FROM TEXTBOOK :
Fallon L., & McConnell C. (2014). Human resource management in health care. (2nd ed). Jones & Bartlett
Publishers. Sudbury, MA. ISBN: 978-1-449-68883-7.
CHAPTER 13
Conducting a Successful and Legal Selection Interview
Chapter Objectives
After reading this chapter, readers will be able to:
• Have familiarity with the specific laws that have implications for the interviewing process
• Prepare for an interview prior to an applicant’s arrival
• Understand the interviewing process from the perspective of an interviewing manager
• Distinguish the kinds of questions that can and cannot legally be asked in an employment interview
• Recognize and apply methods useful when probing for additional information that could be helpful in arriving at an
employment decision
• Articulate how an interviewer should respond or react when receiving legally forbidden information that is voluntarily
given
• Write my Essay Online Writing Service with Professional Essay Writers – Explain the present-day concept of “behavioral interviewing” and how it may or may not differ from what one might
consider “ordinary” interviewing
• Recognize that some applicants have a tendency to interview the interviewer, and know how to address this mode of
behavior
• Appreciate the potential for fraud and distortion on résumés and applications, and know how to address suspicions
concerning such material
CHAPTER SUMMARY
Many laws, foremost among them Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, affect the interviewing process and provide a number
of potential legal traps for an unwary interviewer. Interviewing is not to be entered into lightly, and interviewers must be
fully prepared. An interviewer must know all about the job that an applicant is seeking and must know as much about
each applicant’s background and qualifications as is practical. Customary interviewing guidelines must always be
followed. Interviewers must constantly be vigilant to stay within legal boundaries when asking questions and conducting
interviews. An interviewer must always be conscious of the possibility that an applicant may interpret a statement or
question as being discriminatory. Therefore, interviewers must always remember to keep an interview focused on the job
and on an applicant’s ability to perform it rather than on personal attributes. An experienced interviewer’s strongest tool is
often silence paired with effective listening. Selection interviewing is an acquired skill in which people can improve with
time and experience.
Case Study: “It Wouldn’t Be Fair to Her”
Nurse recruiter Carrie Taylor was experiencing some of the same problems as others in the region who did the same kind
of work. Because of a widespread nursing shortage, she had positions that often required weeks or months to fill.
Candidates of all skill levels and degrees of desirability were chronically in short supply. Carrie’s needs were particularly
acute in critical care areas and in her medical center’s transitional care unit, where people were sent for rehabilitation
services or to await placement in long-term care facilities. In view of these acute needs, Carrie was especially cheered
when she received an application from an experienced nurse who desired a position in the transitional care unit.
The applicant was a registered nurse named Lynn Taylor. She was not related to Carrie, but their common name provided
a perfect conversational icebreaker. Lynn interviewed well, but Carrie was dismayed by some of what she saw and much
of what she heard. Lynn’s small stature, frail build, and apparent age disappointed Carrie. Lynn Taylor appeared to be in
her middle fifties. Carrie was put off because she knew how demanding, both physically and mentally, the transitional
care unit could be. When Carrie asked Lynn about a significant gap in her work history, without going into great detail
Lynn said enough so that Carrie could readily conclude that Lynn had undergone breast cancer surgery.
Based on the interview, Lynn Taylor was not offered the position for which she applied. Carrie felt badly about not having
anything to offer Lynn but was convinced that Lynn would be unable to keep up with the demands of the transitional care
unit.
Some weeks after the Lynn Taylor interview, the transitional care position remained unfilled. At the same time, the
medical center received a complaint Lynn had filed with the State Division of Human Rights. The document claimed that
Lynn Taylor had been illegally denied employment based on age and disability. Because the complaint entered the
organization via the human resources (HR) department, the HR director met with Carrie in an attempt to determine
whether the charge of discrimination might be valid. Carrie explained the basis for her decision, adding, “She seems like a
nice lady and she’s a knowledgeable nurse, but she’s older and physically limited. It just wouldn’t be fair to put her in a
position where she’s bound to fail.”
Consider Carrie Taylor’s reasoning. Was it sound? Should she have offered the position to Lynn? How would you
respond to the allegations in the complaint?
………………………
LEGAL AND OTHER PREREQUISITES
There are many legal statutes affecting employment practices. The laws having the most effects on interviewing include
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (1967, amended in 1986), and the
Americans with Disabilities Act (1992). Most states and many municipalities have enacted laws and ordinances that
address local issues. All requirements in this legislation must be met.
As employment legislation has been enacted, many of the questions and practices that were used for years on application
forms and that regularly figured in employment interviews have become illegal. Since the mid-1960s, approximately two-
thirds of the information formerly requested on a typical employment application has become inaccessible because of
legal constraints. As well as addressing information requested on paper, these prohibitions apply to interview questioning
and designate what can or cannot legally be asked of job applicants.
This chapter encompasses the process of employee recruitment from preparation for an interview to appropriate follow-up
after the interview has been concluded. The concerns presented here extend beyond the legalities of an interview. The
perspective is that of a department manager interviewing a prospective employee. Pertinent legal precautions are
presented as appropriate in the process.
BEFORE THE CANDIDATE ARRIVES
Review the Job Description
All position descriptions in every department should be reviewed at regular intervals and updated as necessary. These
reviews should be conducted each year. A job description should be reviewed for completeness and accuracy whenever a
manager is preparing to interview a candidate to fill an open position.
Before interviewing any candidates for a position, the position description should be thoroughly reviewed and updated as
necessary. Ideally, this should be undertaken as soon as authorization is received to fill a new or vacant position. Both the
manager and the HR recruiter need the job description early in the process, so a revised or new position description should
accompany the personnel requisition to HR to launch the recruiting process.
The individual who supervises an unfilled position is most familiar with its characteristics and requirements. An outside
manager or HR recruiter may be only generally familiar with a particular job’s structure and requirements if there are a
number of different positions within a single area of responsibility.
An interviewer should review the appropriate job description shortly before an interview is scheduled so that pertinent
information about the position is fresh in the interviewer’s mind. Reviewing a job description for reference during an
interview is sometimes acceptable. However, interviewers are cautioned not to rely on the position description during an
interview. Recruiters are assumed to know about the position and what will be expected from employees hired for that
position.
Review the Application or Résumé
An individual’s job application or résumé should be thoroughly reviewed before an interview begins. Reviewing an
application or résumé for the first time during an interview is unprofessional and rude. Such behavior is unsettling for
applicants.
