Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Structured Interview
Structured Interview
Information: 613-992-9562
Facsimile: 613-992-9352
The content of the Guide was gathered following a review of the academic and
professional literature, best practices research from the private and public sectors and
consultations with various stakeholders with expertise in designing and conducting
structured interviews.
The Guide consists of six sections that describe the features of a structured interview
and outline the process before, during and after the interview. Each section consists of
several subheadings and hyperlinks for quick reference and includes practical tips for
HR practitioners. The appendices feature useful tools such as sample interview booklets,
a “Train-the-Trainer” presentation, a summary checklist and a feedback questionnaire to
assess applicant reactions to the interview.
The methodology presented in this Guide can be adapted according to the needs of the
organization and to suit the context in which the structured interviews will be used. If you
have any questions about the Assessment Policy, please consult the PSC’s Website at:
http://www.psc-cfp.gc.ca/plcy-pltq/frame-cadre/policy-politique/assessment-evaluation-
eng.htm
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................... 1
SECTION 1: THE STRUCTURED INTERVIEW ........................................................................................... 2
WHAT IS A STRUCTURED INTERVIEW ? ................................................................................................................................................... 2
BENEFITS OF STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS ............................................................................................................................................... 3
RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH UNSTRUCTURED INTERVIEWS .......................................................................................................................... 3
THE STRUCTURED INTERVIEW PROCESS ................................................................................................................................................ 4
LEGAL CONTEXT OF EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEWS ..................................................................................................................................... 7
SUMMARY TIPS FOR PRACTITIONERS ..................................................................................................................................................... 9
ii
Overview
Employment interviews are one of the most widely used and influential assessment tools
in the appointment process. Of all the factors that impact interview effectiveness, their
structure has emerged as the most critical. It is well-established that structured
interviews are better than unstructured ones at predicting on-the-job performance. In
addition, the information obtained from a structured interview tends to be more accurate
and reliable, less subject to bias and more legally defensible. Using a more structured
approach improves the likelihood that hiring decisions will be based on merit.
Realizing the full potential of a structured interview requires paying careful attention to
each stage of the interview process, from preparation through to development,
implementation, and evaluation. Following the suggested practices in this Guide will
facilitate this task and ensure that hiring managers and Human Resources (HR)
practitioners fully benefit from the time and effort they invest in this valuable assessment
tool.
2. Before the interview: This section provides practical tips on how to design interview
booklets, including how to identify the qualifications to be assessed and how to
develop interview questions. It also addresses important activities such as inviting
applicants, arranging for assessment accommodation, if required, and preparing the
interview board.
4. After the interview: This section offers guidance on how to accurately assess
applicant responses and avoid common assessment errors, how to integrate
interview results with other information to support the selection and informal
discussion processes and how to provide feedback to applicants.
1
SECTION 1: THE STRUCTURED INTERVIEW
UNSTRUCTURED STRUCTURED
Development
• Very little, if any, planning is conducted • Careful planning of interview objectives and their
• The factors evaluated by the interview board role in the appointment process
are implicit and vary across applicants • Interview questions are predetermined and
• Questioning is spontaneous and not linked to job relevant criteria (e.g., knowledge,
necessarily job-related skills and abilities)
Administration
• Questions vary from one interview to the next • Each applicant is asked the same questions
for the same job • Questions and follow-up questions are controlled
• Little, if any, control over type or amount of • Irrelevant information is disregarded
information collected across applicants • Detailed notes are taken
• Extraneous information can influence the
direction of the interview
• Note-taking can be sketchy, disorganized or
nonexistent
Evaluation
• No system, guide or basis for evaluating • Pre-developed, behavioural basis for evaluating
interview responses interview responses
Interviewer Training
2
Benefits of structured interviews
Research has consistently shown that unstructured interviews can lead to poor hiring
decisions because they are more vulnerable to:
Bias and inequity: People are often unaware of their own biases and how
these biases unconsciously influence their decisions. Research has shown that
attributes such as physical attractiveness3, similarity of the applicant to the
interviewer4, gender5 and race6 can inappropriately influence an interview board’s
assessment. Personal beliefs and values may also influence the unstructured
interview process so that different questions may be asked of different people, or
the same answer provided by different applicants may be interpreted differently.
3
answers that provide accurate information on how they will perform once on the
job.
Legal vulnerability: Unstructured interviews are more likely than structured ones
to be challenged in court, based on grounds of illegal discrimination 9. A review of
158 U.S. federal court cases involving hiring discrimination from 1978 to 1997
revealed that unstructured interviews were challenged in court more often than any
other type of selection device10. Even more important is an examination of the
outcomes of such legal challenges. Unstructured interviews were found to be
discriminatory in 59% of these cases, whereas structured interviews were found
NOT to be discriminatory in 100% of cases.
The model presented in the figure below outlines the key activities that take place
before, during, and after the structured interview. Each of these activities enhances the
quality and legal defensibility of the obtained information. A brief description of the three
main interview stages is provided below to illustrate how the proposed interview process
unfolds. Sections two to five of this Guide provide more detailed information on how this
model can be applied in the appointment process. The hiring manager, HR practitioner or
others may carry out different tasks in the interview process. The interview board
may be asked to perform some of these tasks before, during, and after the interview.
Key documents that form the basis of the structured interview and ensure its validity are
then reviewed. These may include the job description, competency profile, and merit
criteria that can help to identify the task requirements and qualifications needed to
perform the job successfully. In this way, interview questions that relate directly to job
performance may be developed.
Creating booklets for note-taking and assessing the applicant is useful. A note-taking
booklet includes descriptions of the qualifications to be assessed and the questions that
are linked to them. An assessment booklet is a form for rating applicants against job-
relevant qualifications. The questions and rating criteria are the same for all candidates
to ensure consistency of approach and comparability of information and results. Sample
Interview Note-taking Booklet and Assessment Booklets, which can be tailored to an
organization’s specific appointment process, are provided in Appendices A and B.
4
training on skillful interviewing, as required, and by reviewing all relevant steps involved
in a structured interview.
During the interview, the board should provide a standard introduction to all applicants,
including an explanation of the format of the interview, the questions to expect, and how
the board will be recording responses. After asking an interview question, the board
may need to probe a person’s answer for greater detail or ask follow-up questions. This
ensures that the board elicits as much information as it needs to fully understand and
assess the applicant’s qualifications. The board concludes the interview by thanking the
person, outlining the next steps in the appointment process, and providing the candidate
a final opportunity to ask any other questions.
After the interview, board members assess each person’s performance against the
qualifications required to perform the work, by reviewing the interview responses and
reaching consensus on a single evaluation for each qualification assessed. These
interview results are then integrated with those of other assessment tools, such as tests
or reference checks, to reach a final assessment for all applicants. The hiring manager
then selects the person who is the “right fit” for the job at hand. The Public Service
Employment Act (PSEA) provides candidates with the opportunity for an informal
discussion to discuss the reasons why they were not selected.
5
The Structured Interview Process
Ask Questions
Take Notes Take Notes
Ask Probing or Follow up
Questions as Necessary
Conclude and
Answer Applicant Questions
Select an Applicant
Give Feedback
Adapted from the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington D.C.
6
Legal context of employment interviews
The PSEA sets out the Public Service Commission’s (PSC) authority to make
appointments in the public service and to delegate this authority to deputy heads in
federal government organizations. The PSC has developed the Appointment Framework,
including the Assessment Policy, to guide its delegates in building their own staffing
systems, while ensuring that merit, non-partisanship and the guiding values of access,
fairness, representativeness, and transparency are respected.
7
Employment Equity in the Appointment Process Policy states those requirements that
ensure that the public service reflects and respects our diverse society. Organizations
must provide reasonable accommodation through all stages of the appointment
process. The Assessment Policy also offers guidance on accommodation in the
assessment process, through Testing in the Public Service, the Guide for Assessing
Persons with Disabilities as well as the Guidelines for Fair Assessment in a Diverse
Workplace. These publications are intended to help managers fulfill their obligations in
the appointment process when assessing persons requiring assessment
accommodation.
Prohibited grounds: The Canadian Human Rights Act defines prohibited grounds of
discrimination. These include: race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex
(including pregnancy or childbirth), sexual orientation, marital status, family status,
disability, and conviction for which a pardon has been granted. Interview questions
must avoid these prohibited topics both directly and indirectly. It is inappropriate to
inquire about areas that are unrelated to actual job performance, such as hobbies, social
activities, political beliefs, residence, medical status, and any past legal actions (including
workers’ compensation claims), and safety complaints. Outside of the structured
interview format, casual conversation can be equally dangerous as it can easily stray into
prohibited topics. Deviating from job-related topics can create the impression of an
undisciplined process or that hiring will be based on issues that are not job-related. While
there is no need to be artificially rigid, a businesslike focus on the task of interviewing
the applicant is recommended.
8
Summary tips for practitioners
The following summary recommendations will enhance the effectiveness and legal
defensibility of an employment interview9:
Ensure that interview questions are job-related and based on the requirements
of the target position.
Avoid questions that are related to prohibited topics.
Use standardized administration. This includes asking the same questions of all
applicants.
Enhance the objectivity of the assessment of applicants by having a well-
defined and documented scoring system, and procedures.
Provide training to ensure that board members know how to conduct fair and
unbiased interviews.
Use interview boards rather than individual interviewers. Diversity in board
membership is also preferable.
It is important to use the same board members for all applicants, whenever possible.
9
SECTION 2: BEFORE THE INTERVIEW
An interview board is one that is comprised of two or more individuals. Research has
shown that interviews conducted by a board are more valid than those conducted by
only one interviewer11. An interview board can reduce the impact that personal biases
may have on the selection of an employee. Multiple interviewers may also capture
information that a single interviewer might overlook, thus ensuring a more balanced, and
complete assessment of the applicant.
Effort should be made to have interview boards reflect the diverse backgrounds of the
applicant pool. This diversity may help to put applicants at ease and make the outcome
more acceptable to them. Research has shown that using diverse interviewing panels
can reduce or eliminate rating biases due to race and similarity in attitudes between
interviewees and interviewers12-13. The Objective Eye is a relevant resource to consult
because it brings managers and designated group members together to discuss the
possibility of participating on assessment boards.
To the extent possible, it is important that the same board members interview all
applicants in a given appointment process in order to increase consistency and
standardization of the assessment. Potential board members could include:
• the immediate supervisor of the open position, who is likely the most
knowledgeable about the activities and responsibilities of the position;
• the division director;
• an HR representative; and/or
• a potential co-worker.
The hiring manager is responsible for selecting the members of the interview board and
for ensuring that board members:
10
Serving as a member of the interview board
Members of the interview board must carry out their responsibilities without bias, political
influence or personal favouritism. All members must be familiar with the interview
process and maintain objectivity when assessing applicants. They may also be involved
with:
It is recommended that one member of the interview board be assigned the role of lead
interviewer. This person is responsible for the introduction, determining who will ask
specific questions, asking some of the questions, and concluding the interview.
The first step in designing a structured interview is to clarify its purpose and objectives,
making it easier for the board to determine the type of information to collect, and the
process that will be used to collect it. An advantage of the structured interview is that it
can allow the employer to learn more about the applicant and vice versa.
From the employer’s perspective, the interview can add considerable value to the
appointment process by:
• filling information gaps in other assessment tools such as applicant forms or resumés;
• assessing qualifications that can be best measured via face-to-face interaction, such
as interpersonal relations or oral communication; and
• giving the applicant the chance to demonstrate their qualifications “live” by responding
to actual job situations.
For the applicant, the interview is an opportunity to learn more about the job and the
organization, and to begin to develop realistic expectations about both. Treating the
interview as a two-way exchange can also have a positive influence on the perception of
the hiring organization. For instance, research has shown that perceptions of the
interview process and the interpersonal skills of the interview board members, as well as
their skills in listening, recruiting, and conveying information about the organization and
the target job, affect the applicant’s evaluation of the interview board members as well
as the organization14-15.
11
It is therefore important to strike a balance between meeting the needs of the employer
and the applicant, while using the interview to obtain the necessary information to
determine the “right fit” for the position.
Two important questions that need to be addressed at the early stages of planning are
how many applicants will be interviewed and at what stage in the appointment process
will the interview be conducted?
Whether all applicants or only those that meet the required qualifications should be
interviewed depends on a number of factors. These include the size of the applicant
pool, the other types of assessment tools used in the appointment process and the
resources available.
