Friday Edition

Get the Blog Feed
What is RSS?

dispatches from the new world of work

My Beef with BI (Behavioral Interviewing)

[This entry is from guest blogger Darci Riesenhuber, a former Tom Peters Company colleague who has reinvented herself as a Reputation Agent.]

Remember the days when, during a job interview, you were asked questions like "If you were a car, what kind of car would you be?" or "Tell me how you would handle an upset customer?" Companies started to question whether the answers to such hypothetical questions were helpful in predicting successful job performance.

To reduce subjectivity and increase predictability of job success, companies have adopted a behavioral-based interviewing approach. In essence, behavioral-based interviews assume that past behavior predicts future behavior. The predictability comes from posing statements or questions to the candidate phrased something like: "Tell me about a time when you led a virtual project team—what were the outcomes?"

I question the validity of this approach. Why? Because if you are basing your hiring decision on someone's past experiences, aren't you disregarding their capacity to learn and be good at things they have yet to try?

Had the manager, who ultimately hired me for my first training position, asked me the question, "Tell me about a time when you had a difficult participant in one of your classes. How did you handle it?" I could not have given an answer, having, at that point, no experience at all. Had he used the behavioral interviewing approach, would I have gotten the job? I doubt it. However, my inability to respond effectively to that question was certainly no indication of my ability to do the job.

So I ask: Is basing the hiring decision on someone's past experiences the best way to predict future success? Isn't it possible that someone who has no experience leading a virtual team can be great at it? Perhaps even better than someone who has?

Darci Riesenhuber posted this on 09/10/09.

Comments

Very interesting post.

I don't believe that the problems outlined are always due to the type of question. It's what you do with the questions. My biggest gripe in companies is the need to standardise (to make it fair and show a proper process).

Interviewing is not about questions they are just the starting catalyst. Interviewers get too hung up on devising the right/best questions. The real skill is listening, drilling down on topics and asking direct clarify questions. Opening the topic up to generalising and closing it down to specific facts.

The vast majority of questions I ask are not pre determined (I prepare the areas that are important for the job not the questions)

By definition (no one is the same with same experience/skills) you can't put each candidate through the same test. The vast majority of interview techniques recruit people who are good at interviews.

Posted by PaulH at September 10, 2009 8:40 AM

I would agree with you Darci. At one company I was hired at I went in through a temp. agency. I was offered a job because they got to know me and my work ethic. Had I gone through their traditional hiring interview process that used BI I don't think I would have been hired because they used BI and my experience was a little shallow the job function. I learn quickly and became one of the highest producing communication managers on a team of nineteen. When I left they hired three people to cover my area -- no joke!

Thanks for your post!

Posted by PamC at September 10, 2009 8:56 AM

Well, personally i have my own beef on psychometric tests. A) It shouldn't apply to asians unless they're born and bred in western countries, B) It shouldn't be used prior to interviews to create biases

and C) There's no real way to tell whether the guy's framing his questions...

Posted by Dr Kervokian at September 10, 2009 9:39 AM

Good post Darci.
You're right, these hypotheticals don't tell us a lot about the candidate. Increasingly I'm seeing my clients apply a different criteria to recruitment - much less can they do the job, but more importantly, is there a culture fit with the organisation.
The Culture criteria is the future: does the candidate have the right mindset, values and attitude?

Posted by Ian Sanders at September 10, 2009 9:58 AM

To answer Darci’s question: I say, yes!!! It is possible for someone who has never run a virtual team to be great at it.

I think that Darci has a very interesting point here and I believe, whether she is doing it consciously or not, speaking directly to a "talent myth" that exists in the market today. Talent isn't something that can be calibrated and calculated in a 1, 2, 3 or 4 hour behavioral interview. As a person who runs a recruiting firm and uses a large amount of behavioral interviewing tactics as a component of the hiring process, I’m a firm believer that using past experience alone to predict future outcomes is NOT the best approach. Behavioral interviewing is only part of a successful
evaluation/assessment strategy. Companies MUST get more intimate with themselves and try understand who they are and identify the competencies required to thrive within their organization. Companies must take that data and use it to not only evaluate candidates past experiences but also evaluate candidates cultural heritage, upbringing, core values, current competencies, past results, AND past experiences.