Sometimes an interviewee will be sent to an interviewing manager with a résumé or an application in hand. When this
occurs, the interviewer should take a few minutes in private to go over the material before starting the interview. Human
resources should not ordinarily send an application or résumé along with the applicant unless recruitment is urgent and the
organization has agreed to accept and interview applicants on a walk-in basis. Under normal recruiting conditions, an
interviewer should have the résumé or application in advance of the interview. If this is not routine in an organization,
then HR should review its standard operating procedures for recruiting.
In reviewing an applicant’s information, the interviewer should be especially sensitive to any gaps in the individual’s
employment record and background. Periods of months or years for which no information is supplied should serve as a
red flag. Such omissions often obscure information an applicant would prefer not to reveal. If you notice gaps, make a
note to ask about them during the interview. Both the HR recruiter and the department interviewer should similarly look
for gaps in the screening process.
Be alert for the possibility of exaggeration or out-and-out fraud in an applicant’s background, especially in the areas of
education and work experience. Résumé fraud is discussed in detail later in this chapter.
Arrange an Appropriate Time and Place
Arrange for a place to conduct the interview where the interviewer and applicant will be reasonably comfortable and can
talk without interruption. Borrow a private office or use a conference room if possible. A private office with a door is
preferred. An open-topped or doorless cubicle is not private. If open space must be used, then a semi-enclosure or a corner
table that is at some distance from the nearest person should provide a modicum of privacy. The area used should allow
for interviewer and applicant to converse without being overheard. Trying to conduct an interview within the hearing of
others can be distracting for an interviewer. To an applicant, it is not only unsettling but also unfair.
Physical comfort is a consideration. Surroundings do not have to be plush or elegant, but the seating should be
comfortable and the temperature should be reasonably controlled. If using a desk or table, the interviewer and applicant
should face each other across a corner of the surface or out in an open area rather than across the full expanse of the desk
or table. An expanse of surface can be intimidating to an applicant.
Make sure to allow adequate time for the interview. How long an interview should take depends on the kind of position
that is being filled and the depth to which the interviewer wishes to probe. For entry-level positions, 30 minutes should be
adequate. For technical and professional positions, an hour is most likely a minimum requirement. Promising candidates
may be given more time, especially if other activities, such as providing a facility tour, are components of the interview.
Interruptions hamper the exchange of information. Experienced managers do not take or make telephone calls when
conducting interviews. Drop-in visitors should be tolerated only in an absolute emergency because they disrupt the rhythm
of an interview. In addition to being extremely disruptive to applicants, interruptions disturb an interviewer’s train of
thought and increase the difficulty of establishing a conversational rapport with the applicant.
Prepare Some Opening Questions
Have three or four relatively easy, nonthreatening questions prepared to initiate the conversation. A careful review of an
applicant’s résumé usually presents some useful elements for starting a conversation.
CONDUCTING AN INTERVIEW
Remembering a few basic guidelines can assist interviewers in conducting professional, effective interviews.
Be on Time
Short of encountering a dire emergency, there is no reason for an interviewer to be late for an interview. If an interviewer
is late, then the reason should be plausible and preferably visible. An employee selection interview is as important an
event for an organization as it is for an applicant. By extension, it should be important to an interviewer. Casual tardiness
by an interviewer displays disregard for the value of an applicant’s time and can leave an applicant with a less-than-
desirable impression of the organization.
If Possible, Help the Applicant to Relax
Most experts suggest beginning an interview with a bit of small talk or some inconsequential social chatter to help get the
conversation started. With most applicants, this is sufficient to initiate a conversation. Although some applicants remain
nervous, it is still best to make an attempt at helping them to relax.
Never forget that applicants may be intimidated by interviewers and the authority of their positions. An interviewer’s
position in an organization may not be particularly important, but to applicants, interviewers are authority figures who are
perceived as having strong voices in determining whether or not they are hired.
Interviewers have a psychological upper hand in an interview situation. The interview is taking place in their territory.
They are representatives of the organization who may have the power to extend or withhold employment. Applicants react
to perceived differences between themselves and their interviewers by becoming nervous, so any step an interviewer can
take to relax an interviewee and put the conversation on an equal footing will contribute to a more productive interview.
Adjust Language to Accommodate an Applicant
Successful interviewers put themselves on an applicant’s level of education and sophistication when choosing their words
by using terms that an interviewee is most likely to understand. Avoid the use of acronyms or abbreviations without
explanation, and do not use jargon. This helps to diminish feelings of being an outsider. This suggestion can be ignored
when an applicant is known to be an equal in terms of job experience. Use language that is appropriate for the position
under discussion. The use of appropriate language is important in health care. A single manager may have direct
responsibility for persons with a variety of educational levels. For example, interviewers use different language when
conversing with nurse practitioners than with applicants for a nursing assistant position. Politeness and humility always
contribute to effective communications.
Avoid Both Short-Answer and Open-Ended Questions
An important interview objective is getting an individual to speak about knowledge, experience, reasons for seeking a
particular position, personal likes and dislikes, and career goals. Interviewers will not learn much of substance if their
questions can be answered by single words such as yes or no or by brief phrases. Effective questions require individuals to
speak at least a sentence or two in response. In only a few instances are short-answer questions fully appropriate, as in, for
example, “Do you have a current nursing license?”
In contrast, interviewers should not ask completely open-ended questions that provide no clear guidelines to applicants as
to appropriate content or when to stop speaking. A classic example is the opening line often used by interviewers who
believe they are being clever and insightful, “Tell me all about yourself.” A request of this nature has no recognizable
boundaries, and any answer can ramble on for a considerable time without producing much of value. Because the question
provides no guidelines as to how much a person is expected to say, it is inherently unfair to an applicant.
The most effective questions are those that require some thought and can be reasonably answered in three or four
sentences. Interviewers should try to get applicants to talk about themselves relative to potential employment. However,
they should do so in such a way that they can maintain control over the conversation and avoid causing an interviewee to
either talk without closure or freeze from confusion when asked an unfair, open-ended question. Examples of appropriate
questions include “How did you become interested in this occupation?,” “What part of your most recent position did you
like best, and why?,” “Of what accomplishment of the last year or two are you most proud?,” and “Tell me about
something that went wrong on the job, and what you learned from it.”
Interviewers should be sure to allow a pause between an applicant’s response and the next question. This gives the
applicant a chance to embellish the response, because most applicants tend to fill in periods of silence.
