and/or creating the impression that personal beliefs, values, and attitudes are similar to the organization.
2. The second aspect of pretending is to create or completely fabricate the image of a person by assembling different work experiences together to create better answers, creating improper experiences or skills, and describing the experience or achievement of others as his own.
3. Third, pretending may also be aimed at protecting the applicant's image. This can be achieved by eliminating certain negative experiences, hiding the negatively perceived aspect of the applicant's background, and by breaking away from negative experiences.
4. The fourth and final component of pretending to involve self ingratiation to the interviewer by adjusting personal opinion to align themselves with people from the organization, and praising or praising the interviewer or organization sincerely.

Of all the various pretended behaviors listed, ingratiation tactics are found to be the most common in job interviews, while flat making answers or claiming the experiences of others as their own is the most common. However, faking true skills seems at least somewhat prevalent in job interviews. One study found that over 80% of participants lied about job-related skills in interviews, perhaps to compensate for the lack of skills/job-needed properties and further their opportunities for work.

Most importantly, pretending behaviors have been shown to influence the outcomes of job interviews. For example, the possibility of getting an interview or another job offer increases when the respondent makes an answer.

The characteristics of different interviews also seem to have an impact on the possibility of pretending. Pretend behavior is less common, for example, in past behavioral interviews rather than situational interviews, although follow-up questions improve pretend behavior in both types of interviews. Therefore, if practitioners are interested in reducing pretend behavior among job candidates in the job interview arrangement, they should utilize structured past behavior interviews and avoid the use of probes or follow-up questions.

src: trustworks.files.wordpress.com

Factors that affect effectiveness

Individual differences

Interviews are social processes and individual differences from interviewers and applicants can have an impact on interview results.

Characteristics of people interviewed

The interviewee may differ on a number of dimensions that are generally assessed by job interviews and evidence suggests that these differences affect the rank of the interview. Many interviews are designed to measure some specific differences between applicants, or variables of individual differences, such as Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities needed to do the job well. Other individual differences can affect how the interviewer assesses the applicant even if the characteristics are not intended to be assessed by an interview question. For example, the General Mental Ability G factor (psychometric) is quite related to the rankings of structured interviews and is strongly related to structured interviews using behavioral descriptions and situational situational interview questions, as they are a more cognitive type of cognitive interview. Other individual differences between people, such as extraversion and emotional intelligence, are also usually measured during a job interview because they are related to verbal skills, which may be useful for work involving interaction with people. Many variables of individual differences can be attributed to interview performance as they reflect the original ability of applicants to perform better in situations that are cognitively and socially demanding. For example, a person with a high general mental ability can work better in cognitive demanding situations, such as a job interview, which requires quick thinking and response. Similarly, someone with strong social skills can do better in job interviews, as well as other social situations, because they understand how to act correctly. Thus, when an applicant performs well in interviews due to higher general mental skills or better social skills, it is not always undesirable, because they can also do better when they are faced with situations in which the work will be valuable. On the other hand, not all variables of individual differences leading to higher interview performance will be desirable on the job. Some variables of individual differences, such as those that are part of the dark triad, may lead to an increase in interview rankings, initially, but may not reflect the actual KSAO that will help the individual to perform better after being hired.

The Dark Triad

Machiavellianism

High individuals in Machiavellianism may be more willing and more skilled in pretending and not likely to give honest answers during interviews. High individuals in Machiavellianism have a stronger intention to use pretense in interviews than with psychopaths or narcissists and are also more likely to see the use of pretense in interviews as fair. Men and women high in Machiavellianism can use different tactics

Source of the article : Wikipedia