When dealing with large applicant pools, the order in which assessment tools are
administered can have a significant impact on the cost of the selection process. One
way to minimize time and costs is to first eliminate applicants with insufficient
qualifications, using relatively inexpensive selection methods such as automated
screening on training, experience, and education. As a result, the organization can use
more expensive selection tools such as the interview, on a smaller number of highly
qualified people.
On the other hand, when dealing with a smaller applicant pool, it may be appropriate to
assess critical qualifications in a preliminary interview. For example, early stages of the
process may focus on assessing essential job qualifications. Follow-up interviews can
then be conducted with the reduced number of applicants, to explore their asset
qualifications, or vice versa.
Once the job requirements have been reviewed (i.e. Statement of Merit Criteria,
competency profile and job description), an Interview Note-taking Booklet may be
designed. To do so, the interview board will need to identify the qualifications to assess
and develop questions that tap into these factors.
The following information about the interview process should be included in the booklet:
The applicant’s name or identification number, board members’ names, and the
date of the interview;
The introductory greeting;
Questions in the order in which they will be asked;
Reserved spaces for note-taking; and
Information concluding the interview.
12
Appendix A provides a sample Interview Note-taking Booklet that can be adapted to
specific appointment processes. Each interview board member should have an Interview
Booklet for each applicant being assessed.
When developing interview questions, the board must decide which qualifications from
the Statement of Merit Criteria will be assessed. To maximize the validity of the
appointment process, the interview should build on information from other assessment
tools. The following questions may assist in determining which kinds of qualifications to
assess in an interview:
• Are there any qualifications that are partially assessed or not assessed at all by
other means in the process?
The Key Leadership Competencies can also be used as a basis for the structured
interview and provide a good indication of how applicants would perform on the job.
Values and Ethics, Strategic Thinking, Engagement, and Management Excellence, relate
to qualifications such as oral communication, interpersonal skills, teamwork, initiative,
and behavioural flexibility, which can be assessed effectively through
structured interviews17.
An interview, however, may not be the best tool to assess certain qualifications. For
example, although job knowledge can be accurately assessed in an interview, if there
are many questions requiring detailed answers, the use of written tests may be more
cost-effective. Similarly, mental ability may also be better assessed through the use of
standardized, written tests rather than an interview. Ultimately, the job requirements,
organizational needs and the available assessment tools, should dictate whether
qualifications should be assessed through an interview, another type of assessment
tool, or a combination of tools.
13
valid when assessors focus on a limited number of factors18. Trying to assess too many
factors in too little time may yield superficial data of limited value, resulting in an
ineffective assessment19. The recommendation is for a maximum of seven qualifications
to be assessed in an interview20. The remaining qualifications in the Statement of Merit
Criteria would be assessed by other means such as written tests, simulations, or
reference checks, ensuring that individuals are fully assessed before making the
appointment decision.
Once the qualifications to be covered in the interview have been determined, the next
step is to develop questions that assess these qualifications. Interviews can cover a
range of qualifications from work experience, training and education, to specific job
qualifications such as knowledge, skills, abilities, and personal attributes. Competency-
based questions should be formulated to target specific behaviours related to the
qualifications and work to be performed. These behavioural indicators allow for a more
accurate and objective assessment of the applicant.
3. What is the impact of different courses of action? What makes a particular action
or response effective? What makes it ineffective?
Three of the most common and effective types of interview questions are situational,
behavioural, and job knowledge questions. Although each of these formats can be
independently effective, a more comprehensive assessment can be achieved by
combining different types of questions for a given qualification. Each of these methods
is described in greater detail below.
14
Situational interviews have been found to be highly valid and resistant to assessor error
such as contrast error, and race or gender bias, also discussed later in this section21-22.
They have been found to apply across a variety of jobs and qualifications. One
advantage of situational questions is that applicants respond to a hypothetical situation
rather than describing experiences from their past, thus not placing anyone at a
disadvantage. Responses tend to be directly comparable and are easier to rate reliably
by multiple interviewers23.
2. Consider a situation where you and a co-worker are working on a project together.
You both agreed on how the work was to be divided up. However, your co-worker
fails to do their share of the work.
What would you do?
15
follow-up questions, it is risky for applicants to provide inaccurate or untruthful answers
to behavioural questions.
Teamwork
What was the biggest difference of opinion you ever had with a co-worker?
- What did you do to try to resolve it?
- What was the outcome?
Here are examples of both situational and behavioural questions that evaluate a
qualification, and related effective behaviours:
Definition
Establishes a systematic course of action for self and others, to ensure accomplishment of
specific objectives. Sets priorities, goals and timelines to achieve maximum productivity
and to ensure objectives are met on time.
16
Example of a Behavioural Interview Question
Describe how you managed your work schedule the last time you had competing
deadlines to meet.
What steps did you take to make certain that you would manage your time most
effectively?
What was the result?
What feedback did you receive?
Assessing job knowledge in the interview would not be recommended if there are a
large number of job knowledge questions, especially if the answers are fairly short and
routine. In such cases, a written test would be more efficient and usually less expensive
to administer and score. It would also not be appropriate in situations where the
questions deal with complex behaviours such as diagnosing defects, operating
equipment or manipulating data or information. In these situations, job simulations or
written knowledge tests are usually more appropriate.
When developing job knowledge questions, the challenge is in deciding how much
knowledge one should be expected to have versus what can be learned later on in the
job. Such questions should assess knowledge of information that is essential or
important to the overall performance of the job and not knowledge that is difficult but
only peripheral to the job at hand. Knowledge questions should not ask about material
that is easily learned on the job or that would be taught as part of a training program for
the job.
17
Example of a Job Knowledge Question
Description: How has the new PSEA changed the hiring process in the public service?
Demonstration: How would you go about designing interview questions that ensure that
the assessment of applicants is based on merit?
Job simulations: In simulations, applicants are asked to perform a task that they would
be required to do on the job. Although simulations have not traditionally been considered
as interview questions, they are often used by managers for this purpose. For
example, an applicant could be provided with a budget sheet and asked questions
related to the work required to do the job.
As with the other types of interview questions, the simulation should also be
standardized. Applicants should be given instructions and a brief scenario, either verbally
or in writing, and the same questions must be asked of every applicant. An assessment
guide for all applicants needs to be prepared to ensure consistency of the assessment.
However, some caution is warranted with this type of interview question. First, the
scenario and the questions need to be job-related and based on the qualifications
required to do the job. Second, simulations should not take up a large part of the
interview, but be used to supplement applicant information obtained from the other types
of interview questions. Third, the artificiality of this type of exercise may make some
applicants uncomfortable.
HR technicians are required to administer written exams. This includes reading exam
instructions to the applicants. Please read these exam instructions to us as if you were
reading them to a large group of applicants.
Questions to avoid:
Any questions that may discriminate against applicants on the basis of any of the
following grounds are prohibited: race, national or ethic origin, colour, religion, age, sex
(including pregnancy or childbirth), sexual orientation, marital status, family status,
disability, and conviction for which a person has been granted pardon.
18
Probing questions:
Applicants’ responses will vary in length and level of detail. This variability is acceptable
as long as enough information is obtained to assess each qualification fairly and
accurately. However, there may be a need to request additional examples or more
specific information to more fully understand the applicant’s answer. Asking probing or
follow-up questions is a necessary component of the interview because it helps to
ensure that sufficient data is obtained for all qualifications being assessed.
The following example illustrates how probing questions can clarify the applicant’s role
in a specific situation.
Applicant: “I assisted the architects by making multiple copies of the plans using a blue
line machine and by running errands.”
Probing questions are generally acceptable in a structured interview, but they should not
result in the introduction of new topics or issues, since the structured interview is
intended to ask the same questions of each applicant. Otherwise, some applicants may
be inadvertently advantaged, while others, disadvantaged. It is also important not to
reveal effective behavioural indicators through probing questions.
Listed below is a series of sample probing questions that can help to elicit specific
details about the who, when, where, what, why and how of the applicant's responses.
This list is followed by a summary of “do’s” and “don’ts” to consider when designing
interview questions.
19
Sample Probing Questions
Who:
• Who else was involved?
• Who else helped you with this situation?
When:
• How long ago did this happen?
• When did all this take place?
Where:
• Where did this take place?
What:
• What was the [situation/issue/problem]?
• What were the [results/outcomes]?
• What actions did you decide to take, and when?
• What was your role?
• What part did you play in making the decision to ?
• What did you say, or do that [did/didn’t] work?
• What was the message you were trying to convey?
• What were you trying to convince or persuade them of?
• What techniques did you use to keep yourself and your work organized?
• What did you do when your work started to get behind?
• What was the deadline?
• What actions did you take to ensure you met the deadline?
Why:
• Why was this situation a particular challenge?
• Why was this person difficult?
• Why did you take that approach?
• Why was it important to meet the deadline?
How:
• How did you develop this idea?
• How did you convince your supervisor to adopt it?
• How did it help the organization?
• How did you prepare for it? How did you size up the situation?
20
Do’s and don’ts when designing interview questions:
Do Don’t
21
Number of questions: Although it is generally recommended that more than one
question be asked for each qualification assessed, there is no rule for the exact number.
While some experts recommend asking more than one question per qualification, others
suggest at least three questions per qualification27. However, the exact number of
questions is a function of:
1. The breadth of the qualification to assess and its importance in successful job
performance; and
2. The overall number of assessed qualifications, the type of questions asked and
the amount of interview time available.
If, for example, a given qualification entails many different behavioural indicators, it may
take more questions to collect enough information to assess that qualification adequately
than if there were only a few behavioural indicators. Ultimately, information should be
collected until the topic is exhausted or until the interview board judges that enough
information was gathered to perform an accurate assessment.
The number of questions covered within the allotted interview time will also be a function
of the types of questions asked. Typically, it should allow three minutes for a knowledge
question, and up to ten minutes for a situational or behavioural question. These time
constraints reinforce the recommendation that one should aim to assess a relatively
small number of qualifications in an interview, ideally no more than seven.
Organizing interview questions: When asking more than one question per
qualification, it is recommended that the questions be grouped so that the interview
board can ask all the questions assessing a qualification before moving on to another
one. This facilitates the analysis and assessment process for interview board members,
since all of the information on a given qualification will have been considered together.
Other decisions will also need to be made by the board regarding the interview format
and process, such as whether applicants should be given time on-site to prepare for the
interview. Generally, it is good practice to give time for applicants to prepare on-site. It
is reasonable to allow roughly 30 minutes for applicants to review the questions and
prepare their responses. Board members should also decide in advance which questions
each person will ask applicants. It is essential to conduct the interview in the same way
for each applicant.
Board members need to decide in advance how they are going to assess interview
responses in a fair and accurate manner. One way to ensure the same assessment
22
criteria are applied consistently is to develop an Assessment Booklet for evaluating
applicants’ performances. When designing such booklets, it is important to consider the
kinds of actions, responses, and behaviours that are effective and relevant for each
qualification assessed. The use of a rating scale can enable a more precise assessment
against the qualifications to determine the “right fit” for the position and by minimizing
subjective bias.
Qualifications can be rated against a variety of scale types. The simplest scale provides
only “meets/does not meet” choices. This type of scale could be used when assessing
only one applicant for an acting appointment. Alternatively, the appointment process
may require an expanded rating scale to make meaningful distinctions between
applicants and determine the “right fit” for the job.
A sample rating scale: In order to assess applicants fairly, board members should use
a common rating scheme and scoring procedure for each applicant. This standardized
approach improves the accuracy of judgements made by board members and helps in
later comparisons among applicants. Below is an example of a combined (verbal and
numerical) rating scale:
The number of points on a rating scale can vary, usually from three to seven. When
rating qualifications, a five-point scale is typically suitable. The scale may also vary in
the breadth and level of detail provided in the behavioural description. For instance, the
figure below provides a basic description of the expected responses for an applicant to
receive a score of 1, 3 or 5 for situational and behavioural questions.
23
Situational question: Suppose you had an idea for a change in procedure to enhance
work quality but some members of your work team were against any type of change.
What would you do? What factors would you consider? Why?
Who would you involve?
Rating scheme:
(5) Excellent answer: Explain the change and try to show the benefits. Discuss it
openly in a meeting.
(3) Good answer: Ask them why they are against change. Try to convince them.
(1) Unacceptable answer: Tell the supervisor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Behavioural question: What was the biggest difference of opinion you ever had with a
co-worker? How did you resolve it? What was the outcome?
Rating scheme:
(5) Excellent answer: My co-worker and I looked into the situation, found the problem
and resolved the difference. We had an honest conversation.
(3) Good answer: Compromised. Resolved the problem by taking turns, or I explained
the problem (my side) carefully.
