Introduction
A selection interview is a position in which a person who is responsible for selection of workers through individual contact endows himself or herself with a behaviour that will assist him to observe and assess the applicant’s appropriateness for a position or a job. An emblematic selection interview only lasts for fifteen to sixty minutes. However, in a number of cases, the time might be shorter or even extensively long.
Surveys show that, over ninety percent of organisations in the United Kingdom and the United States use this kind of interview strategy when it comes to selection of managers. According to views expressed by Armstrong (2009, p. 109), in bigger organisations, interviews are frequently the vital selection tools utilised in the procedures of selection.
However, medium and smaller sized companies use the biodata (obtained in forms of application) in the interview process for them to conduct effective selection. The information that will be obtained in the biodata will be the only information to be used in the processes of making decisions.
According to Robert (1997, p. 189), the rationale behind a selection interview is to assist in the prediction of the applicant’s probable performance in a specific job situation and to find out if the applicant is indeed fascinated in the profession and or capable to perform it.
In addition, selective interviews also function in the explanation of the organisation’s work, the job, and any other characteristics involved, for instance, training and trial. It also functions in the setting of expectations on either sides, as well as a practical conversation of any possible difficulties (if suitable).
According to Arthur (2012, p. 102), he says that managers have used selective interviews in recruitment processes since it gives a mutual sample giving the employer a chance to gather and obtain essential data concerning the potential employee thus giving the candidates the same chance to collect essential data concerning a possible future employer.
Managers have also used it in the courses of negotiation where they do discussions on issues like those that wage requirements and necessities in preparation and development are done. However, as good as it might sound, the paper shows how selective interview negatively and poorly predicts the future performance of an applicant.
Reasons to Why Selective Interview Is a Poor Predictor of the Applicant’s Future Performance
Despite being proven that most interviews especially selection interviews are subject to unfairness and are frequently not regarded as suitable predictors of future work performance, they are still broadly used as methods of selection when it comes to employment.
Until now, evidences prove that, not many complaints that have been raised with reference to unfairness through interview practices that were dishonestly done have measured up to the substantial number of court cases filed over biasness in testing.
This situation persists regardless of the actuality that a good number of court cases that have been reported with regard to biased interviews that have resulted to a conclusion in support of the claimant.
Armstrong (2006, p. 163) explains that the recent study that was conducted was to try to look into the possible dissimilarities in the insights of ‘even-handedness’ in interviews as measured up to test in provisions of the extent of unenthusiastic reactions to several theoretical selection circumstances. The subjects reviewed the records presented by the applicant for an interview based on examination selection process.
In the conditions of testing, files comprised the account of a job, a Curriculum Vitae or application forms, examinations of selection and examination scores, and the organisation’s apparent assessment of the person applying.
In the circumstances of the interview, subjects engaged themselves in watching interview communications that were videotaped with similar files being reviewed coupled with an interview assessment replacing the assessments of examination scores.
Pilbeam and Corbridge’s (2010, p. 82) results on a study on this subject revealed an idea that, when the persons who applied got rejections based on their performance on an instrument connected to job selection, negative reactions were expressed to the interviewer and the examination or selection process. According to Armstrong (2010, p. 112), a strong unenthusiastic response was revealed by the examination.
Subjects were requested to make acknowledgments in relation to the act of the applicants in a range of selection locations with dissimilarities in the models of acknowledgments made in the diverse conditions being looked at in the light of prior research on acknowledgment hypothesis and stereotyping.
Selective interviews can lack legitimacy as a way of making reliable forecasts of performance. In fact, it has a deficiency in dependability in the logic of determining the similar things for diverse applicants. Pilbeam and Corbridge (2010, p. 134) suggest that candidates can rely on the interviewer’s skills in interviewing.
However, a number of people are deprived of the chances during the selection interview despite their conscious assurance of a positive feeling that they are excellent at doing it. Selective interview does not automatically assess proficiency in meeting the requirements of a particular work. In addition, it can result to unfair and subjected conclusions by the persons conducting the interview.
Rose (2008, p112) proposes that leaders in the industries of business should always engage themselves in the hiring and maintaining of fresh talent in their industry. Fresh talents are essential when it comes to success in any given company. However, a good number of executives are less scientific when engaging themselves in hiring their most remarkable recourse in relation to when purchasing an office apparatus.
They put back rigorous scrutiny and recommendations with immediate impressions, sentiments, and gut sense. Most managers are seen to base their employment decisions on what the applicants look like, for instance, their etiquettes and or how the candidates express themselves in addition to their ability in terms of acquaintance, talents, familiarity, and education.
