Interview as a Method of Assessment

1 downloads 0 Views 4MB Size Report
May 3, 2016 - the most noticeable flaw- Werther et.al. (19g5, p.lg6) explainf that good reliability means that the interpre_ tation of the interview results should ...
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281901600

Interview as a Method of Assessment Article · March 1994

CITATIONS

READS

0

80

1 author: Henarath H. D. N. P Opatha University of Sri Jayewardenepura 95 PUBLICATIONS 154 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Happiness and Life Success View project Green Performance of Job, Green HRM, and Business Performance: An Empirical Study of ISO 14000 Firms in Sri Lanka View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Henarath H. D. N. P Opatha on 03 May 2016. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

THE INTERVIEW AS AN ASSESSMENTMETHOD HenarathHDNpOpatha Lecturer Department of BusinessAdministration

INTRODUCTION Objective of this study is to discuss that aca_ demic researchgives too little credit to the interview as an assessmentmethod. The discussion starts with giving definition and context ofthe interview and then leads to support the fact ie. too little credit is given by academicresearchto the interview. Finally it explains that the interview is the most widely practised method despite errors and limitations which diminish its validity and reliability and why it is being used ex_ tensively remaining dominant. Interview and its Context Selection interview is a face_to_face,oral and observational evaluation method of appraising an ap_ plicant's acceptability with regard to a certain job. S w ' e e t ( 1 9 7 3 , p . 1 5 3 ) d e f i n e s t h a t i n r e r v i e w i n g ,e s p e _ c i a l l y e m p l o y m e n ti n t e r v i e w i n g , s h o u l d b e c o n c e i v e d of as basically a social situationproviding a free ex_ change of information between two people predicated on 4 desire to find the person best suited for a particular j o b . T h e i n t e r v i e w c r e a t e sa n i n - d e p t h conversation between a prospective ernployer (or ernployer,srepre_ sentative) and an applicant ( a candidate). The interview seeks to answer two broad questions : Can the applicant do the job? How does the applicant compare with others who are applying for the job? ( W e r t h e re t . a l . 1 9 8 5 ,p . 1 8 6 ) . . I n t e r v i e w i n ga p p l i c a n t si s a s i g n i f i c a n ta s p e c to f s e l e c t i o np r o c e d u r ew h i c h i s a s e r i e so f s p e c i f i c s t e p s u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e r i g h t c a n d i d a t e ( s )t o b e hired from thosei attracted for the job opening(s). The interview is the heart of the employment process ( F a m u l a r o ,t 9 7 2 , p . l 3 - t ) . A s t a t k i n g w i t h o i h e r si s such a familiar experience, perhaps the selection i n t e r v i e w s e e m st o b e a s i m p l e t o o l . B u t e s s e n t i a l l y it is a ve,ry difficult and intricate method of selection. Too Little Credit given by Academic Research A c a d e m i c r e s e a r c hg i v e s t o o l i t t l e c r e d i t t o t h e interview as an assessment method. There are i h i l r r c o m i n g sa n d r i m i t a t i o n s a s s o c i a t e dw i t h i n t e r -

views. Reliability and validity of the interviews are t h e m o s t n o t i c e a b l ef l a w - W e r t h e r e t . a l . ( 1 9 g 5 , p . l g 6 ) explainf that good reliability means that the interpre_ tation of the interview results should not vary from interviewer to interviewer and it is common for differ_ ent interviewers to form different opinions. Validitv m€ans the extent to which the interview is relatei sigrificanrly to job performance. Lewis (1992 p.Z7) defines validity in selecfion as the need to assess what is necessaryfor accurate prediction of job perform_ ance. An investigatornamely Robertson has done a researchwith respectof some widely used methods of assessmentto test their comparative validities. Ac_ cording to the result of his study the interviews remain as the method with rhe lowest validity. The validity of the interviews is 0.1 which is lowei as fbur times as that of assessment centres which is the method of assessment with the highest validity (0.41). Hollingworth's study in which he found striking dis_ crepancies in the rankings assigned by 12-sales managersto 57 applicants interviewed by them proved that interviewing is an unreliable tool of seiection ( T r i p a t h i , 1 9 9 . 2 , p . t 5 7 ) .R i b e a u xa n d p o p p l e t o n (19g3, p.240) explain:

j 1

I

I

"An early review by Wagner (Ig49) of selection interview research covering ninety_ six individual characteristics assessed over a wide range of situa_ tions revealed marked differences in both the reli_ ability and the vatidity of the interview from situation to situation. Similar conclusions come from the later reviews of Mayfield, (1964) Ulrich and Trumbo(Ig6S) , and Wright (1969). In addition, Webstei (1964), on the basis of a namber of experimental studies, has found that judgments by a namber of interviewers examining the same applicants differed markedlv.,, t

Due to any reason or reasons which may be called errors,failures or limitations any system/iask/ function could fail or malfunction. Liklwise the task o f i n t e r v i e w i n g j o b a p p l i c a n t sc a n f a i l o r m a l f u n c t i o n i n a n o r g a n i s a t i o no w i n g t o e r r o r so r l i m i t a t i o n s which m a y d e v e l o pw i t h t h e i n t e r w i e w e r ,i n t e r v i e w e e andthe m e t h o do f i n t e r v i e w i n s .

a

a Ie

in

w

vir 28

Errors that arise with the interviewer wbo assess€sthe sutability of the applicant for a job are many' When the interwiewer doesn't know what the real nat u r e o f t h e j o b i s , i s n o t a b l e t o u n d e r s t a n dt h e j o b w e l l enough to assess it fairly or the job is technically or changing the error of being unaware of job "o*p1"* occurs. activities An error is created by interviewers through the u s e o f i n a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d s ' I n t e r v i e w e r sm a y allow personnel values, biases or needs to replacq organiiational standardsresulting in any one of several errors in assgssment. Errors associated with interviewer's use of inappropriate standardsare halo effect, personal prejudice, pseudo-scientific premises and .overemphasison one criterion. W h e n a n i n t e r v i e w e ra s s e s s eas j o b a p p l i c a n t o n " several criteria the error of halo effect occurs most commonly. If the interviewer evaluatesthe applicant high or low on all criteria, because of one or two criteria, thar is halo effect. Considering the applicant to be excellent/poor in one particular area, the interviewer goes to indicate that he or she is excellent/poor in all areas. Every human being has prejudices of one sort or another. Preference may be given to the same region, the samerace, the same religion, the opposite sex or to the candidate who has certain personal relat i o n s h i p s w i t h t h e i n t e r v i e w e r . B e c a u s eo f t h i s e r r o r a misfit may be selected and a qualified applicant may be rejected indicating the fact that the interviewer 'ipersonand prejudice" insteadof "person and matches job" . Premises of pseudo-sciencessuch as graphology, palmistry, phrenology, astrology and physiognbmy may be used by the interviewers' The interviewer who uses his/her knowledge of these subjets in interviewing may do gravest injustice to the interviewee. When an applicant's interview performanceis e v a l u a t e ds o l e l y o n o n e c r i t e r i o n s u c h a s e x p e r i e n c eo r education error of overemphasis on one criterion occurs. Error of interviewer domination is another problem associatedwith the interviewers' Interviewers who use the interview to oversell the applicant, b r a g a b o u t t h e i r s u c c e s s e so, r c a r r y o n a s o c i a l c o n v e r s a t i o ni n s t e a do f a n i n t e r v i e w a r e q u i l t y o f i n t e r v i e w e r d o m i n a t i o n ( W e t h e r a n d D a v i s , 1 9 8 9 'p ' 1 9 8 ) '