(1) Unacceptable answer: I got mad and told the co-worker off, or we got the supervisor
to resolve the problem, or I never have differences with anyone.
24
Benchmark Level Definition Level Examples
Level
5 Establishes and maintains ongoing • Presents controversial findings
working relationships with management, tactfully to irate organization senior
other employees, internal or external management officials regarding
stakeholders or clients. Remains shortcomings of a newly installed
courteous when discussing information or computer system, software programs,
eliciting highly sensitive or controversial and associated equipment.
information from people who are reluctant
to give it. Effectively handles situations
involving a high degree of tension or
discomfort involving people who are
demonstrating a high degree of hostility or
distress.
4 • Mediates disputes concerning system
design/architecture, the nature and
capacity of data management
systems, system resources allocations
or other equally controversial/sensitive
matters.
3 Cooperates and works well with • Courteously and tactfully delivers
management, other employees or clients effective instruction to frustrated
on short-term assignments. Remains customers.
courteous when discussing information or • Provides technical advice to
eliciting moderately sensitive or customers and the public on various
controversial information from people who types of IT such as communication or
are hesitant to give it. Effectively handles security systems, data management
situations involving a moderate degree of procedures or analysis, software
tension or discomfort involving people who engineering or Web development.
are demonstrating a moderate degree of
hostility or distress.
2 • Familiarizes new employees with
administrative procedures and office
systems.
1 Cooperates and works well with • Responds courteously to clients’
management, other employees or clients general inquiries.
during brief interactions. Remains • Greets and assists visitors attending a
courteous when discussing information or meeting within own organization.
eliciting non-sensitive or non-controversial
information from people who are willing to
give it. Effectively handles situations
involving little or no tension, discomfort,
hostility or distress.
Source: United States Office of Personnel Management
25
In the absence of detailed behaviours to define a rating scale, an alternative option is to
provide a generic description of performance for each point on the scale. An example is
provided below.
Prior to the interview, each applicant should be given information on its format. It should
be made clear that the interview will be structured with an interview board and specify
the types of questions that will be asked, the qualifications assessed and the amount of
time allotted for the interview.
Prior to the interview, information about the organization and the position to be staffed
may be sent to applicants. Additional information such as dress code, pay range,
benefits and working conditions, as well as any specific requirements such as shift work,
may also be covered ahead of time. In so doing, the structured interview questions will
be the main focus during the allotted time, ensuring that applicants have ample time to
answer.
Whether an applicant will require accommodation should also be ascertained prior to the
interview. Deputy heads have a duty to accommodate applicants in the appointment
process and to remove barriers to employment. It is important to remind applicants in a
timely fashion of their right to request accommodation and to ensure that the necessary
arrangements are made.
Example of Accommodation
In one appointment process, it was decided that applicants are to receive the interview
questions in writing prior to the interview; however, one of the applicants is visually
impaired.
27
structured interviews and how to assess applicants to ensure fairness in the staffing
process.
Administrative arrangements
The person in charge of scheduling will need to know the expected duration of the
interview to ensure ample interviewing time. Pre-testing your interview to ensure that an
adequate amount of time is allocated is useful for this purpose. When conducting back-
to-back interviews, it is also good practice to allow for 15 minutes between interviews so
that they do not overlap even if they run over time and also to permit board members to
take breaks.
To the extent possible, the reserved interview room should be well-lit and free from
noise and other distractions. The atmosphere should be calm so as not to intimidate
applicants. Water, pens/pencils and paper should be offered. The seating arrangements
can also have an impact on the interview atmosphere. It is preferable to position
applicants and board members around a small table or at the corner of a larger table
rather than to have the applicants sit at one side of a large table with the board members
all seated along the other side.
Prior to the first interview, board members should go through the Interview Booklet to
review the process and assign the role of lead interviewer to one member. The Interview
Booklet contributes to the standardization of the interview process.
28
Summary tips for practitioners
Balance the interview towards the positive. Plan to ask questions focussing on
applicants’ successes first. Applicants may then be more forthcoming discussing
situations where they were not as successful.
Ensure that you design your questions so the applicant will know that you want
them to describe the particulars of the situation, task, problems, or context, the
actions taken (or not), and the result or impact.
Make sure that your questions are clear and unambiguous. Have them reviewed
by someone who was not involved in their development.
29
SECTION 3: DURING THE INTERVIEW
The interview board should ensure the following preparation prior to the arrival of the
applicant:
ƒ Board members should meet at least 15 minutes before the first applicant arrives
to discuss the interview format and to ensure that all necessary materials are
available.
ƒ Each board member should have a copy of the Interview Note-taking Booklet, as
well as the Interview Assessment Booklet, for each applicant.
The following arrangements should also be made:
ƒ Applicants should be provided with water and pens/pencils and paper for the
interview.
ƒ If applicants are allotted time to prepare prior the interview, they should be placed
in a private room, given a copy of the interview questions (without divulging the
behaviours that are targeted in each question), and given the following
instructions:
“Here are the questions. You have minutes to prepare for the interview. You will then meet with
the interview board.”
ƒ Applicants should be allowed to bring the interview questions and their notes to
the interview, so they can refer to them throughout.
It is important to start the interview in a relatively informal and friendly manner to help
put the applicant at ease. This is a particularly important step since interviews can be
stressful for some applicants. Establishing and maintaining rapport with applicants
30
contributes to the validity of the interview by reducing their anxiety and allows them to
feel comfortable and to give honest and candid responses.
The lead interviewer should begin by welcoming the applicant, thanking them for
attending, and introducing the other board members. As part of the introduction, the
lead interviewer should:
Provide welcoming remarks, such as an explanation of the goal of the interview
and the role of the interview board. Reiterate the language in which the interview
will be conducted (at the choice of the applicant) and their right to receive
accommodation, if needed.
Describe how the interview will unfold and indicate how long it will take, including
an explanation that the interview questions are based on job-relevant
qualifications and that all applicants in the process will be asked the same
questions.
State that the board members will be taking turns asking questions, will be taking
notes and will provide an opportunity for applicants to ask questions at the
conclusion of the formal interview questions.
Give a clear signal that the interview is about to begin.
Board members may use the following statement as a guideline for presenting interview
questions to the applicant (this applies whether questions are given in advance of the
interview or not):
31
Some applicants may not be accustomed to board members taking notes. Therefore, it
is important that applicants understand that this note-taking is to ensure full credit is
given to them for the knowledge, skills and abilities demonstrated during the interview.
Asking the interview questions
During the interview, board members should focus on asking the interview questions,
listening to applicants’ responses, asking follow-up questions when necessary, and
taking detailed notes. The assessment of applicants’ responses should not occur during
the interview; they should be assessed immediately afterward.
Below are some important points for the interview board to consider when asking
questions:
ƒ Make sure applicants have a copy of the interview questions and ask them to
follow along.
ƒ Be sure to read each question aloud slowly and clearly.
ƒ Do not divulge the specific behavioural indicators being assessed by any question
since this would serve to “lead” the applicant’s response and may give an unfair
advantage.
When asking probing questions, the board must ensure it sticks to predetermined
questions and not introduce new questions or reveal the behavioural indicators.
Examples of probing questions can be found in Section Two.
While it is important to gather all relevant information, board members need to manage
the flow of the interview and set time limits. Some applicants may spend a considerable
amount of time answering each question or provide irrelevant information. If this occurs,
time may expire before all qualifications are addressed and all of the needed information
is extracted. Although the interview is designed for the applicant to do most of the
talking, the board may need to intervene with a brief comment to bring responses back
to a relevant topic or to a conclusion.
32
- “What is the main point of this illustration?”
- “I appreciate you providing that information, but now we need to move on to our next
question.”
Managing applicant reactions
For instance, should applicants mention negative aspects about a situation or about
themselves, the interviewer can empathize with the applicant and then suggest that they
move on to another aspect of the question. For example, “I understand that it was a
difficult situation. Could you tell me about…?”
If an applicant persists in not answering a question, the interviewer should not insist.
The interviewer may proceed with another question and indicate that the board may
want to return to the unanswered one later. For example, “I understand. If you agree,
we can come back to this question later in the interview. In the meantime, could you tell
me about…?”. Prior to ending the interview, the interviewer can return to the unanswered
question by politely inviting the applicant to address this aspect: “Before we end the
interview, could we come back to question three and could you describe to us a situation
where…?”.
Note-taking
A proper assessment includes taking notes for each applicant’s responses throughout
the interview. Note-taking serves two purposes: to help capture and recall the content of
the interview and assess applicants’ responses accurately, and also to create records to
reconstruct the interview process or support an employment decision based on the
interview30. Human memory is imperfect and selective. Without notes, it is possible to
selectively recall an applicant’s strengths and weaknesses, or be unable to recall an
applicant’s responses at all.
To capture all relevant information, board members should attempt to take notes steadily
over the course of the interview. Notes should reflect what the applicant says, rather
than how it is said. There are two exceptions in which brief descriptive notes are
recommended:
33
ƒ If the interview is used to assess a qualification such as oral communication,
where both content and delivery are relevant; or
ƒ If an applicant’s behaviour raises questions about their qualifications or suitability.
For example, notes should be taken to document an applicant’s inordinately long
time to respond to questions or to describe an inappropriate interaction.
To maximize the usefulness of notes, they should be:
Based on careful observations of behaviours and facts related to the
qualifications being assessed.
As complete and as close to verbatim as possible, in order to recall the
applicant's responses.
An accurate record of what the applicant said or did, not the interviewer's
inferences or judgements.
An explicit conclusion should be provided at the end of the interview. Keeping in mind
that the interview is a recruitment tool, the lead interviewer should effectively conclude
the interview by:
Providing a clear signal of the end of the interview.
Providing an opportunity for the applicant to ask questions.
Explaining the next steps in the appointment process and the approximate time
frame.
Collecting the interview questions and notes from the applicant before he or
she leaves the interview room.
Offering closing remarks, thanking the applicant for participating in the
interview, answering any general questions and escorting the applicant out of
the room.
The interview questions and related documents, as well as the applicant’s responses
and other information, are protected materials and should be handled and stored
according to departmental/agency guidelines.
34
Summary tips for practitioners
Consider having one interview board member greet and brief the applicant in
a private area outside of the interview room. The applicant then has an opportunity
to ask any questions in a more relaxed setting.
Consider allowing applicants to answer the questions in the order they would
prefer;
it may assist in making them more comfortable with the process.
Stick to the structured interview format. Providing introductions, asking
questions, probing or asking follow-up questions and closing the interview should
be done the same way for all applicants.
When asking questions, look for “I”, as you want to know what the applicant did,
even when working in a group. Look as well for clear actions and specific
situations.
Watch for “we, our, the team”, vague actions, typical or general situations (for
behavioural questions) and probe or redirect as needed.
Be flexible about the degree and amount of probing, restating, rephrasing,
paraphrasing and revisiting questions, since initial responses vary among
applicants. Some applicants may need little or no prompting, while others may
need more. The key here is to ensure that each applicant has had a fair opportunity
to demonstrate their qualifications; this does not mean that you have to stick to a
rigid script.
Take detailed behavioural notes on answers, observations, and concrete facts –
not judgements.
Do not assess the responses during the interview.
35
SECTION 4: AFTER THE INTERVIEW
After the interview, the board is ready to arrive at ratings on the job qualifications for
each applicant. To accomplish this task, board members will need their completed
Interview Note-taking Booklet and the Interview Assessment Booklet, which include the
rating scheme in relation to the qualifications assessed (see Appendices A and B for
examples of these booklets).
The results obtained from interviews should be carefully evaluated in order to accurately
assess the qualifications required and to minimize personal bias. This evaluation
involves a sequence of key steps beginning with individual assessments by members of
the interview board, followed by an assessment based on a group consensus. The
integration of the interview results, along with other obtained information concludes the
appointment process. In addition, the interview board may be involved in informal
discussion or in providing feedback to the applicant. In this section, guidance is offered
on each of these key components.
It is recommended that board members assign independent ratings for each applicant
shortly after their interview, in order to better remember the applicant’s performance and
not to be influenced by the opinions of other members. Each of the interview questions
is typically designed to assess one main qualification. However, if more than one
question is asked for a qualification, each board member will need to review the
applicant’s responses across questions and come up with a single rating for that
qualification.
Board members may observe that an applicant’s response to a question targeting one
qualification also provides behavioural evidence for another. If this is the case, all of the
behavioural evidence provided should be used, even if it appears in responses to
questions targeting other qualifications. As a result, the information provided by the
applicant is used optimally.
