When organizations or hiring managers choose between structured or conversational interviews, they are making an important decision. After all, this decision may impact hiring outcomes. In a recent Harvard Business Review article (Lyons 2024), the author discusses the benefits and limitations of both structured and conversational interviews.
STRUCTURED VERSUS CONVERSATIONAL JOB INTERVIEWS
Structured interviews ask a specific set of questions to each candidate. This consistent treatment results in less bias. However, the author also believes that the nature of structured interviews makes them less likely to uncover “soft skills” – such as communication ability – or strengths that fall outside of the narrow definition of the job. The author also adds that the inflexible nature of the proceedings may seem cold and could make candidates more nervous than they would be otherwise.
Conversational interviews enable the interviewer to discuss the company’s needs and evaluate how the candidate can contribute with their unique set of skills. They also encourage candidates to ask follow-up questions. This format may allow an interviewer to better assess whether a candidate is eager to formulate a helpful solution. The author also says that this approach “encourages more natural conversation.” However, the lack of consistency could result in bias for candidates.
Overall, the author believes that job interviews are more successful and well-rounded with a mix of both approaches – allowing for a structured component, yet reserving time to get to know the candidate in a more informal manner.
THE BOTTOM LINE FOR ORGANIZATIONS
Choosing the wrong candidate for a position could be costly. Therefore, it is best to make a careful decision on which interview approach to use, as both have their respective limitations. Carefully crafting an interview approach and engaging in interviewer training can help ensure that job candidates will thrive in their new positions.
Image credit: Unsplash+