Type of Job Interviews

The three most widely used types of interviews are the structured interview, unstructured interview and behaviour description interview. This paper describes and discusses each of these methods and argues that there is no particular best type of interview but the merits of each depend on type and size of organization, the type of vacancy to be filled and other situational variables.
Structured Interview
This is a type of interview in which the interviewer has a standard set or sequence of questions that are asked of all candidates, Bohlander and Snell (2000). The Interviewers read the questions exactly as they appear on the survey questionnaire. The choice of answers to the questions is often fixed (close-ended) in advance, though open-ended questions can also be included within a structured interview. This makes it easier for the interviewer to evaluate and compare candidates fairly.
A structured interview would normally comprise instructions to conduct comprehensive and consistent interviews to ensure the best person is hired and a basic entry level test with answer key and scoring sheets. Interview questions are designed to specifically target the essence of the profession being applied for and these would be a followed by requests to describe the jobs being applied for. At the end there is an evaluation matrix to score each potential candidate.
The merits of a structured interview are several. It provides insight into declarative knowledge used for example, facts about the job and the candidate, Bohlander and Snell (2000). As concepts are explained in the interview it can lead to the definition of other unknown related concepts thus providing structural relationships of concepts. The structured interview also maintains a focus on a given issue and provides detailed information on the issue.
However, the structured type of interview has its limitations. Martocchio (1998) argues that concepts unrelated to the interview focus may not be found as it focuses on specific concepts. The interviewers must be secure in their understanding of the important issues to direct the interview as a result of this the interviewee might touch on issues unknown to the interviewer. The structured interview provides only weak insight into procedural knowledge such as rules or problem-solving strategies Martocchio (1998).
Unstructured Interview
Unstructured interview is a method of interviews where questions can be changed to meet the respondent’s intelligence and understanding, Herriot and Pemberton (1995). It is designed to use questions based on the candidate’s responses. Unlike a structured interview it does not offer a limited, pre-set range of answers for a respondent to choose.
The unstructured interview is good in the initial stages of the interview as it provides a general understanding of issues. It goes on to permit a full exploration of ideals and beliefs such that more light is shed on the suitability of a candidate, Ulrich (1999). Since the interview is more like a conversation and the interviewee is relaxed, the unstructured interview limits the bias instigated by panic and fear.
The unstructured interview has its disadvantages. The information from the interviewee may be vast and too unrelated for the interviewer to unravel. It can also be open to the temptation by the interviewee to diverge and discuss more unusual and different areas they are more comfortable with, whereas the primary purpose of the interview is to concentrate on the central issues for assessment. Unstructured interviews also tend to be time consuming and difficult to analyze and synthesize and they are therefore open to bias when assessing candidates, Martocchio (1998). The other limitation is that attention is not focused on any given area of a job as a result candidates may not show depth of knowledge.
Behaviour Description Interview
These are job related interviews that contain open-ended questions about past employment, educational, and/or general life experiences, Miles and Snow (1980). Interviewers ask for specific examples of specific events, relevant to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the position applied for. An example of its type of questions is "What did you do when?" The focus is on what applicants have and have not accomplished, and how they went about doing it, in circumstances similar to those that will occur on the job.
The response should come in the form of a brief, but complete story that includes names (if ethical under the circumstance), dates, places, situations, and behaviours, Herriot and Pemberton(1995), Behavioural description examples have a particular structure involving four components: the situation in which the candidate was involved; the task(s) that the candidate was completing or attempting to complete; the actions taken by the candidate in order to complete the task; and the results of the action taken. This structure conveys the candidate 's level of experience and success in a given behavioural dimension and offers other unsolicited information that could prove useful when making recruiting decisions. The key objective is to allow the interviewer to assess if there is a match between the knowledge, skill or ability being evaluated, and the response of the candidate.
The behaviour description interview’s advantages include its ability to allow the interviewer to assess actual workplace behaviours, which is the next best thing to observing the candidate at work, Herriot and Pemberton (1995). Behavioural based questions also produce "raw" and "unfiltered" responses which assist the interviewer in dismantling the impression/image that the candidate is attempting to create. It also has a distinct advantage of producing "high yield" versus "low yield" information regarding the candidate. Depending on the original query and probes used, several behaviours can emerge from a single question.
However, the behaviour description interview has its weaknesesses. Martocchio (1998) asserts that It relies on the assumption that one repeats certain behaviour when faced with certain situations, it therefore leaves a lot to chance as people can act differently in similar situations. The behaviour description interview heavily relies on the interviewer’s ability to correctly assess the answers objectively and it might be open to subjectivity. Some candidates may also find it intimidating and feel uncomfortable discussing their personal experiences in an interview situation, it therefore relies on personality which might not be the most important measure for candidate suitability. This interview type is also heavily biased towards candidates who are comfortable and fluent in the language in which the interview would be taking place. For example, if the language is English then candidates who do not have English as a first language may not be able to fully express themselves.

In a nutshell, as has been shown in the discussion above each of the key interview types has its limitations. It is therefore best to tailor the interview techniques along the strengths of the above interview types in order to curtail bias and limitations.

Bibliography
Bohlander G.W & Snell S.A. (2000) Managing Human Resources Prentice Hall Inc, Englewood Clitts, New Jersey
Herriot P. and Pemberton C. (1995), ‘Effective Interviewing ’, Human Resource Management Journal 7pp.45–56.
Martocchio J. (1998) “Interviewing Problematic” Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management Volume 31pp 40 - 52
Miles R.E. and Snow C.C (1980), ‘Designing strategic human resource systems’, Organisational Dynamics 8 pp.36–52.
Ulrich D. (1999) Delivering Results: A New Mandate for Human Resources Professionals, San Francisco: Free Press

Bibliography: Bohlander G.W & Snell S.A. (2000) Managing Human Resources Prentice Hall Inc, Englewood Clitts, New Jersey Herriot P. and Pemberton C. (1995), ‘Effective Interviewing ’, Human Resource Management Journal 7pp.45–56. Martocchio J. (1998) “Interviewing Problematic” Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management Volume 31pp 40 - 52 Miles R.E. and Snow C.C (1980), ‘Designing strategic human resource systems’, Organisational Dynamics 8 pp.36–52. Ulrich D. (1999) Delivering Results: A New Mandate for Human Resources Professionals, San Francisco: Free Press