Using the rating scale: Board members may choose from a variety of rating scales
when evaluating job qualifications (see Section Two - Developing an Assessment
Booklet). Whichever scale is applied, evaluations must be based on the behavioural
evidence collected for each qualification. This evaluation will require a thorough
understanding of the qualification definitions and behavioural indicators prior to assigning
any ratings. With this information, the board should be in a position to assess each
applicant’s responses according to:
• The scope of behaviours and extent to which the behavioural indicators for a
qualification were demonstrated in an applicant’s responses (e.g. quantity and
consistency); and
36
• The depth to which the observed behaviours were demonstrated during the
interview (e.g. degree of complexity, soundness and precision).
With one member of the board chairing the discussion, consensus is reached on the
assessment of the applicant’s performance. Reaching consensus as a group has been
found to be more valid than other methods 31-32. Assessment by consensus causes
interviewers to explain their ratings to their peers, resulting in more accurate evaluations.
The fact that board members agree on the rating given and that they have all seen the
applicant demonstrate the behaviours both contribute to the rigour of the process. The
board has to justify the rating based on concrete observations.
To reach consensus, going through the following seven steps is recommended. Note
that the interview board must assign a single group evaluation for each qualification.
Step 1- All members of the board review the definition of the first qualification to be
assessed and its behavioural indicators.
Step 2- Board members independently review their notes and determine which of the
behavioural indicators associated with the qualification under review were demonstrated
in the interview. They should record examples of the applicant's demonstration of the
behavioural indicators that reflect the scope and depth of their performance across the
interview.
Step 3- Each board member independently assesses the applicant on the qualification,
using an appropriate rating scale.
Step 4- The board members then discuss their individual assessments of the
qualification and determine a group evaluation for the applicant. This discussion
continues until a consensus is reached.
Step 5- The chair ensures that the final consensus evaluation is recorded. The rationale
for the evaluation is also recorded; examples of the behaviours that the applicant
demonstrated and the scope and depth to which the behaviours were demonstrated,
should be provided.
Step 6- Having reached consensus on the first qualification, the board then proceeds to
assess the remaining qualifications, in turn.
Step 7- The final consensus assessment, along with notes for the rationale, and
interview board notes, are kept in the applicant’s file.
The PSC Assessment Policy requires that deputy heads and their delegates ensure that
“the assessment is designed and implemented without bias, political influence or
37
personal favoritism and does not create systemic barriers”. Therefore, in their
evaluations, members of the board must make every effort possible to minimize the
potential for assessment errors and personal biases. Although assessment involves
judgment, there are ways to minimize this subjectivity and to maximize objectivity
throughout the process.
The success and value of the interview relies on the quality of the assessment process.
Assessment errors occur when an assessor’s evaluation is influenced by something
other than the information provided by the applicant during the interview.
Here is a list of common assessment errors, with suggestions on how to minimize these
errors. It is intended to help board members recognize and guard against them when
assessing applicants, thereby maximizing accuracy, consistency, and fairness.
First impressions: This is the tendency to let a first impression influence the
assessment of the applicant’s responses. Interviewers must be aware that they may
unconsciously judge an applicant positively or negatively from the outset, which may
result in them assessing the applicant according to their own beliefs, rather than
according to the applicant’s true performance on the qualifications being assessed.
Leniency and stringency: These errors involve the general tendencies for the
interviewer to consistently assess applicants high (leniency effect) or low (stringency
effect). Board members need to be aware that they might have a different understanding
of the requirement for the job, and the qualifications assessed and that they need to be
fair in assessing applicants.
Central tendency: In this case, interviewers may be reluctant to rate applicants high or
low, and end up rating all applicants as average. The middle points on the rating scale
are used, while avoiding the extreme points.
“Halo” and “horn” effects: These errors involve the tendency to allow one good (halo)
or bad (horn) response to influence the evaluation of all other responses of an applicant.
Board members need to monitor themselves when they are so impressed by an
applicant on one qualification that they attribute positive qualities for all other criteria
assessed, regardless of the evidence. Conversely, when an applicant does poorly in
one area, they may be under-rated in others.
Fatigue: As assessors become fatigued during a lengthy interviewing process, they can
become less consistent or less stringent in their note-taking, listening, or application of
the assessment criteria.
38
Stereotypes: This error occurs when an interviewer’s own personal biases and
preconceptions of a good employee influence the evaluation. Stereotyping is often based
on demographics such as sex, race, ethnicity, or age, but can also involve other
variables such as degree of education, politics, or interests. Board members must be
aware that their personal beliefs and perceptions of what is needed for the job may
impact their evaluations of applicants.
Similar-to-me: This error occurs when an applicant is given more favourable evaluations
than warranted because of a similarity to the interviewer in some way (e.g. race, sex,
age, attitudes or background). The reverse, dissimilar-to-me, can also occur where an
applicant is given less favourable evaluations than warranted, because of perceived
differences.
Interviews are not usually the only source of information about an applicant. Customarily,
there is the applicant’s résumé, which will include information about previous work
experience and educational background. Information may also be collected through
additional assessment instruments or methods such as work samples, simulations,
assessment centres, written tests, career achievement records or reference checks.
When collecting information from various sources, it is important to combine the
information systematically in order to arrive at a final appointment decision. Otherwise,
even when using valid selection instruments, combining the information haphazardly
may result in poor, inconsistent decision-making.
Informal discussion
Under the PSEA, informal discussion provides one mechanism through which applicants
who are eliminated from consideration for an appointment may discuss the reasons for
the decision with the hiring manager. For instance, applicants may request feedback
from a hiring manager on their performance in a structured interview. Should an
applicant request feedback, consideration needs to be given as to what information will
be shared and how feedback will be given. For information on the informal discussion
process, please refer to the Policy on Informal Discussion and the Guide to Implementing
the Informal Discussion Policy.
39
Applicants should be able to discuss any information pertaining to their candidacy that
would help them understand the decision for elimination. Participants in an informal
discussion would normally have access to any personal information gathered in the
appointment process. This information could include any factors that were taken into
account, including the merit criteria used, how the assessment was carried out and the
evaluation of that person. The information provided should relate only to the applicant
who is no longer being considered for appointment. Personal information about other
applicants must not be disclosed in the informal discussion.
As per the PSER, “the Commission shall not disclose a standardized test, or information
concerning a standardized test, owned by an organization or the Commission or that is
40
commercially available, if obtained in the course of an investigation under the Act,
unless it can be disclosed, with or without conditions set by the Commission, in a
manner that will not affect the validity or continued use of the standardized test or will
not affect the results of such a test by giving an unfair advantage to any person.” This
statement does not necessarily mean that standardized tests are exempt from
disclosure, but essentially requires that any disclosure must take place only under
conditions that ensure that the disclosure will not affect the validity or continued use of
the test.
In this situation, any feedback provided to applicants should be done without reference
to the protected content of the interview (e.g. the behavioural indicators assessed or the
Interview Assessment Booklet). It is best to outline the qualifications assessed and to
speak in general terms about the applicant’s performance on the qualifications. Do not
discuss the specifics of the interview questions, the applicant’s responses to specific
questions or the assessment of their responses to the questions.
41
Summary tips for practitioners
42
Giving feedback
Review the documentation regarding the person who was eliminated from
consideration.
Explain the decision relative to the candidate’s application and provide information
that will assist the person in understanding the decision.
Stay focussed on what is relevant to the discussion: the requirements of the position,
the merit criteria, how you assessed the qualifications, and why the person was
eliminated.
Listen to the person and provide an opportunity for them to explain any concerns
and present any supporting information.
Maintain a non-defensive and non-confrontational manner throughout the discussion.
Seek assistance if the issue is beyond what you are comfortable dealing with or if
the discussion goes beyond the decision to eliminate the person from the
appointment process.
Demonstrate a willingness to review a decision if an error was made.
Resolve issues, or at the very least, ensure that there is an understanding of the
decision.
Consider deferring a contentious discussion to allow time to reflect and to address
the issue at a later time, with assistance if necessary.
43
SECTION 5: EVALUATING THE INTERVIEW PROCESS
Once you have completed an appointment process, it is important to review and evaluate
the structured interview process and its outcomes to identify strengths and areas for
improvement. This review is especially important if it will be used for future
assessments. By evaluating the interview process, you can determine how it may need
to be adapted to ensure that it continues to fulfill your organization’s requirements,
thereby resulting in effective hiring decisions.
Questions to ask
Asking these questions and acting on the answers will help to ensure that the structured
interview remains relevant, useful, and legally defensible.
As part of the review, you may want to collect applicant and interviewer reactions to the
structured interview. For example, a survey can be used to assess applicants’ reactions
following the interview. Such a survey can assess applicants’ perceptions of the service
they received (e.g. the professionalism of the interview board), the content of the
interview questions, the interview process, and the perceived fairness of the process.
An applicant reaction survey, with a rating scale, may be designed so that the collected
data can be analyzed and interpreted easily. The meaning of each point on the scale
must be clear to ensure you collect accurate data. You may wish to include a neutral
response option on your rating scale. You may also need to include a “don’t know”
response option if there is a chance respondents might select a neutral response when
they really don’t know the answer. An example of an Applicant Reaction Questionnaire
is provided in Appendix E.
44
Conducting a validation study
The process outlined previously is not intended to be a formal validation of the structured
interview. A validation study is a rigorous statistical analysis of the interview and its
outcomes in order to demonstrate that it measures job-related criteria and predicts job
performance. A validation study can also assess the success and failure rates of an
organization’s hiring decisions. Furthermore, by scientifically identifying the factors that
predict job success and eliminating those that do not, validation studies can help improve
organizational decision-making.
Formal validation may not be feasible or cost-effective for low-volume jobs. However,
organizations should seriously consider validating their structured interviews for high-
volume jobs where the cost of validation will be more than justified by the increased
validity and defensibility of the interview. In fact, HR practitioners are increasingly
realizing the need for validation studies, because linking interview results to job
performance promotes both merit and equity in the hiring process.
45
SECTION 6: ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION
To learn more about best practices in structured interviewing, please consult the
Websites of the following professional associations:
46
Any Feedback?
A key objective of the Assessment Oversight Division of the PSC is to provide system-
wide, merit-sensitive assessment tools, as well as guidance and advice related to
personnel assessment in the public service. We would like your feedback on this Guide.
If you have any suggestions as to how the document can be improved to reflect the
needs of hiring organizations in the federal public service, please send these comments
to:
[email protected]
47
References
1
McDaniel, M. A., Whetzel, D. L., Schmidt, F. L., & Maurer, S. D. (1994). The validity of
employment interviews: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79, 599-616.
2
Weisner, W. H. & Cronshaw, S. F. (1988). A meta-analytic investigation of the impact of
interview format and degree of structure on the validity of the employment interview. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 61, 275-290.
3
Morrow, P. C. (1990). Physical attractiveness and selection decision making. Journal of
Management, 16, 45-60.
4
Dipboye, R. L. (1992). Selection Interviews: Process Perspectives. South-Western Educational
Publishing, Cincinnati, Ohio.
5
Graves, L. & Powell, G. (1996). Sex similarity, quality of the employment interview and
recruiters’ evaluation of actual applicants. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 69, 243-261.
6
Prewett-Livingston, A., Feild, H. S., Veres, J. G., & Lewis, P. M. (1984). Effects of race on
interview ratings in a situational panel interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 178-186.
7
Ulrich, L., & Trumbo, D. (1965). The selection interview since 1949. Psychological Bulletin, 63,
100-116.
8
Schmitt, N. (1976). Social and situational determinants of interview decisions: Implications for
the employment interview. Personnel Psychology, 29, 79-101.
9
Williamson, L. G., Campion, J. E., Malos, S. B., Roehling, M. V., & Campion, M. A. (1997).
Employment interview on trial: Linking interview structure with litigation outcomes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82(6), 900-912.
10
Terpstra, D. A., Mohamed, A. A., Kethley R. B. (1999). An analysis of federal court cases
involving nine selection devices. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 7(1), 26-34.
11
McDaniel, M. A., Whetzel, D. L., Schmidt, F. L., & Maurer, S. D. (1994). The validity of
employment interviews: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79, 599-616.
12
Lin, T., Dobbins, G. H., & Farh, J. (1992). A field study of race and age similarity effects on
interview ratings in conventional and situational interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology,
77(3), 363-371.
13
Howard, J. L., & Ferris, G. R. (1996). The employment interview context: Social and situational
influences on interviewer decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26 (2), 112–136.