Another problem occurs when the interviewer a ^ recognisflhis/her own fears-The interviewer may,b9 fearful tf select a candidate who is better qualified thanhe/she is. Sweet(1973,p.158) notes: Interviewers may also fear the "too good" I no candiilate can be thit gooil ; there mast be something lacking' This of course, strongly saggeststhatthe kindifreaction, interv-iewer himself is not performing at iis highest level of productivity and, as a conseqaence, is guard' ing his own position by his unwiltringness to accept a w ell - qaalili ed c an didat e. " The interviewer may tend to make his decision of selectingor rejecting early in the interview and then merely searchfor information to support that decision' A study done by Springbelt indicates that for lowerlevel employees interviewers typically make up their minds in about the first four minutes of the interview (Smither, 1988, p.90). First impression, initial evaluation of information in the application form or personalappearancemay be decisive. Famularo (1972' "I i.tZ-Zl illustrates the often stated observation, an as office" the into walked he minute the up hirn sized example of error of this nature. Another pitfall that the interviewer is simply unprepared to conduct a proper selection interview due to lack of training may occur in many situations' The average interviewer has never been exposed to formal interview training (Famularo, 1972' p'13-2)' The following exhibit shows practical instances o f s o m e i n t e r v i e w e re r r o r s . Exhibit - Practical Insqlnges-qlSqme Halo Effect

Errors

w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r i n g l o e h e r a s s e s s i n gc r i t e r i a * To give a female candidate ahigh evaluation in every aspect b e c a u s es b e i s v e r Y a t t r a c t i v e Personal Prejudic€s * Some iobs ilre for women and others ror men. * I prefer supervisory parsonnel who are white' OveremPhasis on one Criterion * T o c o n s i d e r i l c i l n d i d a t es y e a r s o t e x p e r l e n c e a s t n e c t t r l c a l determining criterion in selection. *-

An error may occur regarding the nature of quest i o n p a s k e d b y t h e i n t e r v i e w e r s . T h e i n t e r v i e w e rm a y a s k . q u e s t i o n sw h i c h a r e r u d e , i n s e n s i t i v e , i r r e l e v a n t a n d l e a d i n g . I n t e r v i e w e r s w h o t e l e g r a p ht h e d e s i r e d a n s w e rb y t h e w a y t h e y f r a m e t h e i r q u e s t i o n sa r e u s i n g l e a d i n gq u e s t i o n s( W e r t h e ra n d D a v i s , 1 9 8 9 , p ' 1 9 8 ) '

-+

Pseudo-Scientific Premises a receding forehead is rejected because the candidatwith p h y s i o g n o m y c a t e g o r i s e ss u c h a n i n d i v i d u a l a s a c r i m i n a l '

Leadine Ouestions + "Do you agree that profits are'necessary?" + "Do you think you will like this work?"

Interviewer Dominatibn *

O n e o f t h e m a j o r p r o b l e m si n i n t e r v i e w i n gi s t h e i n a b i l i t y o r u n w i l l i n g n e s so f t h e i n t e r v i e w e r t o l i s t e n ' When the interviewer'does not listen to the interuie*ee, no meaningful data are gathered.

Sp*Olog-th" entire interview to tell the candidate about the company plans and benefits.

(1989) Source : A part is based on material in Werther and Davis

29

--

Interviewer

'