Avoid Leading Questions
Be careful to avoid leading applicants toward a desired response. This is a particular hazard when interviewing someone
who is making a positive impression. Interviewers in such a situation often begin to ask their questions in a manner that
encourages an applicant to provide answers that they want to hear. A sharp applicant will recognize leading questions and
cooperate by providing “correct” responses. For example, if the interviewer asks, “You left County Hospital because you
weren’t being sufficiently challenged, right?” the applicant knows the answer the interviewer wants to hear.
Avoid Writing During an Interview
Interviewers who find it necessary to make written reminders during an interview should limit them to one- or two-word
notations. If more detailed notes are required, then the brief reminders can be expanded into sentences or paragraphs after
the interview is concluded.
There are two sound reasons for not writing while an applicant is speaking. First, it is unnerving. In addition to causing
the applicant to wonder what is being written down, it is impolite, it restricts eye contact, and it conveys the impression
that an interviewer is giving the process less than complete attention. Second, it is not possible to listen carefully while
writing. This is an attempt at simultaneously performing two important communication tasks. Few people can do this
without either or both processes suffering. It is far better to give an applicant undivided attention and save writing until an
interview has been concluded.
Promise and Ensure Follow-Up
At the conclusion of every interview, indicate to all applicants that they will be advised of the outcome after all interviews
for the position have been completed. Pledge follow-up, but provide nothing else. Do not promise that an offer will be
forthcoming, even if the person who has just been interviewed is the leading candidate. A manager or supervisor should
not make an offer or quote a salary without confirmation from HR. An applicant’s specific questions about pay and
benefits should be answered by HR and not by an interviewing department manager.
Having promised follow-up on behalf of the organization, interviewers have an obligation to ensure that the steps or
activities are undertaken and delivered. It is extremely important that all applicants who have given their time for an
interview receive closure within a reasonable period following the interview. Allowing unsuccessful applicants simply to
fade away without acknowledgment creates ill will toward the employer among members of the community.
The foregoing interview steps are summarized in Exhibit 13-1.
INTERVIEW QUESTIONING: TO ASK OR NOT TO ASK?
Inquiring about an applicant’s personal life, beliefs, values, and attitudes is illegal. Information about an individual’s
personality is restricted to observable phenomena. In an employment interview, the focus must remain on the position and
whether an applicant has the skills needed to accomplish a given task for the organization. Experienced interviewers speak
of evaluating interpersonal chemistry. To the extent that this is assessed, the evaluation cannot be made using words. In
short, an employment interview provides an opportunity to develop some knowledge of what a prospective employee can
contribute to an organization.
Exhibit 13-1 The Manager and the Interview Process
Be on time
Help the applicant to relax
Adjust language to accommodate an applicant
Avoid both short-answer and open-ended questions
Avoid leading questions
Avoid writing during an interview
Promise and ensure follow-up
As a general rule, keep all interview questions related to an applicant’s capacity to perform the job in question. The
following sections discuss subjects and provide commentary about the legal status of topics that may arise in an
employment interview.
Race, Color, Religion, Creed, National Origin, Sex, Marital Status, Birth Control Practices
These subject areas are addressed together because there are no questions concerning them that can legally be asked. This
means that an interviewer may not ask questions about the origins of a person’s name or where the individual’s family
came from. Asking about the existence of a family is not permitted. This prohibition extends to questions that can be
interpreted as fishing for forbidden information. A judge in a court of law performs any needed interpretations.
Information of this nature cannot be requested or collected on an employment application.
The reasoning behind these prohibitions is to eliminate the possibility of discrimination based on such information. For
example, at one time it was common to ask young female applicants if they were engaged, and if so, when they planned to
marry. Married women of childbearing age were asked if they planned to have children. Divorced or separated women
were asked if they were single parents and how many children they had. Information obtained in responses to such
questions was used to make hiring decisions. Many managers believed that avoiding people who might not remain with an
organization for very long or who might experience more absences than others who lacked particular responsibilities
simply reflected prudent business practices.
Antidiscrimination legislation has imposed changes. It is now illegal to make employment decisions based on personal
information. Contemporary interviewers must do their best to determine whether or not an individual is capable of
performing a given job, not to determine the likelihood of a person being absent from work or leaving employment.
Age
The only legal question that an applicant can be asked about age is: “Are you at least 18 years old?” It is permissible and
sometimes necessary to ask this because the employment of workers younger than 18 years is governed by state child
labor laws. Many employment situations are prohibited for those younger than 18 years.
With the exception of this question, prohibitions on questions about age relate to discrimination laws. The Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, passed in 1967 and amended in 1986, prohibits discrimination on the basis of age.
Under the law, only a small number of bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQs) exist when age can be considered
to be a legitimate employment criterion. For the vast majority of employment situations, the single criterion that prevails
is an individual’s ability to perform a job.
Disability
The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits employers from asking whether an applicant has a disability or has ever
been treated for any number of specific medical conditions. Employers are forbidden to ask about an applicant’s Workers’
Compensation history at any time prior to making an offer of employment. The only questions that can be asked before an
offer of employment has been made are questions concerning a person’s ability to perform the duties of the job under
consideration. Questions asked prior to employment cannot be phrased in such a way as to solicit information about
medical conditions or physical limitations. For example, if a job requires driving, then an interviewer may ask if an
applicant has a driver’s license but may not ask if the person has any visual limitations.
When inquiring into an applicant’s ability to perform the major duties of a job, an interviewer can ask persons if they have
any medical, physical, or mental impairment that might interfere with their ability to perform the specified job duties, or
whether there are positions for which they should not be considered because of an impairment. It is illegal, however, for
an interviewer to inquire about the nature of any impairment. The key to questioning in this area is to focus on ability, not
disability.
Name
It is permissible for an interviewer to ask whether an applicant has ever worked for the organization under a different
name. Employers have this right because they are entitled to have access to an applicant’s prior work record. Interviewers
may ask whether any additional information is available concerning a name change or using different names to adequately
complete reference checks. An interviewer is forbidden to ask a female applicant’s maiden name or the original name of
any applicant whose name has been changed by court order.
Address and Duration of Residence
It is permissible to ask an applicant’s place of residence and how long the person has been a resident of that municipality.
Birthplace and Date of Birth
No questions can legally be asked concerning an applicant’s place of birth or the birthplace of an applicant’s parents or
any other family members. In most instances, because age cannot legally be considered when making hiring decisions, it
is illegal to ask an applicant’s age. For similar reasons, employers are prohibited from requiring applicants to submit birth
certificates, baptismal records, naturalization records, or any other proof of age.