14
Kohn, L. S., & Dipboye, R. L. (1998). The effects of interview structure on recruiting outcomes.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 821-843.
15
Schmitt, N., & Coyle, B. W. (1979). Applicant decisions in the employment interview. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 61, 184-192.
16
Pettersen, N.J. et Durivage A. (2006). L'entrevue structurée: pour améliorer la sélection du
personnel. Québec. Presses de l'Université du Québec.
48
17
Huffcutt, A. I., Conway, J. M., Roth, P. L., & Stone, N. J. (2001). Identification and meta-
analytic assessment of psychological constructs measured in employment interviews. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86(5), 897-913.
18
Ulrich, L., & Trumbo, D. (1965). The selection interview since 1949. Psychological Bulletin, 63,
100-116.
19
Gatewood, R. D., & Field, H. S. (2001). Human Resource Selection. Harcourt College
Publishers (p. 534).
20
Huffcutt, A. I., Conway, J. M., Roth, P. L., & Stone, N. J. (2001). Identification and meta-
analytic assessment of psychological constructs measured in employment interviews. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86(5), 897-913.
21
Maurer, S. D. (2002). A practitioner-based analysis of interviewer job expertise and scale
format as contextual factors in situational interviews. Personnel Psychology, 55(2), 307-327.
22
Sue-Chan, C., & Latham, G. P. (2004). The situational interview as a predictor of academic
and team performance: A study of the mediating effects of cognitive ability and emotional
intelligence. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 12 (4), 312–320.
23
Pulakos, E. D., & Schmitt, N. (1995). Experience-based and situational interview questions:
Studies of validity. Personnel Psychology, 48, 289-308.
24
Bosshardt, M. J. (1992). Situational interviews versus behavior description interviews: A
comparative validity study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, USA.
25
Pulakos, E. D., & Schmitt, N. (1995). Experienced-based and situational interview questions:
Studies of validity. Personnel Psychology, 48, 289-308.
26
Huffcutt, A. I., Conway, J. M., Roth, P. L., & Stone, N. J. (2001). Identification and meta-
analytic assessment of psychological constructs measured in employment interviews. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86(5), 897-913.
27
Pettersen, N.J. et Durivage A. (2006). L'entrevue structurée: pour améliorer la sélection du
personnel. Québec. Presses de l'Université du Québec.
28
Carlson, R. E. (1967). Selection interview decisions: The effect of interviewer experience,
relative quota situation, and applicant sample on interviewer decisions. Personnel Psychology,
20(3), 259-280.
29
Jacobs, R., & Baratta, J.E. (1989). Tools for staffing decisions: What can they do? What do
they cost? In W.F. Cascio (Ed.), Human Resource Planning, Employment and Placement.
Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.
30
Middendorf, C. H., & Macan, T. H. (2002). Note-taking in the employment interview: Effects on
recall and judgments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 293-303.
31
Pulakos, E. D. Schmitt, N., Whitney, D., & Smith, M. (1996). Individual differences in interview
ratings: The impact of standardization, consensus discussion, and sampling error of a structured
interview. Personnel Psychology, 49, 85-103.
32
Wiesner, W. H., & Cronshaw, S. F. (1988). A meta-analytic investigation of the impact of
interview format and degree of structure on the validity of the employment interview. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 61, 275-290.
49
Appendix A: Sample Interview Note-taking Booklet
This template, designed to assess the Key Leadership Competencies available on the
Canada Public Service Agency Website, may be adapted to suit any occupational group
or level and the specific needs of your organization. Adapt or replace the competencies
and choose the type and number of questions that are best suited to the position being
staffed. For instance, specific situational and behavioural questions will need to be
determined based on the occupational level and competencies being assessed.
INTERVIEW NOTE-TAKING BOOKLET
Applicant’s Name/ID #:
Date:
1.
2.
3.
Appendix A – page 1
Opening the interview – 3-5 minutes
Lead interviewer
• Begin the interview by welcoming and thanking the applicant for attending and
introduce the other board members.
• “As you know, we are here to interview you as part of the appointment process
…..”
• “You have already been given a copy of the questions and 30 minutes for
preparation.”
• “You may take notes if you like. We will collect the notes at the end of the
interview. You will not be assessed based on your notes.”
• “We will be taking notes throughout the interview, so we may not be able to
maintain eye contact with you, but we are listening.”
• “You may ask us to repeat the questions, but we must respect the 60-minute
interview duration.”
Appendix A – page 2
Key Leadership Competencies Definitions
Values & Ethics
Integrity & Respect
Public service (PS) leaders serve Canadians, ensuring integrity in personal and
organizational practices, and respect people and PS principles, including democratic,
professional, ethical, and people values. They build respectful, bilingual, diverse and
inclusive workplaces where decisions and transactions are transparent and fair. They
hold themselves, their employees and their organizations accountable for their actions.
Strategic Thinking
Analysis & Ideas
PS leaders advise and plan based on analysis of issues and trends and how these link
to the responsibilities, capabilities, and potential of their organization. They scan an
ever-changing, complex environment in anticipation of emerging crises and
opportunities. They develop well-informed advice and strategies that are sensitive to the
various needs of multiple stakeholders and partners, reflect the strategic direction of the
PS and position the organization for success.
Engagement
People, Organizations, Partners
PS leaders engage people, organizations and partners in developing goals, executing
plans and delivering results. They lay the groundwork by building coalitions with key
players. They mobilize teams, building momentum to get things done by communicating
clearly and consistently, investing time and energy to engage the whole organization.
They use their negotiation skills and adaptability to encourage recognition of joint
concerns and collaboration and to influence the success of outcomes. They follow and
lead across boundaries to engage broad-based stakeholders, partners and
constituencies in a shared agenda and strategy.
Management Excellence
Action Management, People Management, Financial Management
PS leaders deliver results by maximizing organizational effectiveness and sustainability.
They ensure that people have the support and tools they need, and that the workforce
as a whole has the capacity and diversity to meet current and longer-term organizational
objectives. They align people, work, and systems with the business strategy to
harmonize how they work and what they do. They implement rigorous and
comprehensive human and financial resources accountability systems consistent with
the Management Accountability Framework (MAF). They ensure that the integrity and
management of information and knowledge are a responsibility at all levels, and a key
factor in the design and execution of all policies and programs.
Appendix A – page 3
Question #1 (Engagement) – 8-10 minutes
Lead interviewer
Behavioural question:
Sub-questions:
• What was the situation?
• Who or what was involved?
• What did you say or do and why?
• What was the outcome?
Appendix A – page 4
Question #2 (Action Management and Strategic Thinking) – 8-10 minutes
Interviewer 2
Situational question:
Sub-questions:
• What would you do in this situation (being as specific as possible) and why?
• What factors would you consider?
• Who would you involve?
Appendix A – page 5
Question #3 (People Management) – 8-10 minutes
Interviewer 3
Behavioural question:
Sub-questions:
• What was the situation?
• Who or what was involved?
• What did you say or do and why?
• What was the outcome?
Appendix A – page 6
Question #4 (Financial Management) – 8-10 minutes
Interviewer 2
Situational question:
Sub-questions:
• What would you do in this situation (being as specific as possible) and why?
• What factors would you consider?
• Who would you involve?
Appendix A – page 7
Question #5 (Values & Ethics) – 8-10 minutes
Interviewer 3
Behavioural question:
Sub-questions:
• What was the situation?
• Who or what was involved?
• What did you say or do and why?
• What was the outcome?
Appendix A – page 8
Closing the interview – 3-5 minutes
Lead interviewer
• Ask if they have any questions regarding the interview or the process.
Appendix A – page 9
Appendix B: Sample Interview Assessment Booklet
This template, designed for the position of Assistant Deputy Minister, may be adapted to
suit any occupational group or level and the specific assessment needs of your
organization. Among the different proposed parts, choose those that are best suited to
the position that you are assessing. For instance, the behavioural indicators for the Key
Leadership Competencies can be replaced by the appropriate level of leadership by
copying and pasting the behaviours for each competency from the Key Leadership
Competencies Website. For other specific groups or levels, both the competencies and
behaviours can be replaced.
Note that this Assessment Booklet corresponds to the Note-taking Booklet presented in
Appendix A, for the related qualifications and questions.
INTERVIEW ASSESSMENT BOOKLET
Applicant’s Name/ID #:
Date:
1.
2.
3.
Appendix B – page 1
Assessment
To assess the applicant’s qualifications, the interview board members will need the
following:
After each interview, interview board members first assign an independent rating for the
first qualification assessed, for each applicant. The board then engages in a discussion
to determine a final consensus rating for that qualification and proceeds in the same
manner with the other qualifications, one at a time. The following seven steps are
recommended to assist the board in reaching a single consensus rating for each of the
competencies:
Step 1: All members of the board review the definition of the first qualification to be
assessed and its behavioural indicators.
Step 2: The board members independently review their notes and determine which of
the behavioural indicators associated with the qualification under review were
demonstrated in the interview. Board members should record examples of the applicant's
demonstration of the behavioural indicators.
Step 3: Each board member independently rates the applicant on the first qualification.
Step 4: The board members then discuss their individual ratings for that qualification,
with the goal of determining a single group rating for the applicant. This discussion
continues until a consensus is reached.
Step 5: The lead interviewer ensures that the final consensus rating is recorded on the
Final Rating Form. The rationale for the rating in terms of the behaviours that the
applicant did or did not demonstrate is also recorded.
Step 6: Having reached consensus on the first qualification, the board then proceeds to
rate the remaining competencies in turn.
Step 7: The final group ratings and notes for the rationale are documented in the
applicant’s file, along with the Interview Note-taking Booklets.
Assigning a rating
Appendix B – page 2
question targeting one qualification also provides behavioural evidence for another.
When deriving their qualification ratings, interview board members should use all the
behavioural evidence provided by the applicant, even if the evidence appears in
responses to questions targeting other competencies.
The scope of the behaviours refers to how many of the behaviours for the given
competencies were evident in the applicant’s responses.
The depth of the observed behaviours refers to how they were demonstrated. It may be
evaluated by the degree of complexity, soundness and precision with which the
behaviours were demonstrated by the applicant.
Here are some tips for the board to consider when evaluating the quality and breadth of
the information that has been gathered from the structured interview:
• Try not to place undue weight on isolated incidents. Rather, look for overall
patterns in the evidence. Also, consider the possibility that the applicant’s
performance may have been influenced by situational factors.
• Consider the quality of the provided information, especially if you suspect that
the applicant is not being entirely frank or if there is inconsistent information.
• Ensure that responses are weighted in the same way for all applicants.
• Document the behavioural examples that were gathered during the interview.
• Be aware of rater biases and common rater errors, such as central tendency
(see Common Assessment Errors).
Appendix B – page 3
Key Leadership Competencies Definitions
Values & Ethics
Integrity & Respect
Public service (PS) leaders serve Canadians, ensuring integrity in personal and
organizational practices, and respect people and PS principles, including democratic,
professional, ethical and people values. They build respectful, bilingual, diverse, and
inclusive workplaces where decisions and transactions are transparent and fair. They
hold themselves, their employees, and their organizations accountable for their actions.
Strategic Thinking
Analysis & Ideas
PS leaders advise and plan based on analysis of issues and trends and how these link
to the responsibilities, capabilities, and potential of their organization. They scan an
ever-changing, complex environment in anticipation of emerging crises and
opportunities. They develop well-informed advice and strategies that are sensitive to the
various needs of multiple stakeholders and partners, reflect the strategic direction of the
PS, and position the organization for success.
