Structure beats gut feeling: Why a methodical interview approach leads to better results.
Introduction
A selection process is more than just a conversation – it’s a decision-making process that significantly impacts both careers and companies. That’s why interviews must be conducted professionally and evaluated fairly. But what happens when unconscious biases, selective perception, or flawed standards influence this process? In the second part of this series, we explore specific strategies to counter bias in interviews – and show how a structured approach leads to more fairness and confidence in decision-making.
Separation of observation and interpretation – observing behaviour instead of assuming
Our perception is selective. This is demonstrated by experiments such as the ‘Monkey Business Illusion’: when we focus on one task, we block out other stimuli. This is exactly what happens in a job interview: we perceive what we expect or what we are particularly sensitive to. Depending on your focus, certain behaviours become visible and others go unnoticed. Preconceptions control perception and thus distort objectivity.
Preconceptions control perception and distort objectivity.
The distinction between observation and interpretation is of central importance. Observation means recording what was actually said, done or shown. Interpretation, on the other hand, describes the meaning you attribute to what was said, the appearance or the behaviour. This is precisely where the danger lies: those who interpret too hastily run the risk of overlooking important information or distorting it with their own assumptions.
Behaviour must be observed, not interpreted. Those who interpret too hastily run the risk of overlooking important information or distorting it with their own assumptions.
Separation of observation and assessment
interviewprozess.jpg
Structure your interview process so that you observe, perceive and document during the interview. Continuous note-taking ensures that all relevant information is recorded. The assessment should only take place after the interview – ideally in a group of observers and in line with the previously defined requirements.
During the interview, you observe, perceive and document. Only after the interview do you assess and evaluate.
Creating structures: quality criteria for interviews
Structure is necessary to ensure that observations made during interviews are reliable. Interviews are often the only opportunity to observe behaviour directly. This makes it all the more important to ask the right questions. Use behaviour-oriented questions that encourage candidates to talk about specific professional situations. Ask them to describe how they resolved a conflict, managed a project or led a team. Ask about motivations and decision-making processes and reflect on them together with the candidate. This will give you deeper insights into actual behaviour – and enable you to better see through superficially appealing, socially desirable answers.
Pay attention to the following quality criteria during the interview:
- Relevance to requirements: only observe what is relevant to the role
- Structure and systematic approach: uniform interview guide, standardised questions
- Avoidance of assessment bias: be aware of typical perception errors and discuss them in advance with the interview team
- Multiple-eyes principle: observation by several people
- Assessment grid: uniform scales for structured assessment enhances comparability and traceability
Role and responsibility of observers in the selection process
Observe, perceive and document – these are the three steps during the interview. The observers only make their assessment afterwards. This makes the role of the observers particularly important. Their task is to document their observations as precisely as possible. For example, if a candidate describes how they resolved a conflict, managed a project or led a team, the observers should note down precisely these specific actions and statements. Instead of vague judgements such as ‘has a good presence’ or ‘appears confident’, it is important to document precise descriptions of behaviour – for example, ‘actively responds to others’ objections and seeks solutions’ or ‘presents a schedule with clear milestones at the start of the project’. This allows the observations to be objectively classified afterwards and compared with the requirements profile.
This creates a process in which observation and evaluation are clearly separated. Observers provide the basis for a fair decision by describing what they see and hear – not what they interpret. In this way, objectivity is not left to chance but is consciously ensured.
What it means for candidates: “Tangible situations instead of empty phrases”
Candidates themselves can also help to convey a clearer picture. Those who think in advance about specific situations that demonstrate their skills can make their behaviour tangible. Instead of general statements such as ‘I am a team player’, examples are more convincing: ‘In my last project, I structured the team meetings so that everyone had a say and we could make decisions together.’ Such descriptions not only help observers to distinguish between observation and interpretation but also give candidates themselves more control over the image that emerges in the interview.
In the age of video interviews, it is also important to pay attention to technical equipment – camera settings, room conditions, sound quality or delays in transmission can unconsciously distort a candidate’s image. In addition, non-verbal signals are more difficult to perceive in a digital format. This makes it all the more important to ensure good technical quality, neutral conditions and a clear structure.
If you think in advance about specific situations that demonstrate your skills, you can make your behaviour tangible.
Corporate practice: added value with professionalism
For companies, consciously addressing bias and observation errors not only means greater fairness and certainty in hiring decisions, but also a better candidate experience, as constructive feedback can be provided to justify the decision. Sweeping statements such as ‘You are not a team player’ or ‘You seem to shy away from conflict’ are not very constructive, as they are open to interpretation and unhelpful. If, on the other hand, observations are precisely documented and clearly separated from interpretations, feedback can be conveyed in a concrete, comprehensible and appreciative manner. It is better to refer to specific situations: ‘In your description of your project experience, you mainly described your own work steps, while collaboration with the team remained rather in the background.’ Or: ‘In the role simulation, you did not initially address your counterpart’s objections – this came across as rather cautious in dealing with conflicts.’ This increases acceptance of the decision and at the same time supports the further development of the candidates.
Conclusion: fairness needs a system
A successful and transparent selection process that highlights strengths and reduces bias is only possible if observation and interpretation are clearly separated, structured procedures are in place, and assessment takes place afterwards. Observers bear responsibility by accurately documenting what was said and shown, rather than recording impressions or assumptions. Candidates, in turn, can contribute to a clearer picture by providing specific examples instead of general platitudes. This allows companies to benefit from better decisions and candidates from transparent feedback.
As an established HR consultant firm, TRESCON supports clients in precisely this way – with a systematic approach, experience and diagnostic expertise.
Article written by Nicole Handschuh, MA, CFR Global Executive Search Austria
Photos: TRESCON, shutterstock