managerial selectionshows that, while the use of a s s e s s m e nb t entres and biodata is increasing,many o r g a n i s a t i o n s t i l l s e l e c tm a n a g e r sq n t h e b a s i so f i n t e r views and references. Makin and Robertson(1986. p . 3 8 ) s t a t e s ' ". . . . . u s eo f t h e i n t e r v i e w w a s q l m o s t u n i versal: Only one organisation reported never using i n t e r v i e w s ." S h a c k l e t o na n d N e w e l l ( 1 9 9 8 , p . 2 5 ) h a v i n g d o n e a c o m p a r a t i v es u r v e y o f m e t h o d su s e d i n t o p B r i t i s h a n d F r e n c h c o m p a n i e sr e p o r t t h a t i n t e r v i e w s a r e b e i n g u s e d b y 9 3 . 2 V oo f c o m p a n i e si n B r i t a i n a n d 94.3Voin France. Having done a study with respect of p a t t e r n so f s e l e c t i o n i n s i x c o u n t r i e s ( i n c l u d i n g U K a n d G e r m a n y ) S m i t h a n d A b r a h a m s e n( 1 9 9 2 , p . 1 6 7 \ report that the dominant mode of selection is interviews in practically all countries. All this evidence shows the continued and dominant use of the interv i e w s . T h e f o l l o w i n g e x p l a n a t i o n g i v e s r e a s o n sf o r why the interviews as a method of assessmsntcontinue to be popular and not only survive but remain dominant. The broad reasons are questionable nature of r e s e a r c hr e s u l t s ,d i s t i n c t a d v a n t a g e so f t h e i n t e r v i e w compared with other selection methods, beliefs and possibility of improving the effectivenessof the interviews.

Several errors may arise with the inferviewee. One major error is inability of the interviewee to listen. When the interviewee does not listen meaningful information cannot be received. Failure to listen may result from anxiety about the interview (Werther and Davis, 1 9 8 9 ,p . 1 9 9 ) . Another problem is that the interviewee attencling a selection interview *ry j5lg1!rytpgsJtully lrl.s/ elggg_glat!ngpoints in his/her favour .and h"tglgygrr, . - 1ri nil! l tt g _ot h ers,ry tri s b gl g,e!9. .4"ttlc_qjy _e_ffglg3jlo n tlt3-prytended bgla_vg Also the interviewee attem.p_ls !o_ manner which is sociallv oeiiiaUti ln iaci-iG-normat is nervous and inibrvie.wee ;tt""dif3tfit"i,iew is not in a interviewee in that the fearful resulting and attitudes knowledge real skills, position to use his to face the interview. According to a request made by the National Association of Corporate and Professional Recruiters in USA to executive headhuntersand human resource specialists to identify common interviewing mistakes made by job candidates, they have identified several mistakes from which the top five mistakes were playing games, talking too much, boasting, not listening, and being unprepared (Werther and Davis, 1989, p.198).

L e w i s ( 1 9 9 2 , p . 1 4 0 ) a r g u e st h a t m o s t r e s e a r c h h a s u s e d t h e t e r m " v a l i d i t y " i n a n a r r o w s e n s ea n d i f the term is more boradly interpreted there is a justificat i o n f o r t h e i n t e r v i e w . A l s o h e i n d i c a t e st h a t m u c h interview research has been laboratory-based ones which are difficult to apply to real empoyment situat i o n s . G r a h a m a n d B e n n e t t ( 1 9 9 2 , p . 7 3 ) s t a t et h a t t h e i n t e r v i e w i s v a l i d a t e db y f o l l o w i n g u p t h e s u c c e s s f u l c a n d i d a t e ' sp r o g r e s sa n d b e h a v i o u ra f t e r h e o r s h e h a s been working in the job for some time. Hence there is n o p o s s i b i l i t yo f f o l l o w i n g u p t h e c a n d i d a t e sw h o w e r e j u d g e d u n s u i t a b l er e s u l t i n g i n t h a t i n t e r v i e w v a l i d i t y would always be incomplete. Smither (1988, p.93) mentions that two authors nam€ly Arvey and Compiori have stated: "The interview is really valid. This line of reasoning holds that validity of the interview cannot be assessedstatistically. As with some of the techniques used by clinical psychologists ,it is the person administering the test - and not the test itself that creqtes the validity."