Engagement
People, Organizations, and Partners
Management Excellence
Action Management, People Management, and Financial Management
Appendix B – page 4
Values and Ethics- Integrity and Respect
Behavioural indicators (choose the indicators specific to the position):
Demonstrates Values and Ethics, including the Code, in personal behaviour
Integrates Values and Ethics, including the Code, into branch practices
Reflects a commitment to citizens and clients in own and branch activities
Provides fearless advice and acts with the courage of their convictions
Builds departmental/agency values into branch policies and programs
Builds and promotes a bilingual, diverse, inclusive branch, based on official language and employment equity
policies
Builds and promotes a safe, healthy, respectful branch, free of harassment and discrimination
Models transparency and fairness
Interview question(s): #5
Independent Rating
Does not meet the qualification Meets the qualification
Very Poor/ Poor/Below Average Moderate/Average Strong/Above Very
Unacceptable Average Strong/Excellent
1 2 3 4 5
Consensus Rating
Interviewer Interviewer Interviewer Consensus
1 2 3 Rating
/5 /5 /5 /5
Examples/Comments
Appendix B – page 5
Strategic Thinking- Analysis
Behavioural indicators (choose the indicators specific to the position):
Frames questions and analyses with a thorough understanding of legislation and the ADM role
Seeks DM, government, national, regional, global and technical perspectives on sector issues
Recognizes critical or sensitive issues and makes links to priorities
Distinguishes between critical and trivial factors in making judgments
Analyzes setbacks and seeks honest feedback to learn from mistakes
Interview question(s): #2
Independent Rating
Does not meet the qualification Meets the qualifications
Very Poor/ Poor/Below Average Moderate/Average Strong/Above Average Very
Unacceptable Strong/Excellent
1 2 3 4 5
Consensus Rating
Interviewer Interviewer Interviewer Consensus
1 2 3 Rating
/5 /5 /5 /5
Examples/Comments
Appendix B – page 6
Strategic Thinking- Ideas
Behavioural indicators (choose the indicators specific to the position):
Provides quality judgment and policy advice to the DM
Contributes to the elaboration of the collective/DM vision
Articulates the vision in terms of own mandate
Develops innovative solutions to non-traditional problems
Develops strategies to manage the scope and pace of change
Develops strategies that are effective in the short and longer term
Encourages constructive questioning of policies
Envisions possibilities without detailed information
Exercises sound professional judgment based on analysis and consultation, as needed
Teaches and learns from others
Interview question(s): #2
Independent Rating
Does not meet the qualification Meets the qualification
Very Poor/ Poor/Below Average Moderate/Average Strong/Above Very
Unacceptable Average Strong/Excellent
1 2 3 4 5
Consensus Rating
Interviewer Interviewer Interviewer Consensus
1 2 3 Rating
/5 /5 /5 /5
Examples/Comments
Appendix B – page 7
ENGAGEMENT — People, Organizations, Partners
Behavioural indicators (choose the indicators specific to the position):
Cultivates effective relationships and networks with central agencies, other organizations, clients, citizens, unions,
central and regional employees and other levels of government
Provides communication links up, down and throughout the organization and networks
Communicates with, and encourages, candour and clarity
Communicates and interprets external contexts to position branch, team and individual contributions
Demonstrates and elicits trust by seeking and providing honest and constructive feedback
Actively listens to and understands impact on others
Influences outcomes by negotiating win-win solutions and compromise and resolving conflict
Tailors approach to context, e.g., collaborative for consensus building, directive in crisis
Inspires a commitment to excellence by demonstrating passionate personal commitment
Works with the departmental/agency and PS-wide ADM community to deliver on shared objectives
Creates an open, positive environment to stimulate open discussion
Interview question(s): #1
Independent Rating
Does not meet the qualification Meets the qualification
Very Poor/ Unacceptable Poor/Below Moderate/Average Strong/Above Very
Average Average Strong/Excellent
1 2 3 4 5
Consensus Rating
Interviewer Interviewer Interviewer Consensus
1 2 3 Rating
/5 /5 /5 /5
Examples/Comments
Appendix B – page 8
Management Excellence— Action Management
Behavioural indicators (choose the indicators specific to the position):
Leads change that maximizes results in the branch, organizationally and in the sector
Acts as a steward for the entire department/agency, not just their own branch
Identifies and communicates priorities, milestones, timelines, performance measures, clear accountabilities and
performance agreements for DGs
Designs and manages a strategic risk management framework
Coordinates national and regional priorities, planning and performance
Aligns priorities and resources
Follows through on the branch business plan from planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating through to
reporting
Integrates comptrollership, MAF, federal legislation, regulations and policies into branch practices
Fulfils obligations of branch management accountabilities
Integrates HR, finance, IT, IM and communications issues into planning and actions
Revises goals and plans to reflect changing priorities or conditions Commits
to a course of action, if required, despite incomplete information Makes
decisions, initiates urgent actions and remains calm in crisis situations
Recognizes and acknowledges errors and makes corrections
Interview question(s): #2
Independent Rating
Does not meet the qualification Meets the qualification
Very Poor/ Poor/Below Average Moderate/Average Strong/Above Very
Unacceptable Average Strong/Excellent
1 2 3 4 5
Consensus Rating
Interviewer Interviewer Interviewer Consensus
1 2 3 Rating
/5 /5 /5 /5
Examples/Comments
Appendix B – page 9
Management Excellence— People Management
Behavioural indicators (choose the indicators specific to the position):
Develops HR strategy for succession planning
Creates expert teams to address specific or crisis issues
Sets clear expectations, monitors, evaluates, rewards and develops performance
Recognizes people’s accomplishments and best efforts
Gives honest feedback, encourages learning and manages non-performance
Deals with HR problems decisively and effectively
Recognizes the importance of and supports the DG community
Balances complementary strengths in teams
Builds leadership throughout the branch
Guides and develops people through appraisals, career planning and development
Consults with support services prior to changing HR protocols
Implements rigorous HR systems and fulfils obligations of HRM accountabilities
Interview question(s): #3
Independent Rating
Does not meet the qualification Meets the qualification
Very Poor/ Poor/Below Average Moderate/Average Strong/Above Very
Unacceptable Average Strong/Excellent
1 2 3 4 5
Consensus Rating
Interviewer Interviewer Interviewer Consensus
1 2 3 Rating
/5 /5 /5 /5
Examples/Comments
Appendix B – page 10
Management Excellence— Financial Management
Behavioural indicators (choose the indicators specific to the position):
Allocates resources transparently and establishes a culture of ongoing reallocation
Aligns business drivers with financial management regime
Promotes innovative approaches to deal with fiscal restraint
Integrates comptrollership processes and promotes due diligence
Reviews and reacts to the results of audits and evaluations
Continuously monitors performance and seeks efficiencies
Fulfils obligations of accountabilities for branch financial management
Provides objective, credible and timely reporting to the DM
Consults with support services prior to changing financial protocols
Interview question(s): #4
Independent Rating
Does not meet the qualification Meets the qualification
Very Poor/ Poor/Below Average Moderate/Average Strong/Above Very
Unacceptable Average Strong/Excellent
1 2 3 4 5
Consensus Rating
Interviewer Interviewer Interviewer Consensus
1 2 3 Rating
/5 /5 /5 /5
Examples/Comments
Appendix B – page 11
FINAL RATING SUMMARY
Applicant:
Date:
Interview board Name Signature
Interviewer 1:
Interviewer 2:
Interviewer 3:
Results
Engagement /5
Appendix B – page 12
Appendix C: Summary Checklist
Structured Interviewing in the Appointment Process
Before the interview
ˆ Determine the composition of the interview board:
o To the extent possible, ensure consistency of board members for all
interviews;
o Ensure that they are qualified and free from real or apparent conflicts of
interest or biases that may affect the outcome of the process;
o Determine whether an assessment expert would add precision and efficiency;
and
o Consider representation from employment equity groups.
ˆ Determine if all applicants will be interviewed or only those who are screened in
based on predetermined qualifications.
ˆ Determine the positioning of the interview in the appointment process.
ˆ Design an Interview Booklet:
o Identify and define, in behavioural terms, the qualifications to be assessed
based on the Statement of Merit Criteria;
o Determine the types of interview questions to be developed, such as
situational or behavioural, depending on collected events or challenges that
happen on the job; and
o Develop the structured interview questions:
ƒ Ensure all questions are job-related;
ƒ Avoid all prohibited or inappropriate topics;
ƒ Ensure questions require applicants to describe their own previous or
hypothetical behaviours in their responses; and
ƒ Ensure all questions are fair, free from bias and do not create any
barriers.
o Develop questions specifically for each qualification being assessed (although
one question may assess more than one qualification);
o Determine the number of questions to be asked in the interview – keeping
time constraints in mind – and the order in which they will be asked;
o Develop standardized probing/follow-up questions to ensure all necessary
details are elicited ; and
o Pre-test the interview questions to determine how much time will be needed,
whether the questions are clear and to assess the intended qualifications.
Appendix C – page 1
ˆ Develop assessment criteria:
o Consider the effective and ineffective behaviours (i.e., the good and the bad
answers to the questions);
o Determine if a rating scale will be used. If so, the type of scale and the
number of points on the scale must also be determined; and
o For each qualification, provide verbal descriptors of behaviours that define
various points on the rating scale (e.g., Very Strong, Strong, Moderate, Poor,
Very Poor) to anchor each point on the scale.
ˆ Develop the interview process:
o Introduction, instructions, time limit and conclusion; and
o Decide whether the applicants will be given time to prepare prior to the
interview.
ˆ Train all board members – ensure they are familiar with:
o The major duties and responsibilities of the position to staff;
o The qualification definitions and behavioural indicators to be assessed;
o The Guidelines for a Fair Assessment in a Diverse Workplace and the Guide
for Assessing Persons with Disabilities;
o How to build rapport with the applicants, ask questions, control the interview
and assess applicants’ performance on the qualifications;
o The importance of taking good notes and how to do so;
o The proper assessment procedure;
o Assessor biases and common assessment errors and how to avoid them; and
o How to arrive at a final board assessment and integrate results with other
information.
ˆ Contact the applicant prior to the interview:
o Provide the applicant with information on the format of the interview, the types
of questions that will be asked and the qualifications that will be assessed;
o Remind the applicant of his or her right to receive accommodation and
determine what is required, if anything; and
o Notify the applicant of the interview date and time and the expected duration
of the interview.
ˆ Ensure that the interview room will be well-lit and free from distractions.
ˆ Ensure all necessary materials are ready for the interview and ensure
accommodation is in place, if applicable.
ˆ Ensure board members meet at least 15 minutes before the first applicant arrives, to
discuss the interview format, if not already determined, appoint a lead interviewer
and determine which board members will ask what questions.
Appendix C – page 2
During the interview
ˆ Ensure water, pens/pencils and paper are available to the applicant.
ˆ If applicants are allotted time to prepare, provide them with a copy of the interview
questions and instructions, including the time allowed to prepare, in a private room
(supervised or not, depending on the nature of the questions).
ˆ The lead interviewer should greet the applicant, thank them for coming and introduce
the members of the interview board, and:
• Provide the applicant with a detailed explanation of the interview process;
• Ask the first interview question, including any necessary probes;
• Inform the applicant of the next steps in the appointment process; and,
• Thank the applicant, collect the questions and any notes and escort the
applicant out of the room.
ˆ All interviewers should:
• Not divulge the specific behavioural indicators being assessed by any question,
but respond to reasonable requests for clarification;
• Take detailed notes of the applicant’s responses throughout the interview.
• Record only what the applicant said or did;
• Ensure time limits are respected;
• When necessary, intervene to bring the applicant back on topic or to a
conclusion; and
• Allow the applicant to ask clarifying questions, while still respecting time limits.
Appendix C – page 3
o Ensure that responses are weighted in the same way for all applicants; and
o Be mindful of assessor biases and common assessor errors and take
precautions to reduce their effect on assessments.
‰ Board members discuss their individual assessments of a qualification and
determine a group assessment for the applicant. This discussion continues until a
consensus is reached.
‰ The consensus evaluation is recorded along with a rationale for the assessment in
terms of the specific behaviours that the applicant demonstrated.
‰ Proceed to assess the remaining qualifications, in turn.
‰ In the applicant’s file, document the final group assessments and notes for the
rationale.
‰ Once everyone has been assessed, integrate interview results with other tools and
ensure that the pattern of evidence and behaviour is consistent:
o If negative information is uncovered, consider its source and, to the extent
possible, verify its accuracy with other sources of assessment information
before making a decision about the applicant and
o If information is conflicting, continue checking until you are satisfied that a
pattern is evident.
‰ Determine whether applicants meet the qualifications and select the “right fit” for the
job.
‰ Ensure the entire appointment process has been documented from the beginning
through to the appointment of a person. Be sure to include the reasons for the
appointment decision.
‰ Make arrangements to provide feedback to applicants, if required. Feedback may be
provided through informal discussion:
o Obtain the appointment process file and review the documentation regarding
the person who was eliminated from consideration;
o Review the PSC Policy on Informal Discussion;
o Review the PSC Guide to Implementing the Informal Discussion Policy;
o Determine the official language to be used in the informal discussion and
whether any accommodation is required; and
o If necessary, consult with other persons involved in the appointment process
(e.g. other assessment board members, the HR advisor, etc.)
‰ Review the documentation regarding the person who was eliminated from
consideration.
‰ Explain the appointment decision and provide information that will assist the person
in understanding the decision.
