[IPAC-List] Using a combination of interview media

RPClare at aol.com RPClare at aol.com
Wed Mar 13 16:48:58 EDT 2013

If we have not determined the need for other than specific responses to
questions presented, there is no need to ever see the candidate until hired.
The use of costly interviews, however conducted, for positions that do not
consider abilities that are less objectively measured such as confidence,
leadership, communications, etc. is a waste of money and resources. The
"magic" of our science is to find ways to "objectively" assess characteristics
that do not lend themselves to objective measurement.

In a message dated 3/13/2013 2:16:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
gburcaw at cps.ca.gov writes:

If we feel the need to see, or sit in a room with, a candidate, we are
probably going beyond the KSAs we intended to assess in the interview. If we
use non-verbal cues to assess candidates in a selection process, we should
have an objective method for doing so. In other words, have we identified
the specific physical behaviors that would indicate possession of
attributes necessary for successfully performing the job, as identified through a
job analysis? And have we established criteria –levels, benchmarks, etc.,
that will allow us to evaluate these behaviors objectively across all
candidates? Generally, the answer to these questions is no, and we generally aren’
t too concerned because we are only looking for cues that indicate a
particular candidate is not acceptable. If we have two otherwise
equally-qualified candidates, but one “seemed nervous,” or “didn’t present themselves
well,” or didn’t make eye contact, does that mean the candidate lacks some
attribute necessary for success on the job, or is less qualified than the
other candidate? Quite possibly; but our process for establishing the link
between that attribute and important job behaviors must be rigorous and
fully documented.
Geoff Burcaw
CPS HR Consulting
_www.cps.ca.gov_ (http://www.cps.ca.gov/)

From: ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org [mailto:ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org]
On Behalf Of RPClare at aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:17 AM
To: Glen.Morry at rcmp-grc.gc.ca; ipac-list at ipacweb.org
Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] Using a combination of interview media

I am responding intuitively. I believe that interviewers in face-to-face
collect more non-verbal info that would come into their decision-making
process, technology-assisted (Skype?) interviews also provide some of the
non-verbal but not as great since the visual field is limited tor
face/face-shoulders. Phone interviews offer the least non-verbal cues. If you have a
multiple interview process, I would use phone interviews for all candidates to
keep the process as level as possible. Once the field is narrowed, I would
use technology-assisted but offer candidates the option to appear for a
face-to-face (on their own dime). We don't reimburse local candidates for
mileage and parking. I would then try to "sensitize" the interviewer(s)
regarding the possible differential impact non-verbal communications may have. As
an interviewer, I would want to see and interact with candidates.but we
have to recognize the ROI involved. Historically, we would have either brought
them in or merely done phone interviews without another thought.
Technology offers another option and helps us realize the differences.
Unfortunately, most public sector jurisdictions would reject distant candidates if their
only option was to spend the money. Also, most managers would not want to
forgo face-to-face to level the field for distant candidates and would
probably limit themselves to local candidates if they couldn't have
face-to-face with local candidates.

In a message dated 3/13/2013 12:50:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
_Glen.Morry at rcmp-grc.gc.ca_ (mailto:Glen.Morry at rcmp-grc.gc.ca) writes:

Hi -

I have a question about what to do in a situation where interviews for
the same job might need to be done using different "media" - i.e. some will
be face-to-face, while others will be via telephone or video-conference
(because of travel costs, timing, or other logistical considerations). All
candidates would be internal, but possibly from across the country.

Bearing in mind that the (limited) research indicates there may be
differences in how effectively interview information is gathered, as well as how
ratings may be affected based on whether it is a face-to-face or a
"technology-assisted" interview, should we insist that the same approach be
applied for all candidates (so even local candidates would get a phone interview,
for instance)?

Are there grounds for candidates to challenge a hiring decision, based on
their apparently being disadvantaged by having gone through a different
format of interview than the other candidates?

Glen Morry


_IPAC-List at ipacweb.org_ (mailto:IPAC-List at ipacweb.org)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nine.pairlist.net/pipermail/ipac-list/attachments/20130313/a214e5df/attachment.html>

More information about the IPAC-List mailing list