Finally, if the interview is poorly designed it may fail or malfunction. When the criteria for assessing are poor (more subjective) and focus mainly on the person rather than actual performance on the job the interview will be hurt. Also due to lack of several stagesand inappropriate setting for the place of interviewing interview will be ineffective . If the interview c o n s u m e sl o n g t i m e a n d r e q u i r e t o o e x t e n s i v ew r i t t e n analysis result of the interview suffers in accuracy. According to the above explanation there are many errors and limitations (many have been proven by researchand others are true according to the writer's experience) involved in interviewing causing it as an . assessmentmethod being either less effective or ineffectivg. No matter which error is involved, it causesto reduce the validity and reliability of the interview. The Most \ilidely Practised Method Irrespective of Errors and Limitations

Interviewing has some relative distinct advantagesover other alternative methods of selection. (a) It gives the interviewer with an opportunity to assessthe candidatein terms of self-presentation, verbal abilitie s and behavioural characteristics such as manners and sociability (b) It has adaptability: It can be adaptedto various types of employees such as managerial, t e c h n i c a l , c l e r i c a l , s k i l l e d , s e m i - s k i l l e da n d u n s k i l l e d employees. (c) It can fill information gaps and enable t o c l a r i f y q u e s t i o n a b l er e s p o n s e s .D u k e s ( 1 9 8 8 , p . 4 5 )

Interview is the most widely used selection rpethod even if its validity and reliability is low. One s u r v e y n u m b e r e d1 1 4 , d o n e i n 1 9 7 6 b y t h e B u r e a u o f National Affairs, in USA, reports that 9O7oaf all companies surveyed had more confidence in interviews than in any other source of selection information (Werther et al 1985,p.186). According to a survey done by Makin and Roberton basing on a sample of UK organisations regarding the techniques used for

30

expresses that the rnost careful study of application forms, references and the like leaves a rather faint general impresion of the candidate and seeing him sharpensthe impression. (d) It allows a two-way exchange of information where interviewerTEdilJ-iEdft the Tin-di?IaGanE-thEcandidate learns about the job as well as the employer. Through interview, an opportunity for the interviewer generates to inform the candidates about the company. AIso it gives candidates chance to ask questions about the employer and the work. (e) Interviews {e_!e.91999.!i-l1for many companies which do not follow elaborate selection procedure as it is more costly and more timepractical (less consuming. Also interviews are n u m b e ro f c a n d i w h e r e t h e e x p e n s i v e )i n s i t u a t i o n s (f) validity, to the statistical datesis small. In addition and knowledge experience hu_rnqn jgd_gg"_q!Qagedon is esseniial to create iejrl valicfiTy- irThE-TelEdtibn p1oggs. The use of judgmental orttitiicalp-ildi-ETi6n h a s t o b e g i v e n s e r i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n( L e w i s , 1 9 9 2 , p . l a 0 ) . J u d g m e n t a pl r e d i c t i o nh a st o b e e x e r t e dt h r o u g h p e r s o n a lc o n t a c t w h i c h r e q u i r e su s e o f t h e i n t e r v i e w .

reasons which reduce the validity and reliability the interview has been given too little credit by academic research. Nevertheless,it is being used most widely and remains dominant owing to a number of positive reasonsin favour with it.

References Dukes J A (1988) Asse.ssingManagement People - A oractical Guide. Nichols Publishing Company, New York. Famularo I I (1972) Handbook of Modern Personnel Administration. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. Graham H T and Bennett R (1922) Humman Resources Management 7th ed, Pitman, London Lewis C (1992) Fmployee Selection 2nd ed, Stanley Thormes (Publishers) Ltd, London. L e w i s C ( 1 9 8 4 )" W h a t ' s N e w I n S e l e c t i o n . "P e r s o n n e l M a n a g e m e n t ,J a n u a r yp p . 1 4 - 1 6 .