Appendix C – page 4
‰ Stay focussed on what is relevant to the discussion: the requirements of the position,
the merit criteria, how you assessed the qualifications and why the person was
eliminated.
‰ Listen to the person and provide them opportunity to explain any concerns and
present any supporting information.
‰ Maintain a non-defensive and non-confrontational manner throughout the discussion.
‰ Seek assistance if the issue is beyond what you are comfortable dealing with or if the
discussion goes beyond the decision to eliminate the person from the appointment
process.
‰ Demonstrate a willingness to review a decision if an error was made.
‰ Consider deferring a contentious or heated discussion in order to allow time to reflect
and to address the issue at a later time and with assistance, if necessary.
Appendix C – page 5
Appendix D: Applicant Reaction Questionnaire
We would appreciate you taking a few minutes of your time to complete this questionnaire. Your
responses and personal comments are an important source of information for monitoring and improving
our service.
Completion of the questionnaire is voluntary. Your individual responses will be treated as confidential. Any
reports based on this information will be in aggregate form only. Thank you for taking the time to complete
this questionnaire.
For each question, please circle the number that best corresponds to your response.
To a considerable
To a great extent
To some extent
To an average
Not at all
extent
extent
In your opinion, to what extent:
Appendix D – page 1
Perceived fairness of the interview
To a considerable
To a great extent
To some extent
To an average
Don’t know
Not at all
extent
extent
In your opinion, to what extent do you believe that you:
Duration of interview:
Other:
Appendix D – page 2
Structured Interviewing:
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 3
SECTION 1: THE STRUCTURED INTERVIEW ........................................................................................... 4
STRUCTURED VERSUS UNSTRUCTURED INTERVIEWS ..................................................................................... 4
TYPES OF INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ................................................................................................................. 4
OVERVIEW OF THE INTERVIEW PROCESS ....................................................................................................... 6
SECTION 2: CONDUCTING THE INTERVIEW ............................................................................................ 7
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INTERVIEW BOARD ................................................................................................ 7
PREPARING FOR THE INTERVIEW ................................................................................................................... 8
THE ARRIVAL OF THE APPLICANT .................................................................................................................. 8
INITIATING THE INTERVIEW ............................................................................................................................ 9
ASKING QUESTIONS ................................................................................................................................... 10
PROBING ................................................................................................................................................... 10
CONTROLLING THE INTERVIEW .................................................................................................................... 12
NOTE-TAKING ............................................................................................................................................ 12
CLOSING THE INTERVIEW ............................................................................................................................ 13
SECTION 3: ASSESSING THE QUALIFICATIONS ................................................................................... 14
SECTION 4: COMMON ASSESSMENT ERRORS..................................................................................... 16
FOR MORE INFORMATION ....................................................................................................................... 18
2
INTRODUCTION
Employment interviews are one of the most widely used and influential assessment tools
in the appointment process. They are a significant source of information on which to
base fair and accurate hiring decisions. Therefore, it is critical that interview boards use
the structured interview effectively to ensure that hiring decisions are based on merit as
defined by the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA).
This document provides interview board members with instructions on how to conduct
structured interviews. The ultimate goal is to enhance the quality of the information
gathered while strengthening the fairness and defensibility of this part of the assessment
process.
We strongly recommend that the practices outlined in this Guide be followed by all
interview board members to help ensure a fair and equitable interview process. In
addition, the interested reader may wish to review Structured Interviewing: How to
Design and Conduct Structured Interviews in the Appointment Process for more
information on developing and conducting structured interviews.
3
SECTION 1: THE STRUCTURED INTERVIEW
Research shows that structured interviews are more effective than unstructured ones for
predicting on-the-job performance.
Unstructured interviews are more likely to be less accurate and reliable, are more
subject to bias and may expose employers to complaints and legal challenges.
Situational questions
Situational questions present applicants with a hypothetical situation relevant to the
position and ask how they would respond.
The situational interview question is based on the premise that people’s intentions are
predictive of their future behaviour. The applicant is asked to respond by indicating how
4
they would handle the issue presented in the question, given the resources and the job
context outlined.
Behavioural questions
Applicants are asked to describe a previous work or life event that is relevant to the job
in question. It is usually about a time when they had to demonstrate a particular
qualification that is key for the job.
The underlying assumption of behavioural questions is that the best predictor of future
performance is past performance in similar situations. Thus, their purpose is to evaluate
the applicant’s past behaviour for evidence that the relevant qualifications have been
demonstrated. Behavioural questions are usually straightforward.
5
Overview of the interview process
Preparing for the interview includes: reviewing all available information regarding the
position, the Statement of Merit Criteria and the questions that will be asked and
determining who is going to do what and in what order. It also involves making sure that
the required material, such as interview booklets and assessment guides, are ready and
ensuring that the interview room is adequate and that the applicant will receive the
necessary instructions upon arrival. The interview protocol must be followed if applicants
are to be given time to prepare for the questions prior to the interview.
The main portion of the interview begins with a warm-up period during which the lead
interviewer sets the applicant at ease and establishes a rapport. This part of the
interview is important because it ensures that the applicant has the best opportunity to
demonstrate their qualifications.
During the interview, the lead interviewer should be responsible for the following:
• opening the interview;
• asking a certain number of the predetermined questions; and
• closing the interview.
Each board member may be in charge of asking specific questions. Each question is to
be read aloud, as is each follow-up question, as required.
All interviews should follow the same precise timing for providing instructions,
preparation time, the “warm-up” portion of the interview and the interview questions
themselves. All board members should be taking notes throughout the interview.
Once the interview is finished, board members are to assess the applicant’s responses
and reach consensus on a final evaluation on each qualification. These evaluations
must be documented.
6
SECTION 2: CONDUCTING THE INTERVIEW
A board interview is one that is administered by two or more individuals, usually the
hiring manager and other people who are knowledgeable about the job. Using more
than one interviewer is preferred for the following reasons:
− An interview board can reduce the impact that personal biases may have on the
selection decision;
− Multiple interviewers may capture information that a single interviewer might miss or
overlook, thus ensuring a more balanced, complete picture of the applicant; and
− Additional interviewers can bring demographic diversity to the interview board, which
can make applicants more comfortable during the interview process and more
accepting of the outcome.
To the extent possible, it is important to use the same interviewers for all applicants in a
given appointment process. This practice increases consistency and standardization of
the assessment.
− Be familiar with the structured interview process and the merit criteria that will be
assessed;
− Objectively assess applicants and treat them all equally;
− Be free from real or apparent conflicts of interest that may affect the outcome of the
process;
− Be qualified in the language of the applicant’s choice, in order for effective
communication;
− Collect, integrate and document assessment information; and
− Provide feedback to the applicants and/or participate in informal discussions, as
required.
In addition, interview board members might be asked to develop questions, answer keys
and parts of the interview process such as the standardized introduction and conclusion,
the time limit and sequence of questions.
7
Preparing for the interview
Here are a some recommendations that will help the interview board prepare for the
interview:
1. Know the major duties and responsibilities of the job, as well as the definitions of
the qualifications and assessed behavioural indicators.
2. Receive adequate training and be familiar with this Guide. For considerations
such as employment equity, consult the Guidelines on Fair Assessment.
3. Assign one member of the interview board to the role of lead interviewer.
4. Determine the order of the questions as well as who is expected to ask each one.
Ensure a relatively equal division of questions among the board members.
5. Ensure that any required accommodation for applicants with disabilities has been
made. For more information, consult the Guide for Assessing Persons with
Disabilities.
6. Know the interview schedule. Ensure that enough time has been allotted to greet
the applicant, conduct the interview, thank the applicant, complete notes and
assess the qualifications and allow for a break, if required, before proceeding to
the next applicant.
7. Arrive plenty of time in advance to ensure that all preparations have been made.
These preparations include, but are not limited to, ensuring that the room is well-
lit and free from noise and other distractions, water, pens/pencils and paper are
provided, etc.
Each board member should have an Interview Note-taking Booklet and an Interview
Assessment Booklet for each applicant.
The Interview Note-taking Booklet contains detailed information about the interview
process, including:
• the applicant’s name or identification number;
• the board members’ names;
8
• the date of the interview;
• the information relevant to the introduction;
• the structured interview questions;
• reserved spaces for note-taking; and
• information regarding the conclusion of the interview.
The Interview Assessment Booklet contains the assessed qualifications and
behavioural indicators, as well as rating scales (if applicable), and is used to record
the assessment of the applicants.
As with any selection interview, it is important to begin the interview in an informal and
friendly manner to help put the applicant at ease. This is a particularly important step
since an interview can be a stressful experience for some applicants. This informal
dialogue may make the applicant more amenable to being open, frank and transparent
in providing personal information.
The lead interviewer should begin by welcoming the applicant, thanking them for
attending and introducing the other board members. Then, an introduction to the
structured interview should be provided, covering the following points:
− Welcoming remarks;
− That the board members will take turns asking questions and all will take notes. Even
though they may not be making eye contact, they are listening;
− That the applicant will have the opportunity to ask questions at the completion of the
formal interview questions; and
A script that outlines the points to be covered when initiating the interview is included in
the Interview Note-taking Booklet.
9
Asking questions
Here are some important points to consider when asking questions to applicants:
− Make sure applicants have their copy of the interview questions and ask them to
follow along;
− Be sure to read each question aloud to the applicant slowly and clearly;
− To the extent possible, ask each board member to ask the same questions, in the
same order, to all applicants in a given appointment process; and
− Respond to reasonable requests for clarification of a question. Do not divulge the
specific behavioural indicators being assessed by any question since doing so could
lead the applicant’s response, thus giving an unfair advantage.
Probing
The board may need to request additional examples or more specific details to more
fully understand the applicant’s answers. Asking probing or follow-up questions is a
necessary component of the interview as doing so helps to ensure that sufficient data is
obtained for all qualifications being assessed. However, do not introduce new topics or
issues when probing because the structured interview is intended to ask the same
questions of each applicant. Probing questions should be standardized; otherwise you
may inadvertently give an advantage to some applicants, while disadvantaging others.
Do not to reveal the behavioural indicators of interest to the applicant through probing
questions.
To ensure standardization for each question, read the question and the follow-up
questions verbatim as they are written in the Interview Booklet.
Applicant responses are likely to vary in length and level of detail, which is acceptable
as long as enough information to assess each qualification fairly and accurately is
obtained. However, if any of the scenarios listed below occur, the suggested probing
questions may be used to ensure that sufficient information is obtained or to get the
applicant back on track.
10
SUGGESTED PROBES
Applicant Board
Asks for clarification on a question. Î Repeat the question, no explanation
or paraphrasing.
Responses are too brief and there is Î “Do you have anything to add to your
still plenty of time left at the end of the responses to any question?”
interview.
Speaks more about a team (e.g., Î “What was your individual role in this
uses “we” instead of “I”). situation?”
Jumps to the end of the story (the Î “Tell us what you did to achieve this
result). result.”
11
Controlling the interview
While it is important to ensure that you have the information that you need from the
applicant’s responses, time limits must also be considered. Some applicants may be
quite verbose. If this is the case, time may expire before all qualifications are addressed
and the board will not have extracted all of the necessary information to evaluate the
applicant. It is essential, therefore, to control the flow of the interview.
Although the interview is designed to allow the applicant to do most of the talking, the
board members must judge whether or not the applicant is providing information
relevant to the qualifications. When the applicant is providing redundant or irrelevant
information, there may be a need to interrupt the individual to help bring their response
to a conclusion.
Note-taking
Taking detailed and comprehensive notes is an extremely important element of the
interview process for two reasons:
1. Notes help the board capture and recall the content of the interview and
accurately assess the applicant’s responses. Without notes, there may be a
tendency to selectively recall the applicant’s strengths and weaknesses, or be
unable to recall the responses at all.
A number of essential steps can be taken to maximize the utility of notes. Specifically,
notes should be:
12
Closing the interview
It is recommended that an explicit conclusion be provided at the end of the interview. A
number of points may be covered by the lead interviewer to bring the meeting to an end.
Specifically, the lead interviewer should:
− Provide an opportunity for the applicant to ask questions and for the board to
respond;
− Explain the next steps in the appointment process and the approximate time frame;
− Remind the applicant not to discuss the interview questions with anyone; and
− Thank the applicant for participating in the interview and escort them out of the room.
The interview questions and related documents, as well as the applicant’s responses,
are protected materials and should be handled and stored according to
departmental/agency guidelines.
13
Section 3: ASSESSING THE QUALIFICATIONS
After each interview, it is recommended that the board assess the qualifications of the
applicant prior to moving on to the next interview. Board members then have an
opportunity to discuss the observations they made during the interview and to arrive at a
consensus regarding each applicant’s performance.