Photograph
The practice of requiring applicants to supply photographs with their applications is illegal. Even suggesting that a
photograph may be submitted at an individual’s option is blatantly illegal.
Citizenship
It is lawful to ask whether an applicant is a citizen of the United States, but it is unlawful to ask of what country an
individual is a citizen. This question is construed as asking about national origin. Applicants who are not citizens can
legally be asked whether they intend to become citizens or if they have the legal right to remain and work in the United
States. This legal permission takes the form of the well-known “green card.” It is not permissible to ask whether an
applicant or an applicant’s parents or spouse are naturalized or native-born United States citizens. An applicant cannot be
required to produce naturalization papers.
Language
It is legal to ask what foreign languages applicants are able to speak and write with fluency. However, it is not legal to ask
them about their native language or to ask individuals how they acquired the ability to read, speak, or write a foreign
language.
Education
It is legal to ask applicants about their academic, vocational, or professional education and the public or private schools
that they attended. This discussion can and should include the relevance of particular programs or courses taken.
Experience
Interviewers should concentrate most of their questions in this area. The primary objective during this phase of the
interview conversation should be to gather sufficient information about an applicant’s work history to make an informed
decision about whether an individual’s experience is applicable to the position being discussed. When talking about
employment experience, it is usually most helpful to begin with an applicant’s present or most recent position and work
backward in time.
Relatives
It is permissible to ask the names of an applicant’s relatives who are already employed within an interviewer’s
organization without specifying their relationship. This includes a spouse. This is relevant when an organization has rules
about nepotism. However, prospective employers may not ask about relatives and specify the relationship, as this is
interpreted to be discriminatory on the basis of family status. It is illegal to solicit any information concerning an
applicant’s spouse, children, or other relatives who are not employed by the interviewer’s organization.
Notify in Case of Emergency
In the pre-employment stage of recruiting, it is illegal to ask an applicant for the name and address of a person to be
notified in the event of accident or other emergency. This is one of the elements of information (along with date of birth,
marital and family status, and other personal information) that organizations are not permitted to solicit until an offer of
employment has been extended and accepted.
Military Experience
It is permissible to ask about the nature of an applicant’s military experience in a branch of the armed forces of the United
States. However, interviewers may not ask about general military experience without specifying armed forces of the
United States or a branch thereof. Furthermore, interviewers are not permitted to ask applicants about the character or
terms of their discharge or separation from military service.
Arrest
Although the question of arrest was standard on employment applications and during interviews for many years, it is no
longer legal. It is, however, permissible to ask if an applicant has ever been convicted of a crime and to ask for details
associated with the conviction.
Information acquired through this line of questioning must be used with care. If an individual is rejected for employment
because of a criminal conviction, then there should be a reasonable relationship between the nature of the crime and the
position for which the person is applying. For example, an organization may be acting reasonably and properly by
rejecting a convicted embezzler for a finance position or by rejecting someone with a drug-related conviction for a
pharmacy position. The same organization would be likely to encounter a claim of discrimination for rejecting someone
with a felony driving while intoxicated (DWI) conviction for a position as a cook or housekeeper.
Organizations
In the past, employment applications routinely asked applicants to list all clubs, societies, and other organizations to
which they belonged. This is now illegal, because the names of many organizations allow prospective employers to infer
personal information such as national origin or religion.
One absolute prohibition concerning external memberships involves inquiries into whether an applicant is or ever has
been a member of a labor union. Employers, especially those who may be union-free, ordinarily do not want to knowingly
hire people that they fear might attempt to spread interest in union organizing. Legal history has provided many instances
of applicants claiming that they were rejected for employment because of union affiliations. Asking about prior
membership in a labor union is considered to be an unfair labor practice.
To remain legal, any inquiry about organizations must be limited to asking about membership in groups that applicants
consider being relevant to their ability to perform the duties required by the position under consideration. For all practical
purposes this limits questions about organizations to technical and professional societies related to an applicant’s
occupational field.
Job applicants may reveal personal information during the course of an interview. Such admissions are legal and within
the realm of their personal rights. Interviewers may not respond with questions on the same topics. Potential employers
may not use such information when making hiring decisions. The latter activities are illegal. As an example, a female
applicant may talk about her recent divorce, her three dependent children, and the fact that her church is assisting her to
pay for cancer treatment that is thought to be due to benzene exposure on her last job. An interviewer may not ask for any
details and must not use any of the offered information when making a hiring decision. The only relevant consideration is
whether or not the applicant has the ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of the position for which she is
applying.
Exhibit 13-2 provides a number of specific questions as examples of prohibited inquiries. These questions, or variations of
them, may not be asked of a job applicant whether in an interview or on a job application. Exhibit 13-3 provides a number
of examples of legal pre-employment interview questions.
Exhibit 13-2 Examples of Forbidden Pre-Employment Questions
General
Concerning an applicant’s general history, in a pre-employment interview, a potential employer may not ask the
following:
1. Do you attend church regularly? What church do you go to, and who is the pastor?
2. What religious holidays do you observe?
3. What is your nationality, ancestry, descent, parentage, or lineage?
4. Of what nationality are your parents? Your spouse?
5. What is your native language?
6. Are you married? Divorced? Separated?
7. Where does your spouse work? What does he (or she) do for a living?
8. Do you have children? What are their names and ages? Do you have a reliable arrangement for child care?
9. Was your name ever changed by marriage or court order? If so, what was your original name?
10. When were you born? How old are you?
11. Where were you born?
12. Where were your parents born? Where was your spouse born?
13. Of what country are you a citizen?
14. Are you a native-born or naturalized citizen of the United States?
15. Do you own your own home or do you rent?
16. How did you acquire the ability to read, write, or speak English?
17. What is the name, address, and relationship to you of the individual to be notified in case of accident or emergency?
18. What kind of discharge did you receive from the United States military?
19. To what clubs, societies, lodges, or fraternal organizations do you belong?
20. How many children do you plan to have?
21. Have you ever had your wages garnished or attached?
22. Have you ever filed for bankruptcy, either personally or as a business owner?
23. Has your spouse ever worked here?
24. What is your height? Your weight?
25. Would your spouse approve of your employment here should you be hired?
Medical
Concerning an applicant’s medical history, in a pre-employment interview, a potential employer may not ask the
following:
1. How is your health in general?
2. Do you have any relevant medical problems or conditions?
3. Have you or any member of your family ever been treated for any of the following diseases or conditions? (This is
followed by a checklist that may include: cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, epilepsy, AIDS, back
problems, carpal tunnel syndrome, hearing loss, contact dermatitis, drug or alcohol abuse, tendonitis, arthritis,
tuberculosis, sexually transmitted diseases, and mental illnesses.)