The “talent myth” is that you can predict talent. Talent can never be predicted…and no matter how good you get at selecting successful employees at the end of the day it is still a guess. It may be an educated guess, but a guess all the same.

Posted by Robert at September 10, 2009 10:02 AM

Yes it is! However you need to apply common sense. Obviously, new/young people cannot demonstrate the exact experience in a new job they are moving towards.

However skill sets are predictable. Questions about past experiences will help you identify whether or not someone has skills that would apply such as: Communication, Tunacity, Creativity, ability to take risks, etc.

Apply a little common sense to this process.

Posted by Dave Holland at September 10, 2009 10:11 AM

Even the best B.I. techniques and questions are highly subjective and poor predictors of future behavior, if you ask me. Asking a candidate, for example, to describe how they handled an upset customer doesn't necessarily translate to future scenarios because of all the variables. Dealing with a customer who was upset because of unrealistic expectations can be a lot different than dealing with a customer who is upset because you made a mistake. A candidate might handle the former situation quite gracefully, yet become totally defensive and downright hateful toward the customer in the latter situation.

Add to that the fact that a large percentage of people will tend to embellish or otherwise spice up their responses in order to offer the answer they think you want to hear as opposed to objective facts and the whole exercise can become a waste of time if not a downright joke.

Direct observation of a candidate's behavior in the past being virtually impossible, you're left with the W.A.G. method. Your best bet is to find someone who's at least flexible and adaptive to new learning and experiences, as that is the sort of person who stands to at least continually improve with good coaching and encouragement.

Posted by Dan Gunter at September 10, 2009 12:03 PM

There are several parametres that eventually determines employee's performance once inside the organisation, but during selection process interviewers look for ways to select candidates with higher probability of success. BI or looking for demonstrated evidence seems to be somewhat assuring to some. Where these instruments fail are more to do with the interviewers lack of clarity of what is right, adabtable appropriate behaviour or inability to interpret responses correctly.

We have decoded the success factors relevant to our context by subjecting the star and poor performers to the tests and use its outcome as reference while making selections. This seems to improve the probability of selecting higher performing candidates defined in our operating context (may not include all gerally high performing), and at the very least weeds out complete misfits. May be collective bias is better than individual one.

But, yes, selection is not a perfect science and there are several decsion criteria beyond answering right to few questions. More so, when the right answer may change with context and time.

Posted by Tushar khosla, India at September 10, 2009 12:06 PM

Great post Darci - Recruit for attitude train for skills. It's impossible to do it the other way round.

Posted by Trevor Gay at September 10, 2009 2:05 PM

I can see Darci's point, and I'm glad that I was given a chance to have a position in my current field when I didn't have much experience. But now that I am looking for a new opportunity, I hope that companies will see the value I can bring based on the successes I had in my past position.

I also agree with Ian about cultural fit. If my values don't match the company's values and how they operate, it would be hard for me to work to meet their goals the way they would want them met.

Posted by Rodney Cooley at September 10, 2009 8:33 PM

Thanks everyone for the conversation. PamC - I had a similar experience when I was hired as a consultant to work on a project at a very well known beverage co here in Atl - I didn't have the exact resume they were seeking, but the decision-maker thought I was "cooler than the other candidate". I ended up developing "one of the best training programs they've ever seen" and remain friends with the person who hired me. Evidence that I am, in fact, cool :) (they didn't use BI).

The selection process is certainly not an exact science and I agree, PaulH, that often times the person who gets hired is the one who has mastered the art of interviewing, as opposed to being the right person for the job.

Culture fit is hugely important and I'm not sure companies are taking it as seriously as they should during the selection process (and, even when they do, are they realistic about it...espoused vs. real culture).

And, then, of course, there's the old adage that people quit their boss not their job. So, do a great job of selecting the best person, place them under a really bad manager and you lose great talent anyway.

And, Rodney, I certainly wouldn't suggest disregarding past experience, but are there ways to measure capacity where experience doesn't exist. I'm constantly surprised by what I am able to do when given the opportunity and would hate to think I, or anyone else, might be held back by that which I have never tried.