For this exercise, the interview board members will need the following:
− Notes taken during the interview in the Interview Note-taking Booklet.
− The Interview Assessment Booklet, which includes the qualifications and effective
behavioural indicators or expected answers.
Each of the interview questions is designed to assess one or more qualifications.
However, during the interview, it may be observed that an applicant’s response to a
question targeting one qualification also provides behavioural evidence for another one.
When making their assessments, interview board members should use all of the
behavioural evidence provided by the applicant, even if it appears in responses to
questions targeting other qualifications.
ENGAGEMENT
Effective behavioural indicators
14
The purpose of the rating scale is to assess the demonstration of:
The scope of the behaviours is the primary consideration and refers to how many of the
behaviours for a given qualification were evident in the applicant’s responses.
The depth of the observed behaviours refers to how these behaviours were
demonstrated. It may be evaluated by the degree of complexity, soundness and
precision with which the behaviours were demonstrated in the applicant’s responses.
The interview board must agree and assign a single assessment for each qualification.
The following seven steps are recommended to assist the board in reaching consensus:
Step 1: All members of the board review the definition of the first qualification to be
assessed and its behavioural indicators.
Step 2: For the first qualification, the board members independently review their notes
and determine which of the behavioural indicators associated with the qualification
under review were demonstrated by the applicant. Board members should record
examples of the applicant's demonstration of the behavioural indicators that reflect the
scope and depth with which they were demonstrated..
Step 3: Each board member independently assesses the applicant on the first
qualification.
Step 4: The board members then discuss their individual assessments of that
qualification and determine a single group evaluation for the applicant. This discussion
continues until a consensus is reached.
Step 5: The final consensus assessment is recorded. The rationale for the evaluation is
also recorded in terms of examples of the behaviours that the applicant demonstrated,
along with the scope and depth to which the behaviours were demonstrated.
Step 6: Having reached consensus on the first qualification, the board then proceeds to
assess the remaining qualifications in turn.
Step 7: The final group assessments and notes for the rationale along with the interview
board notes are kept in the applicant’s file.
15
SECTION 4: COMMON ASSESSMENT ERRORS
Assessment is a difficult and delicate process, yet the success and value of the
interview relies on the quality of this process. The following is a list of common
assessment errors with suggestions on how to minimize them. This list is intended to
help board members recognize and guard against these errors when assessing
applicants, thereby maximizing the accuracy, consistency and fairness of their
assessments.
First impressions: This is the tendency to let a first impression influence the
assessment of the applicant’s responses. Interviewers must be aware that they may
unconsciously judge an applicant positively or negatively from the outset, which may
result in an assessment of the applicant according to their own beliefs rather than
according to the applicant’s true performance on the qualifications being assessed.
Leniency and stringency: These errors involve the general tendencies to assess
applicants consistently high (leniency effect) or low (stringency effect). Board members
need to be aware that they might have a different understanding of the requirements for
the job and the assessed qualifications, but also that they need to be fair in assessing
applicants. The result is that the interviewer consistently assesses all applicants either
higher or lower than warranted.
Central tendency: This is the tendency to use only the middle points on a rating scale
and avoiding the extreme points. Interviewers may be reluctant to rate applicants high or
low and, therefore, end up rating all applicants as average and not differentiating among
them.
“Halo” and “horn” effects: These errors involve the tendency to allow one good (halo)
or bad (horn) characteristic of an applicant or qualification influence the evaluation of all
other qualifications. Board members need to monitor themselves when they are so
impressed by an applicant on one qualification so that they do not attribute positive
qualities for all other criteria regardless of the evidence provided. Conversely, when an
applicant does poorly in one area, they may be under-rated in other assessed areas.
Fatigue: This is the tendency for assessors, as they become fatigued during a lengthy
interviewing process, to become less consistent or less stringent in their note-taking,
listening or application of the assessment criteria.
16
Stereotypes: This is an error that occurs when an interviewer’s own personal biases
and preconceptions of a good employee influence their evaluation. Stereotyping is often
based on demographics such as sex, race, ethnicity or age, but can also involve other
variables such as degree of education, politics or interests. Board members must be
aware that their personal beliefs and perceptions of what is needed for the job may
affect their evaluation of applicants, even those who are equally qualified for the job.
Similar-to-me: This error occurs when an applicant is given more favorable evaluations
than warranted because of a similarity with the interviewer in some way (e.g., race, sex,
age, attitudes or background). The reverse, dissimilar-to-me, can also occur where an
applicant is given less favorable evaluations than warranted due to a difference in one or
more of these areas.
17
For more information
Comments?
18
Designing and Conducting
Structured Interviews:
An Overview
Train-the-Traineur Presentation
2
Competency-Based
Interviewing
3
Appointments in the Public
Service
The Public Service Commission's Appointment Framework
states that appointments to the public service must uphold the
core values of merit and non- partisanship and the guiding
values of staffing: access, fairness, representativeness and
transparency.
4
Competency-Based
Assessment
The structured interview can be used to assess the
qualifications required to perform a job.
5
Behavioural Indicators
Behavioural indicators (BIs) translate the definition of a
qualification into operational or concrete examples of
what persons who possess the qualification actually do
or how they behave.
6
Example Qualification
Definition and Behavioural
Indicators
Values and Ethics – Serving Through Integrity and Respect
Behavioural indicators
7
The Structured Interview
An interview is a meeting between the board
consisting of two or more persons and an
applicant seeking appointment to a job.
8
Interview Characteristics
Unstructured Structured
No systematic analysis of Based on a thorough
job requirements understanding and
articulation of job
Applicants are asked requirements
different questions in a
disorganized manner All candidates are asked
the same questions, in the
The questions are not same order
always job-related
Questions are job-related
Answers are not scored in a and competency-based
systematic way
Answers are scored in a
The interview board doesn’t systematic way
formally prepare
The interview board is
trained in how to conduct
structured interviews
9
Why use Structured
Interviews?
10
Designing a
Structured Interview
11
Designing a Structured
Interview
Step 1: Review job analysis and Statement of
Merit Criteria
12
1. Review Job Analysis and
Statement of Merit Criteria
13
2. Develop Questions
Types of questions
14
Behavioural Questions
The premise of this type of question is that past
behaviour is the best predictor of future
behaviour.
– The outcome
15
Example of a Behavioural
Question
16
Situational Questions
Applicants are asked what they would do in a
hypothetical, job-related situation. The premise of
this type of question is that stated intentions
predict future behaviour.
Responses sought:
17
Example of a Situational
Question
Example - to assess teamwork
18
Knowledge Questions
Responses sought:
19
Example of a Knowledge
Question
20
Question Development
21
Sample Follow-up Questions
22
Question Development, Cont’d
23
Appropriate Interview
Questions
24
Exercise
Instructions: Read each item as though you were conducting an
interview. Ask yourself, “May I ask this question?” Check those
you feel are not appropriate.
‰ 1. How many children do you have?
‰ 2. Do you plan to start a family soon?
‰ 3. This job frequently requires overtime work. Would this be
a problem for you?
‰ 4. What language do you speak at home?
‰ 5. Were you born in this country?
‰ 6. Are you a Canadian citizen?
‰ 7. Do you live with relatives?
‰ 8. What health problems do you have?
‰ 9. Are you capable of performing the essential
responsibilities of the job?
‰ 10. Have you ever been convicted of a crime?
‰ 11. What clubs or organizations do you belong to?
‰ 12. Have you ever had trouble obtaining credit?
‰ 13. That’s an unusual name. What nationality is it?
‰ 14. Do you own your own home or are you renting?
‰ 15. Are you married?
‰ 16. This job requires a lot of heavy lifting. Do you think you
can do it?
‰ 17. What is your church affiliation?
25
Exercise
Identify which questions would provide fair, meritorious
assessment:
‰ What are your strengths and weaknesses?
26
Exercise – Answers
: What are your strengths and weaknesses?
27
Exercise – Answers, Cont’d
; Suppose you had an idea for a change in work procedures
that would enhance efficiency, but some of your team
members were against this change. What would you do?
28
Exercise – Answers, Cont’d
: If you had the opportunity to do the last 10 years of your
career over again, what would you do differently?
29
Competency Assessment
30
3. Developing the Assessment
Criteria
31
Rating Scale Development
Each qualification to be assessed using the pre-
established rating scale - with clear criteria
32
Sample Rating Scale
STRATEGIC THINKING – ANALYSIS
Behavioural Indicators:
1. Coordinates information from multiple projects to form
a comprehensive perspective
2. Identifies interdependencies across unit projects
3. Analyzes setbacks and seeks honest feedback to
learn from mistakes
33
Interview Protocol
• It should be decided whether applicants will have
time to prepare with the interview questions on-
site before meeting with the board members.
The amount of time given must be the same for
each applicant.
34
Conducting a
Structured Interview
35
Conducting a Structured
Interview
1. Preparation
5. Note-taking
36
1. Preparing for the
Interview
– Interview schedule
37
Preparing for the Interview,
Cont’d
38
2. Arrival of Applicant
Members of the interview board should arrive in
plenty of time to prepare and set up prior to the
applicant’s arrival.
39
Initiating the Interview
40
3. Asking Interview Questions
41
Asking Interview Questions,
Cont’d
42
Asking Interview Questions,
Cont’d
43
4. Controlling the Interview
44
5. Note-Taking
All interviewers take notes – important for
reliability.
– Situation
– Actions taken
– Results
45
Note-Taking, Cont’d
Two-stage process:
46
6. Closing the Interview
47
7. Assessment of
Qualifications
48
Assessment of Qualifications,
Cont’d
The interview board members will need the
following:
49
Assessment of Qualifications,
Cont’d
50
Assessment of Qualifications,
Cont’d
When assessing the qualifications, use all of the
behavioural evidence provided, even if it appears
in responses to questions targeting other
qualifications.
51
The Evaluation Process
52
Assessment Errors
The process of assessment is a difficult and
delicate job, yet the success and value of the
interview hinges on the quality of these ratings.
53
Common Assessment Errors
• First Impressions: Unconsciously, you may judge an
applicant positively or negatively from the outset, resulting in
an assessment of the applicant according to your own beliefs
rather than according to the qualifications required for the job
and their true performance.
• Leniency and Stringency: These are the general
tendencies to assess applicants consistently high (leniency
effect) or low (stringency effect). The understanding of the
requirements for the job and the qualifications assessed may
differ from one assessor to another. The assessment needs
to be fair to all applicants. The result of this error is that the
assessment of applicants is either higher or lower than
warranted.
• Central Tendency: This is the tendency to use only the
middle points of the rating scale, while avoiding the extreme
points. You may be reluctant to rate applicants high or low
and, therefore, rate all applicants as average, not
differentiating among them.
• “Halo” and “Horn” Effects: These errors involve the
tendency to allow one good (halo) or bad (horn)
characteristic or qualification influence the evaluation of all
other qualifications of an applicant. Board members need to
monitor themselves when they are so impressed by an
applicant on one qualification so that they do not attribute
positive qualities for all other criteria regardless of the
evidence provided. Conversely, when an applicant does
poorly in one area, they may be under-rated in other
assessed areas.
54
Common Assessment Errors,
Cont’d
• Contrast Effect: This is the tendency to assess an applicant
relative to the performance of a previous applicant instead of
using the assessment guide. You have to be aware that you
might encounter applicants who will stand out, positively or
negatively, and that subsequent applicants may be under- or
over-assessed as a result.
• Fatigue: This is the tendency among board members to
become fatigued during a lengthy interviewing process and
to become less consistent or less stringent in their note-
taking, listening or application of the assessment criteria.
• Stereotypes: This is an error that occurs when your own
personal biases and preconceptions of a good employee
influence your evaluations. Stereotyping is often based on
demographics such as sex, race, ethnicity or age, but can
also involve other variables such as degree of education,
politics or interests. You must be aware that personal beliefs
and perceptions of what is needed for the job may affect
evaluations of applicants.
• Similar-to-me: This error occurs when an applicant is given
more favourable evaluations than warranted because they
are similar to the interviewer in some way (e.g., race, sex,
age, attitudes or background). The reverse, dissimilar-to-me,
can also occur where an applicant is given less favourable
evaluations than warranted because of perceived
differences.
55
Tips to Minimize Assessment
Errors
Train all interviewers on how to assess applicants.
56
Useful Resources
• Structured Interviewing: How to Design and
Conduct Structured Interviews for an
Appointment Process
57