4. Are you taking prescription medication? What drugs, prescribed for what conditions?
5. Have you ever been hospitalized? For what conditions?
6. Do you have any disabilities or medical, physical, or mental limitations that could prevent you from performing the
duties of the job in question?
7. Are you in any way disabled, or do you have a disability? If so, how did you become disabled?
8. What is the prognosis of your disability?
9. Will you require time off for treatment or medical leave due to anticipated incapacitation because of your disability?
10. Have you ever been injured on the job or had any other work-related accidents?
11. Check off on a list of potentially disabling impairments any physical limitations that you may have.
12. Is any member of your family disabled?
13. Have you ever filed a Workers’ Compensation claim?
14. Have you received any payment for a Workers’ Compensation claim?
Exhibit 13-3 Examples of Legally Permissible Pre-Employment Questions
Concerning an applicant’s personal information, in a pre-employment interview, a potential employer may legally ask the
following questions or request the following information:
1. What is your full name?
2. What is your address and the telephone number at which you can be reached?
3. What is your prior work experience? For each prior employer, this may include:
• Employer’s name and address
• Jobs or positions held
• Duties performed
• Skills needed to perform job duties
• Tools, machinery, equipment, and vehicles used in job performance
• Name of immediate supervisor
• Rate of pay received
• Length of time on the job
• Reason for leaving
4. What do you know about the requirements of the job for which you are applying?
5. What skills, education, training, or experience have you had that is relevant to performing the duties of this job?
6. Do you hold the licenses or certifications that may be required for employment in the position in question (for
example, a driver’s license, an electrician’s license, a registered nursing license)?
7. What were the primary duties and most important responsibilities on your most recent job?
8. What do you believe was the most difficult part of the job you have been most recently doing? Why?
9. What safety procedures were you required to follow at your most recent employment?
10. Are you applying for full-time, part-time, or temporary work?
11. Are you able to work the particular shift or shifts on which this job is ordinarily used?
12. Are you able to work overtime or weekends when it is necessary?
13. Are you able to meet this organization’s attendance standard?
14. If hired, when are you able to begin work?
PROBING FOR INTANGIBLES
After discussing more concrete subjects, such as qualifications and experience, interviewers often spend some time
discussing less tangible issues. They are attempting to develop an overall impression of an applicant’s personality and
attitude toward work and career. Because too much cannot be asked in an interview, it is important to develop a gut
feeling or personal sense about each candidate. Gut feeling is highly subjective, but it is a legitimate part of the interview
process. It refers to the feeling an interviewer develops about an individual during an interview. Such feelings can provide
clues about how other employees will regard the new person if an offer of employment is extended.
Exhibit 13-4 offers a number of possible questions that can be used when assessing an applicant in areas other than
specific qualifications and experience for the position under consideration. In addition to assessing intangibles, an
interviewer should keep another question in mind throughout the conversation: “How well do I believe this person would
fit into the present work group?” Whoever is hired will have to work, often closely, with current employees on a daily
basis. Concern for how a new person may relate to existing employees is very appropriate.
Exhibit 13-4 Examples of Questions to Use in Probing for Intangibles
Concerning the information supplied by an applicant in a pre-employment interview, a potential employer may legally ask
the following questions or request the following less tangible information:
1. What aspects of a job are most important to you?
2. What are your own personal criteria for your success?
3. What are your short-term career goals? What are your long-term career goals?
4. What are you seeking in the position under discussion that you are not getting from your present position?
5. What past goals have you set for yourself, and what have you done to accomplish them?
6. In what way would a position with our organization help meet your career goals?
7. What factors do you believe have contributed the most to your growth?
8. What has prevented you from moving ahead as rapidly as you would have liked?
9. What job would you choose if you were completely free to do so?
10. Which of your jobs did you enjoy the most? Why?
11. How did you get each of the positions you have held?
What Is an Applicant Really Seeking?
While assessing intangibles and throughout an interview, an interviewer should be attempting to judge whether the
applicant is trying to obtain a more desirable position or escape from something that is dissatisfying. In other words, an
interviewer is trying to determine if an applicant’s driving force is positive or negative. Is the applicant seeking
advancement, more interesting work, better compensation, a preferred occupation, growth or personal satisfaction?
Conversely, is the applicant trying to get away from an unpleasant environment, undesirable hours, an unpleasant
supervisor, a quarrelsome mix of personalities, or some other unknown factor?
It is not always easy to determine whether a person’s motivations for seeking a new position are positive, negative, or
mixed. However, the time allocated to making a decision is still worth the investment. A person who is seeking a more
desirable position is more likely to remain as a positive performer over time. An individual whose primary motive is to
escape something is more likely to be a mediocre performer who is likely to leave and become a turnover statistic.
VERY FEW EXCEPTIONS
There are some legitimate exceptions to the prohibitions against making hiring decisions based on some of the categories
of forbidden information discussed in this chapter. For example, physical condition and age can legitimately be
considered as bona fide occupational qualifications for police officers, fire fighters, airline pilots, and surgeons. Gender
may be relevant for applicants applying for a position as an attendant for a men’s or women’s fitting room or to model
gender-specific clothing. Having a driver’s license is a legitimate requirement for operating a taxicab.
WHEN FORBIDDEN INFORMATION IS VOLUNTEERED
As already noted, forbidden information must never be used as the basis of an employment decision, even when it is
voluntarily given.
Most interviewers receive forbidden information at one time or another. This puts an interviewing manager in an
uncomfortable position of having heard unsolicited information and then having to ignore it. This is easier said than done.
The situation is similar to a comment made in court that is followed by a judge’s admonition to “Disregard that last
remark.” It is easy to disregard something that has not been heard, but it is not so easy to ignore something that has been
heard. The information is known. The best advice is conscientiously to avoid using it when making a decision.
Applicants often volunteer personal information in a plea for sympathy that they hope will lead to a job offer. Examples of
such pleas include, “I really need this job because I’m a single parent,” “I’ve been out of work for months and my
husband is ill,” or “We get our health insurance through my wife’s employer, so I could save you some money on
benefits.”