Posted by Darci at September 10, 2009 9:04 PM

Darci. You're questioning the validity of assessing a candidate by asking questions about their real experiences? You're suggesting BI isn't valid because the candidate might be able to learn and be good at something they haven't done before?

I think you're missing the point of behavioral questions. Think about the ensuing conversation. If the candidate has relevant experience, the question will lead to an in-depth discussion that provides the interviewer with the best opportunity to assess the candidate's qualifications for the position. If the candidate doesn't have the specific experience, the interviewer adjusts the question to dig for related relevant experience.

You'll ask about specific experiences, as with the virtual team question. But you'll also ask general questions. You'll dig and probe into their accomplishments. What were the obstacles and how did the candidate handle them? What were the conflicts, and how did the candidate respond? What types of actions did the candidate take to understand the needs of the customer? How did they handle competing priorities?

You think the candidate may have the capacity to learn and be good at something they haven't done before? If you're one of the managers in my org, I expect you to be certain. Ask the candidate to describe a project or position where they had to learn fast to succeed. What did they have to learn? How did they learn? What were their resources?

You and your team have a few short hours to assess the skills and capabilities of a candidate who might work with you for years. Make the most of your interview with a well-planned set of behaviorial discussion questions.

Posted by Donny at September 10, 2009 10:13 PM

I have been a BI coach.
I have hired on the basis of a 3 minute conversation
I have hired on the basis of a battery of tests and BI
I have hired on the basis of recomendation

They all help get the "right" person, but if you want a structured approach I am a BI man.

Posted by patrick at September 11, 2009 2:33 AM

I had an interview over 12 years ago with KPMG - in which the interview consisted of a series of "Tell me about a time when..." questions - it would have made more sense to have handed me the sheet than employ someone to sit and ask such inane questions. And since you ask:
a)it irritated me (and I showed it)
b)I didn't get the job
c)I would never recommend KPMG as a result. Enough said

Posted by Mick C at September 11, 2009 4:09 AM

Embellishment is always a problem - but this is the case no matter what the approach.

One classic way to reduce the embellishment is to ask direct, closed questions (yes/no type) to clarify.

Many people who are happy to embellish will stop short of a downright lie. Doens't stop all the problems but it does reduce them.

Posted by PaulH at September 11, 2009 9:08 AM

Behavioral change:

viagra price 100mg Light goes on and managers begin to beat the employees for 9 hours per day...

Light goes off and manager can't understand why nobody invites him/her to the local pub for a drink or bite to eat...

Alarm goes off next day = repeat

Posted by The Joker at September 11, 2009 5:11 PM

Wow, you guys must color within the lines.

Of course, BI isn't a science and it doesn't guarantee you'll pick the right candidate. But a skilled conversationalist can use questioning techniques and determine quite a bit about someone in an hour of a conversation. It doesn't have to put pressure on someone. Of course, the candidate can imbellish things from time to time. But, most times it will be observed and considered.

How do you pick your friends? Most people talk to them. They don't script it, or plan it. But they talk, listen, ask more questions and build a relationship. That's exactly at the heart of BI.

Posted by Dave Holland at September 14, 2009 3:15 PM

I think you raise a good question about the relevance of behavioral interviewing questions used for those with limited work experience. The interviewer’s role is to help the candidate examine behavioral examples from their educational or other life experiences—not just work experience. Candidates who can’t come up with examples from their prior work experience may need the suggestion to consider volunteer work, extracurricular activities or even group class projects that might yield an example. But here’s the real magic of behavior interviewing—if someone can’t provide examples of how they’ve lead a team or managed a project, and this is what you desperately need, they’re probably not the candidate for you.

Posted by Kelli Buczynski at September 17, 2009 10:20 AM

Ask job applicants, "What made you happy on your last job?" Hopefully, one will tell you a story of achievement. Drill down from there.

It's easier to learn new facts than to learn how to achieve.

Posted by Kevin Kobett at September 23, 2009 8:21 PM

overnight delivery for viagra