Therefore, selection interview is a poor predictor of a candidate’s future performance. Evers, Anderson, and Voskuijl (2009, p. 94) suggest that everybody possesses the behaviour of judging a person upon meeting him or her for the first time. Psychologists call it the Flight or Fight Syndrome
The halo consequence is regarded as the most frequent interview unfairness, letting one aspect (for instance, acquaintances, game activities, leisure pursuits, and so on) to manipulate everything else. Gatewood, Feild, and Barrick (Human Resource Selection, 2010, p. 87), suggest that the feeling expressed for the first time is always related with the Halo Effect.
People often adore and or are fond of others who are approximating them in terms of their likability. This exposition is a big influencer to interviewers thus giving the reasons why selection interviews are supposed to be arranged and done by two individuals in a bid to assist in the lessening of the consequence of permitting one (habitually personal) factors to pressure the interview’s results.
According to Roberts (1997, p. 217), questions that are asked in an interview should be unrestricted. For example, queries like “I presume you quit your previous job for an enhanced opportunity” request for an optimistic reply. The applicant requires questions that search behavioural cases. A candidate’s future possibilities cannot be evaluated based on responses that are mere alternatives of “yes” or “no” replies.
By not being vigorously inquisitive connects to estimations and hence accepting claims that are not supported rather than probing for real aspects like the person’s names, dates, financial plan figures, precisely what occurred, at what time, why, and how.
According to Gatewood, Feild, and Barrick (Employment Selection, 2010, p. 112), probbing is an essential feature when it comes to selection interview and so is paraphrasing where the interviewer states the saying of the candidate in his or her own words. He or she is supposed to maintain an eye contact. Nodding of head shows his or her keenness in listening.
However, using this to judge the keenness of an interview as it is required in a selection interview may not be a working strategy of predicting that the interviewer will always be keen.
Marchington and Wilkinson (2008, p. 212) stress that factors such as pressure and or a desperate need of something like the job for the case the interviewer may push him or her into depicting attributes that are only short-lived since they are fuelled by the situation at hand.
The interviewer should engage himself or herself in asking the candidate questions that dwell much on the future and not his or her deeds of the past. According to Compton, Nankervis, and Morrissey (2009, p. 174), the deeds of the past always replicate the behaviours of the future.
The questions asked at the selection interview process should be focused on obtaining tangible examples of the deeds of the candidate. However, many of them are opinionated. For instance, questions like “Are you ready to work tirelessly to meet deadlines?”
Managers are frequently falling victims of talking a lot by engaging themselves in over-advertising the position as confirmed by McConnell (2008, p. 74). The managers or the interviewers consume most of time talking just because they are enthusiastic about the company and their intentions of impressing the interviewee.
A successful selection interview should be a situation whereby the interviewee consumes eighty percent of the given time whereas the interviewer utilises the remaining twenty percent as suggested by Armstrong (2007, p. 105). Similarly, over advertising the position at an interview level might result to a negative surprise to the candidates upon their day one at work.
With this biased strategy in place, the job will not be favourable for the interviewee and hence the anticipated poor future performance. Managers tend to engage themselves in choosing the preferred candidate from the bad lot not keeping in mind that their failure to throw out their hiring nets wider enough will likely reduce their probabilities of an excellent hire.
According to Taylor (2005, p. 212), hiring consumes a lot of time, and is a chore detested by most managers. Upon the narrowing of the field, pressure mounts in the manager on how to fill the position. At this phase of the practice, managers are seeking a reason to employ and cancel out negatives as convenient or trainable.
When conducting a selection interview, managers should be prepared and be aware of what they seek in an applicant. Hiring is much like shopping in a supermarket.
If one fails to list the necessities, he or she is probable to acquire more than he or she requires thus obtaining unwanted things besides splurging more money and failing to get the necessary things hence consequently having to go over the course of action all over again.
As advised by Taylor (2010, p. 199), the shopping analogy points out the failure of having a list that contains the necessary requirements for the position and the failure to do a track on this matter throughout the processes of acquiring new and fresh employees.
When a manager understands the competencies necessary for the job, he or she can then structure a behavioural query for each capability consequently covering every single one of these during the selection interview process as confirmed by Dugoni (1985, p. 85). Additionally, it is a perfect thought for managers to read again the CV in details ahead of the interview process.
A number of managers become positive that it is possible to wing it not keeping in mind that poor preparations can result to poor performance in the future. In selecting new employees, it is understandable that the selection practice is an imperfect one that is riddled with lawful drawbacks.
On the other hand, in the absence of anything better, it remains to be the excellent available technique in the selection of fresh employees. In several organisations, and for choosing certain types of workers, there might be the assistance of pre-hiring skill examination or mental screening.
Nevertheless, all these types of selection interview processes come along with troubles of their own. They are likely to be only useful in quite close definite circumstances.