On occasion, applicants deliberately drop items of personal information and later claim they were the victims of
discrimination when the job is given to someone else. An example of such an insertion is, “I happened to mention that I
was pregnant. I know that’s why I didn’t get the job.” Interviewers who hear comments that contain personal information
are encouraged to report them in writing to their supervisors as soon as is practical after an interview is concluded. They
should later file documentation summarizing the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate and rank all persons in the
applicant pool. Finally, interviewers should note the reasons for recommending an offer of employment to the successful
hire and the reasons for not recommending other applicants.
To reiterate, no matter how it is obtained, forbidden information should never be used as a factor in an employment
decision. Because interviewers may be required to defend a particular employment decision, an HR recruiter and hiring
manager should always be able to state succinctly and honestly why one person was hired in preference to others.
AFTER THE INTERVIEW
Ordinarily, an employment recruiter in HR has the responsibility to make a formal offer of employment. This includes the
starting pay, which will have been settled upon in conjunction with the department manager. It is fairly common practice
for the offer to be conveyed by telephone and then followed with a formal written offer by letter.
Human resources usually has the duty to notify unsuccessful applicants and thank them for applying and making
themselves available for interview. When conveying regrets, HR personnel will not tell unsuccessful candidates why they
did not get the position. Each is simply told that someone who appeared to be more suitable or more appropriately
qualified was given the position.
Occasionally, unsuccessful applicants will call a department manager directly and ask specifically why they were not
hired. Managers who receive such calls can handle them in one of two ways. The caller can be politely referred to HR for
the official response, or the manager can simply say that the position went to the applicant who seemed best suited for the
position. Organizations must always be able to defend their reasons for rejecting any particular candidate should that
become necessary. However, an organization is under no obligation whatsoever to explain to unsuccessful applicants why
they were not chosen.
It is often helpful to maintain a brief written record of the reasons for rejecting candidates in a recruiting process,
especially if many applicants are involved and the final hiring decision might be seen as close or arbitrary. However,
interviewers should exercise care about what is written and how it is expressed. Such notes can be made public in the
event of a legal action that follows a hiring decision. A good rule of thumb is never to write anything about an applicant or
employee that would be embarrassing if it appeared in the daily newspaper.
BEHAVIORAL INTERVIEWING
The concept of behavioral interviewing is growing in popularity and is seen in many quarters as generating a greater
degree of reliability than so-called ordinary interviewing. And it is receiving increasing visibility in management
literature. One needs to ask, however, if behavioral interviewing is truly something new or if this is but a new label
describing a practice that should have been followed all along and which has in fact been followed by better (meaning
more successful) interviewers. In other words, how much of behavioral interviewing is genuine improvement over older
ways, and how much simply represents a new name attached to a process that has acquired a measure of tarnish for having
been carelessly practiced by many? Just as “delegation” became so abused through improper application that thorough
and proper delegation became redefined as “empowerment,” so much interviewing was so poorly accomplished that some
apparently felt the need for a unique label for proper, effective interviewing.
The fundamental underlying premise of behavioral interviewing is the belief that the most accurate predictor of an
individual’s future performance is past performance in a similar situation. It has been described as a relatively new style
of interviewing developed by industrial psychologists during the 1970s. It was perhaps given that name during the 1970s,
but long before it was so labeled, numerous insightful interviewers practiced the process without the benefit of a special
name. Many of the numerous sources of information about behavioral interviewing describe traditional interviews as
including questions such as “Tell me all about yourself” (which really is not a question but rather is an open-ended
instruction). Recall that an earlier section described questions like “Tell me all about yourself” as highly inappropriate.
The same section included a pair of examples that might have come directly from a list of behavioral interviewing
questions, specifically: “What accomplishment of the past year or two are you most proud of?” and “Tell me about
something that went wrong on the job, and what you learned from it.” Other examples include questions like: “Describe
an instance in which you had to go above and beyond the call of duty to get a job done,” and “Have you ever had to sell
an unpopular idea to others? How did you proceed, and what were the results?” Also note that many of the questions
listed in Exhibit 13-4, “Examples of Questions to Use in Probing for Intangibles,” are applicable to behavioral
interviewing.
A behavioral approach to interviewing is preferred in the majority of instances of dealing with candidates for technical,
professional, and managerial positions, especially when the candidates are experienced. The approach may have to be
narrowed somewhat in interviewing, for example, new graduates who have had no work experience in their fields. And
one’s interviewing approach may have to be further narrowed in assessing personnel for entry-level positions, especially
those who are new to the workforce.
Regardless of what the approach may be called, the premise is undoubtedly sound: past performance in a similar situation
is probably the best predictor of future performance. However, behaviorally oriented or not, selection interviewing is far
from being a perfect process. No one has yet devised a reliable way to separate the applicants who simply talk a good job
from those who will later do a good job.
THE INTERVIEWER’S BEHAVIOR: A SECOND POSSIBLE DIRECTION
Occasionally the process of an employee selection interview becomes reversed and the applicant takes the lead and
interviews the interviewer, effectively interviewing an entire department or organization. Some applicants seem to do so
naturally, whereas a smaller number of sharp applicants deliberately turn the focus of an interview around. This process
requires the interviewer to be able to recognize such a situation and then reclaim control of the interview to end the
reversal.
More Silence Than Talk
Some interviewers tend to dominate the conversation and speak at length about the organization, their departments, and
themselves. The object of an employment interview is to get applicants to talk about themselves and to discuss appropriate
job-related topics. An interviewer must control the interview with proper questions and must concentrate on what an
applicant is saying.
Nonstop talking by an interviewer limits the information that can be gained from an applicant. It sends an inappropriate
message about the organization to an applicant. The proper role of an interviewer involves more silence than speech.
From the perspective of an interviewer, the most productive parts of an interview occur with one’s mouth shut and ears
open.
More Points to Keep in Mind
Effective interview technique includes being in complete control of an interview situation without obviously appearing to
do so.
Successful and experienced interviewers resist the temptation to make a hasty judgment concerning a job candidate.
Research has demonstrated that a majority of interviewers make up their minds about candidates during the first few
minutes of contact. The remainder of the interview does little to change that mind set. Always keep in mind that even
though first impressions are sometimes proven to be correct, they are just as often proven to be incorrect.
Never encourage an applicant to criticize a present or past employer. Be wary of an applicant who voluntarily does so.
Conversely, one indicator of a promising applicant is how diplomatically an individual describes an apparently unpleasant
employment experience.
