Contents

Interview TechniquesEdit

Interview techniques are the methods used to evaluate candidates for employment in organizations. The aim is to predict job performance by eliciting reliable signals from applicants while keeping the process efficient and fair. A well-designed interview program starts with a clear description of the role, the competencies that matter, and the outcomes that define success. For readers seeking background, this topic intersects with Job interview practices, Hiring strategy, and the broader field of Human resources.

In practice, the most effective interview systems rely on evidence-based methods, including structured questioning, work samples, and rigorous scoring. Structured approaches tend to produce higher predictive validity than freewheeling conversations, while allowing room for genuine conversation where appropriate. A balanced design seeks to minimize unnecessary barriers to qualified candidates and to create a defensible, repeatable process that can be explained to stakeholders. For more on this, see Structured interview and Predictive validity.

Controversies and debates exist around how to balance merit, fairness, and inclusivity in interviewing. Proponents argue that objective criteria and standardized formats reduce bias and improve outcomes, while critics warn that rigid methods can become checkbox exercises or mask deeper, unaddressed biases. From a practical standpoint, the goal is to emphasize performance potential and transferable skills over reflexive judgments about identity or background, while complying with legal and ethical standards. Debates on culture fit, diversity initiatives, and the use of technology in screening (including algorithmic tools) are common, and defenders of traditional approaches contend that well-constructed, objective methods remain the best pathway to merit-based hiring. See also the discussions around Bias, Affirmative action, Meritocracy, and Recruiting technology.

Core Principles of Interview Design

  • Define the role in terms of measurable outcomes and core competencies. Align interview questions with the skills and behaviors that drive success in the job. See Job description and Competencies.
  • Use objective criteria and transparent scoring. Develop rubrics that translate answers into consistent ratings. Refer to Scoring rubric and Interviewer calibration.
  • Favor structure to improve reliability and fairness. Choose a mix of Structured interview elements and targeted digressions where appropriate.
  • Respect legal and ethical boundaries. Ensure questions relate to job performance and comply with equal opportunity standards such as Equal employment opportunity laws.
  • Balance efficiency with candidate experience. Design processes that move quickly when signals are strong, but avoid unnecessary friction that deters good candidates. See Candidate experience.

Preparation and Research

  • Interview teams should study the job description, required competencies, and the team context. Review the latest Job posting and recent company priorities.
  • Interviewers should review the candidate’s resume and prior work samples to formulate role-relevant prompts. See resume and Work sample.
  • Prepare a plan with a mix of questions, timelines, and evaluation criteria. Use Interview plan and Time management (interviews) to stay on track.
  • Provide candidates with a realistic outline of the process and what is expected at each stage. See Candidate communication.

Questioning Techniques

Assessment, Scoring, and Decision-Making

Interview Formats

  • Phone screens: efficient first filters, often focusing on communication and basic fit. See Phone interview.
  • Video interviews: widely used for initial and later-stage screening; consider technical reliability and candidate accessibility. See Video interview.
  • In-person and panel interviews: deeper assessment and diverse perspectives; panels help balance biases. See Panel interview.
  • Technical interviews: focused on problem-solving and domain-specific skills; may include live coding or simulations. See Technical interview.
  • Work sample and take-home tasks: direct evidence of capability; paired with a clear brief and evaluation criteria. See Work sample and Take-home task.
  • Group or assessment-center formats: useful for teamwork and leadership demonstrations in contexts where those traits matter. See Assessment center.

Bias, Ethics, and Debates

  • Structure and evidence help dampen bias when properly designed. However, biases can persist in how questions are framed or how responses are interpreted, which is why calibration and training matter. See Cognitive bias and Interviewer training.
  • Debates about culture fit versus culture add, and about diversity initiatives, are common. Proponents argue that objective measures preserve merit, while critics warn that misapplied criteria can exclude strong candidates. See Culture fit and Diversity (inclusion).
  • Some critics contend that overreliance on standardized formats can dull versatility or overlook rare talents. Advocates counter that well-built structures are precisely what protect fairness and predictability.
  • The use of AI and algorithmic screening raises questions about privacy, explainability, and bias in data. See Recruiting technology and Algorithmic fairness.
  • In broad terms, the aim is to recruit top performers while maintaining accountability. Supporters emphasize evidence-based methods and transparency; skeptics call for vigilance against reduced human judgment. See Meritocracy.

See also