According to Hackett (1998, p. 96), a manager who hires ordinarily makes final decisions on employing by acquiring as much information as possible from the application form, CV, and private selection interview and using such in creating a general impression of the person who applied.
How greatly does the executive who deals with hiring require knowing concerning a candidate? Every person being interviewed might answer this query in different ways. Maybe, a number of them will feel frustrated because of their incapability to inquire of the queries they might have waned to raise.
However, McCourt and Eldridge (2003, p. 181) pose it that every one of the lawful restrictions set on a selection interview inquiry serves to lead the selection process by prescribing the single major direction in which it ought to follow.
The argument unlocks a procession of queries concerning the direction in which every single one of the interviewers should follow in his or her inquiry of the aptitude of a person to do the necessary fundamentals of the work. This process is the most dependable one in the prediction of the future performance of a candidate.
Some interviewees go through a lot of pressure in performance. They are sometimes forced to give false information concerning themselves in an attempt to give the manager conducting the interview a good impression. In some cases, the interviewees do masses of study and practice.
For this reason, they are aware of the type of queries that are normally asked in an interview. Such candidates stand a better chance of being chosen. According to McConnell (2008, p. 49), it is difficult to judge or compare different interviewees’ future performance based on interviews alone because one of the interviewees may possess excellent communication skills whereas the other may not.
Gennard and Judge (2010, p. 167) explain that in such scenarios, the one who possesses excellent skills in communication amazes the person conducting the interview. However, the same excellent interviewer may not be excellent in his or area of work as opposed to the one deemed unfit in the selection interview process. Therefore, the strategy is far behind predicting the interviewer’s future performance.
Conclusion
Despite the fact that selective interview has a number of inadequacies and has been disapproved for its dependability and soundness as revealed throughout the paper, it is saddening that it mainly used in most of the organisations and business quarters.
The reason offered for its choice is that it is accommodating, private, and a mutual procedure where the persons involved in the employment together with the applicants engages in an interaction to converse on information concerning each one of them.
Regardless of the reality that it is widely used, upgrading in selection interviews and the worker selection procedure can be achieved by training the persons who will be performing the interview. If this is not put to practice, it is possible to predict poor performance of the candidates in the future since the interviewee failed to adhere to key points when doing the selection.
References
Armstrong, M 2006, A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, Kogan Page Publishers, London.
Armsrong, M 2007, Employee Reward Management and Practice (2nd Ed), Kogan Page Publishers, London.
Armsrong, M 2009, Armstrong’s Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, (11th Ed), Kogan Page Publishers, London.
Armsrong, M 2010, Armstrong’s Essential Human Resource Management Practice, Kogan Page Publishers, London.
Arthur, D 2012, Recruiting, Interviewing, Selecting & Orienting New Employees, AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn, New York..
Compton, R, Nankervis, A, & Morrissey, B 2009, Effective Recruitment and Selection Practices, 5th ed, CCH Australia Limited, New South Wales.
Dugoni, B 1985, Differential Reactions To Tests And Interviews In Selection (Personnel, Attributions, Discrimination), Occupational Psychology, Purdue University, Indiana.
Evers, A, Anderson, N, & Voskuijl, S 2009, The Blackwell Handbook of Personnel Selection, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.
Gatewood, D, Feild, S, & Murray, 2010, Human Resource Selection, Cengage Learning, Connecticut.
Gatewood, D, Feild, S, & Barrick, M 2010, Employment Selection, Cengage Learning, Connecticut.
Gennard, J & Judge, G 1998, Managing Employment Relations (5thEd), CIPD, London.
Hackett, P 1998, The Selection Interview, CIPD Publishing, London.
Marchington, M & Wilkinson, A 2008, Human Resource Management at Work: People Management and Development (4th Ed), CIPD, London.
McConnell, R 2008, ‘Conducting the Employee Selection Interview: How to Do It Effectively While Avoiding Legal Obstacles’, JONA’s Healthcare Law, Ethics, and Regulation, vol. 10 no. 2, pp. 48-56.
McCourt, W & Eldridge, D 2003, Global Human Resource Management: Managing People in Developing and Transitional Countries, Edward Elgar Publishing, Camberley.
Pilbeam, S & Corbridge, M 2010, People Resourcing and Talent Planning: HRM in Context (4th Ed), CIPD, London.
Roberts, G 1997, Recruitment and Selection: A Competency Approach, CIPD Publishing, London.
Rose, E 2008, Employment Relations (3rd Ed), F/T Prentice Hall, London.
Taylor, S 2005, People Resourcing, CIPD Publishing, London.
Taylor, S 2010, Resourcing and Talent Management (5thEd), CIPD, London.