Remain aware of the nonverbal clues that may be exhibited during the course of an interview. Remember, too, to
recognize the need of applicants to compensate for normal nervousness. This is especially true for applicants who have
little or no interviewing experience.
Be conscious of the halo effect when interviewing. This occurs when interviewers allow one or two obviously positive
traits to bias their judgment favorably when assessing unrelated characteristics.
In every interview, try to convey an overall positive picture of the organization offering the employment opportunity. By
espousing the belief that an organization is a good place to work, some of the positive viewpoints will be communicated
to an applicant.
Be honest about the negatives of the job, if any. Most jobs include duties that are boring or repetitive. Some jobs include
decidedly unappealing tasks or situations that may be physically or emotionally discomforting. Remain upbeat overall, but
do not overlook the negatives during an employment interview. Applicants who accept a position only to discover the
unpleasant parts after starting work are likely to feel that they have not been treated honestly.
References
To reiterate, a department manager should never become directly involved in checking references. This is stressed because
often department managers have been told, even in some of the management literature, to check references themselves.
They are advised to go directly to applicants’ former supervisors and bypass the HR departments of an applicant’s former
employer and of their own organization. Some of the same sources will pointedly advise them to avoid their
organization’s HR department. A common rationale for these recommendations is that HR is usually too frightened of
legal repercussions to request any usable information. Following this advice can easily place them at the center of a legal
action. As long as an organization has an HR department, HR should be making the reference checks.
RÉSUMÉ FRAUD: LIES AND EMBELLISHMENTS
At times it seems that writing an employment résumé involves putting nearly as much fiction as fact on paper. Experts
have estimated that up to 40% of résumés include exaggerations or outright untruths. As many as 75% include some
degree of fluff designed to make facts appear more significant than they actually are. This is accomplished by putting a
favorable spin on information.
Deception on employment résumés can take a number of different forms. These involve positive spin, embellishment,
exaggeration, lying, or a combination of these devices. Many variations exist.
A résumé may be deliberately ambiguous. One of the most frequently encountered examples of ambiguity has to do with
education. An individual will claim to have “attended Prestige University in the BS Program in Chemistry.” The hope is
that readers of this résumé will assume that the applicant received a BS degree in Chemistry. In truth, the length of
attendance is not known, no major was completed, and the person was not awarded a degree.
Another deception is to shift dates of education or experience deliberately to conceal periods of unemployment or,
occasionally, a period of imprisonment. An honest résumé may well include one or more gaps. Applicants know that they
are likely to be questioned about these gaps.
A variation on date shifting is using years to create the impression of having worked longer in a place than was actually
the case. For example, a résumé may report working for “Ajax Hospital, 2000–2001.” The hope is that readers of this
résumé will assume that employment extended from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2001. In truth, the length of
employment may have been from November 2000 through January 2001. The same approach is used to conceal gaps in
employment.
Another common strategy is to exaggerate job responsibilities, report inflated job titles, and provide inflated salaries. In
truth, this is a dangerous practice because basic employment information such as titles and position responsibilities is
easily verifiable through reference checks. Salary data are relatively easy to verify. These actions are intended to make
applicants seem more appealing than might otherwise be the case.
Interviewers occasionally encounter claims of a more prestigious institution awarding an individual’s degree. For
example, an applicant may list “Stanford MBA” on a résumé. In truth, the person has been awarded a master of business
administration (MBA) degree from Obscure University. This practice is openly fraudulent. Official copies of educational
transcripts are often required as a condition of employment. Presenting fraudulent documentation is usually a reason for
immediate discharge from a position.
Candidates may claim to have degrees and other credentials they do not possess. Honors and awards may be invented.
Numbers of publications and conference presentations may be inflated or openly invented. Such claims are easily verified.
Résumé fraud increases during periods of job scarcity. However, it is present to some extent on a continuing basis, so
employment recruiters and other interviewers should be alert to the possibility of fraud in every résumé that they review.
Spotting Embellishments and Inconsistencies
There is no reliable way to uncover every instance of fraud, exaggeration, or untruth that may appear in the résumés an
organization receives. The task of verifying every fact on every line would be very time consuming and costly. However,
interviewers who remain alert to subtle signs and signals are likely to know when closer examination is warranted.
Look for gaps in a person’s record. It is common for someone who wants to cover something up simply to omit it. Be alert
for overlapping dates and inconsistent details. An occasional untruth can upset the chronology of one’s experience, and
the person manipulating the facts often fails to adjust other information as necessary. Ask questions about the prestigious
school an applicant claims to have attended or the city in which the applicant claims to have worked. Many people who
have put themselves in the position of making things up as they go along will fumble, stumble, or hesitate in coming up
with responses.
Always consider an applicant’s reason for leaving a particular position and ask for clarification, especially if the job being
sought represents a downward or lateral career move. The majority of people that have been terminated from a job for
cause, not laid off, will use wording that characterizes their departures as voluntary.
During an interview, question the applicant about specific details that appear in the résumé. People who have lied or
exaggerated will often find it more difficult to remember everything that they have written. Try to decide whether a job
candidate’s answers seem memorized or rehearsed. Someone with nothing to conceal does not need to have pat answers
prepared in advance.
Always be conscious of nonverbal clues. Excessive nervousness, failure to look an interviewer in the eyes, or physical
fidgeting in a chair can be an indicator of fraud. However, be careful not to confuse simple nervousness with fraud. Ask
an applicant for permission to have specific information verified. This will usually be done by HR. An applicant who has
faked something significant will often withdraw from the process right after the interview.
Upon request, HR will frequently become involved in verifying résumé information. This is done when work references
are checked. However, verification must sometimes go beyond ordinary reference checks. When confirming information
by telephone, an HR representative will go through a company’s operator or HR department rather than using a telephone
number that the applicant may have provided. Some people who fake their experience have friends or relatives pose as
former employers. If there is any doubt about as to whether a reference’s address is genuine, HR will test the address by
mailing something there.
AN ACQUIRED SKILL
Many who are new to recruiting responsibilities are initially uneasy about interviewing prospective employees. Because
of this uneasiness, and because of being too careful and worrying excessively about the process, interviewing becomes
more difficult for them than it has to be. Individuals who take interviewing seriously and conscientiously, try to do it
effectively, and endeavor to learn from each interview experience will find that their skills improve with practice. Being
too casual or disorganized when interviewing can result in the loss of a potentially good employee and can leave that
person with a poor impression of an organization. In contrast, being overly careful, dragging out the recruitment process
by interviewing too many candidates, and delaying a decision also can lead to the loss of a potentially good employee.