B o t h e m p l o y e r s a n d c a n d i d a t e sh a v e a n e x p e c tation that there ought to be an interview, almost r e g a r d l e s so f w h e t h e r i t i s a c t u a l l y h e l p i n g t h e s e l e c tion process(Lewis, 1992, p.1,40). The interview is regarded.asa part of the ritual. Interviewers believe that they have the knowledge, skills and insight to select the best candidates. They maintain great faith a n d c o n f i d e n c ei n t h e i r j u d g m e n t ( L e w i s , 1 9 8 4 , p . 1 5 )

M a k i n P a n d R o b c r t s o nI ( 1 9 8 6 ) " S e l c c t i n g t h e B e s t , oS e l e c t i o n T e c h n i q u e s " . P e r s o n n e l . M a n a g e m e n tN vember pp.38- 40. Ribeaux P and Poppleton S E (1983) Psycholog), and Work: An lntroduction. The Macmillan Press Ltd, London.' S h a c k l e t o nV a n d N e w e l l S ( 1 9 9 1 ) " M a n a g e m e n tS e lection; A Comparative Survey of Methods used in Top British and French Companies." Occupational Psychology. The British Psychological Society, Vol. 64 Part 1' May pp.23 - 36.

Finally, there is a possibility of improving the e f f e c t i v e n e s so f t h e i n t e r v i e w s b y u s i n g t h e m i n a s y s t e m a t i ca n d p l a n n e d w a y . I f t h e i n t e r v i e w sa r e s y s t e m a t i c a l l yp l a n n e db o t h the reliability and validity are very satisfactory. T r i p a t h i ( 1 9 7 8 , p . 1 5 1 ) n o t e s : " N e w m a n ,B o b b i t a n d Cameron report correlations ranging from 0.8 to 0.89 between the rating of pairs of interviewers. MaMurry .found validity coefficients ranging from 0.61 to 0.68 for various groups of industrial workers when a systematically planned intereview .was used". Acc o r d i n g t o G r a h a ma n d B e n n e t t( 1 9 8 2 , p . 6 6 )t h e m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n i s t h a t t h e s e l e c t i o ni n t e r v i e w i s i n a n y c a s e u n a v o i d a b l e s, o t h e b e s tp o s s i b l eu s es h o u l db e m a d eo f studying-.--.eJd-!ssgfqi_!,g_thejob be_irg it. By t i o 19_11a-dv c e and f ram i n g c o n si de re d, p ! el n i-nC-g!fe_s 1n i1 t g{v i ew i n g, tbElrr ptoperl y, trq$ nq I n !eyl:.g:,Ig m o r e t h a n o n e i n t e r v i e w , e s t a b l i s _ b i nag holding ret ai 9_{1,1n-q_oll1th ca n di d ates and c re ati4g, !t-p rop er phyqlca! ar1_qg9ryentreliability and validity can be impro ved con siderabl=f

Smith M and AbrahamsenM ( 1992) "Patternsof Select i o n i n S i x C o u n t r i e s . " T h e P s y c h o l o s i s t ,t h e B r i t i s h Psychological Society, 5, 205 -207. S m i t h e r R D ( 1 9 8 8 ) T h e P s y c h o l o g yo f W o r k a n d H u man Performance. Hosper & Row Publishers, New York. S w e e tD H ( 1 9 7 3 ) T h e M o d e r n E m p l o y m e n t F u n c t i o n . A d d i s o n - W e s l e yP u b l i s h i n g C o m p a n y , R e a d i n g . l a n a g e m e n ta n d I n d u s Tripathi P C (1978)PersonneM t r i a l R e l a t i o n . S u l t a n C h a n d a n d S o n s ,N e w D e l h i . Werther B W and Davis K (1989) Human Resourceand Personnel Management 3th ed, McGraw-Hill Book C o m p a n y ,N e w Y o r k Werter B W, Davis K, Shwind H F, Das H and Miner F l a n a g e m e n ta n d H u m a n C ( 1 9 8 5 ) C a n a d i a nP e r s o n n e M Resources2nd ed, McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, Toronto.

Conclusion The interview is one of the oldest and most universal tools of assessment. Due to variety of 3I

V i e w

p u b l i c a t i o n

s t a t s