It is useful to remember that when selecting employees, there is no guaranteed perfect choice. Some risk of error is always
present. Experts remark that while a personal interview is a problematic and marginally reliable means of filling a job
vacancy, no better means are available.
CONCLUSION
The parameters of a recruitment interview are proscribed by legal statutes. Preparation for an interview begins before an
applicant arrives. Interviewers should review the relevant position description, review the applications and résumés of all
candidates, arrange for a room or area suitable for interviewing, and prepare opening questions.
Interviews should begin on time, with initial questions designed to help candidates to relax. The language used should be
appropriate for the candidate. Leading questions and inquiries that result in excessively long or very short responses
should be avoided. Writing during an interview should be kept to an absolute minimum if not completely avoided.
Closure and follow-up should be promised and promptly delivered.
Guidelines concerning legal and forbidden topics must be closely followed. Interviewers must be alert for irregularities in
documents or the intent of applicants. Interviewers must remember that others have the responsibility to extend job offers
and check references. Guidelines for appropriate behavior at all points in the interviewing process must be followed.
Interviewing is an acquired skill that usually improves with practice.
Case Study Resolution
Returning to the initial case study involving interviewer Carrie Taylor and applicant Lynn Taylor, Carrie has placed the
organization at risk by the manner in which she allowed herself to be influenced by Lynn’s “frail build, small stature, and
apparent age.” Lynn revealed enough personal information for Carrie to conclude that Lynn had received surgery for
breast cancer. Carrie allowed this personal information to influence her thinking about Lynn’s capabilities. Carrie’s
motives may have been honest and her concern for Lynn genuine, but her actions were illegal. Carrie did not have the
right to conclude that Lynn was “bound to fail.” She was not legally entitled to base an employment decision on that
subjective conclusion. As long as the specifications of the nursing position in the transitional care unit did not delineate
specific physical requirements that Lynn could not meet, Carrie had no basis for rejecting Lynn as a viable candidate.
Lynn could be legitimately rejected for the position on physical grounds, but doing so is not within Carrie’s scope of
authority. Such rejection must come from the organization’s employee health physician and would ordinarily occur when
an applicant who has a tentative offer of employment does not pass a pre-employment physical examination.
In response to the human rights complaint, the organization should attempt to negotiate a settlement that includes an
examination of Lynn by employee health to determine whether she is physically capable of handling the transitional care
position. Using an occupational physician from an outside agency would minimize bias. When an individual is turned
down for employment on the basis of a personal observation or forbidden information, the final determination
appropriately involves an assessment of the individual’s ability to perform the job.
………………………
SPOTLIGHT ON CUSTOMER SERVICE
How Customer Service Contributes to a Successful and Legal Selection Interview
Full disclosure: we are not aware of any statute that mandates customer service. Although privately, we feel such a
concept (requiring good customer service) has merit, we shall defer any discussion of it for now.
Contributing to a successful selection interview is a different matter. An organization that has a reputation for providing
good customer service is likely to have a good reputation in the minds of the public. That fact is likely to attract
individuals who want to work in such an environment. This is likely not only to increase the number of applicants for a
given position but also to improve the quality of the applicant pool.
This assertion can be supported. The Walt Disney Company (entertainment) and L.L.Bean (clothing and household
products) have both had reputations for providing good customer service. Both companies routinely attract large numbers
of applicants when they have positions to be filled. Because this has been the case for many years, applicant pool size
cannot be attributed solely to recent problems with the economy and unemployment. A reputation for good customer
service does provide unexpected consequences.
Homework help – Discussion Points
1. In interviewing a prospective employee, why should you consider it important to inquire about the presence of
information gaps or time periods that are not accounted for in the applicant’s work record?
2. Why should an interviewing manager review all available information about an applicant before beginning an
interview? Managers are busy people. Is arriving for an interview with an application in hand and then beginning an
interview on time not sufficient?
3. If an interviewer wants the applicant to do most of the talking, what is wrong with opening an employment interview
with the question, “Tell me all about yourself”?
4. Provide three examples of interview questions that are legal but which provide an interviewing manager with little or
no useful information.
5. Why do you believe it is no longer appropriate to ask whether a job applicant has ever been arrested? Is it not in an
employer’s best interests to avoid taking on workers who have criminal records?
6. Can you make use of personal information in rendering an employment decision if the information was voluntarily
provided to you? Why or why not?
7. An interviewing manager should be prepared to respond in considerable detail to any unsuccessful job candidate who
calls asking why he or she was not offered employment. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Why?
8. Why do experts recommend that the proper role of an interviewer involves more silence than speech?
9. Develop a brief procedure or protocol (a simple list of points to be covered) for reviewing an employment application
or résumé for possible inaccuracies or embellishments.
10. Write (or quote from the chapter) a concise statement that, if conscientiously applied in interviewing, will ensure that
only legal questions will be asked.
11. Why should an interviewing manager attempt to assess an applicant’s intangible factors that are not directly reflected
in the record of education or experience?
12. Why is it advisable to keep writing to a minimum while interviewing an applicant? Is it not helpful to capture as
much information as possible about the person?
Resources
Books
Bunting, S. (2005). Interviewer’s handbook: Successful techniques for every work situation. London: Kogan Page.
Cook, M. (2004). Personnel selection: Adding value through people (4th ed.). New York: John Wiley.
Phillips, J. J. (2005). (Human) capital. Chicago, IL: American Management Association.
Schell, M. (2004). Human resource approved job interviews and résumés. Vancouver, BC: Approved Publications.
Taylor, P., & O’Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Structured employment interviewing. London: Ashgate.
Periodicals
Blackman, M. C. (2002). Personality judgment and the utility of the unstructured employment interview. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 24, 241–250.
Borman, W. C., Hanson, M. A., & Hedge, J. W. (1997). Personnel selection. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 299–337.
Cook, K. W., Vance, C. A., & Spector, P. E. (2000). The relation of candidate personality with selection-interview
outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 867–885.
Paunonen, S. V., Rothstein, M. G., & Jackson, D. N. (1999). Narrow reasoning about the use of broad personality
measures for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 389–405.
Ryan, A. M., & Ployhart, R. E. (2000). Applicants’ perceptions of selection procedures and decisions: A critical review
and agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 26, 565–606.
Smith, D. B., Hanges, P. J., & Dickson, M. W. (2001). Personnel selection and the five-factor model: Reexamining the
effects of applicant’s frame of reference. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 304–315.
