Us application Forms, selection interviews, and ability tests
Employers utilize two main styles of recruiting new employees: structured and unstructured interviews. Similar to the job candidates, each classification possesses its advantages and disadvantages. When a manager or business owner is employing, they might find themselves at crossroads over which method yields better results. Undoubtedly, everyone wants the processes that result in the employment of the best candidates so that those recruited can start their jobs immediately (Tarescavege et al., 2016). Comprehension of the two styles of interviewing will give a clear understanding of which method yields better results.
During a structured interview, the team putting the meeting together puts a list of questions for the employment. Various personnel in the team put together the candidate’s past experiences, job qualifications, strengths, and weaknesses, as well as the abilities and assets. (Green et al., 2013). On the other hand, unstructured interviews contain unrehearsed questions that do not possess any particular item, and neither are they arranged in any specific way. The employer may choose questions to ask based on the applicant’s resume while assessing how effectively the individual will embrace the company’s culture. Such interviews are freestyle and more discussions.
Unlike the unstructured interview, structural interviews yield more results. Because structured interviews have ordered, they produce more success. For instance, one easily interviews several job candidates at the same time. The interviewer poses similar questions to the candidates; hence comparison of results among all the candidates is easy. Secondly, it allows for preparation and yields more opportunities. The interviewer is unlikely to forget questions that they have written in a list.
Additionally, there is a decreased bias in employees’ opinions ( Tarescavegae et al., 2013). Generally, structured interviews are more efficient and fair enough. The main focus is on the questions rather than whether you prefer the candidate or not hence creating a better-controlled environment and facilitates the removal of bias. Similarly, structured interviews save time by conducting quick job interviews. They were once listed down, so structured interviews indeed ready to finish compared to unstructured interviews. Seemingly, distraction during structured interviews is less compared to formal meetings. Without prepared questions, the interviewer is likely to forget some of the interviewing material. Moreover, the prediction of the candidate’s interview person is desire compared to a structured interview. Depending on the individual carrying out the conversation, structured interviews quickly determine the performance, making it more successful than unstructured.
Several studies have proved that structured interviews superiorly hire employees faster, hence giving better results.it is essential to note that structured interviews have a few drawbacks. Despite this, though, the structured interviews still yield more results compared to unstructured interviews. For a super successful structured interview, several strategies can be embraced (Tarescavage et al., 2016). First, collect significant candidate highlights before the discussion. Possession of such test results will quicken the process of organizing a structured interview compared to an unstructured interview.
In recapitulation, find out the personal traits that fit correctly into the job. With the personality traits, you already possess the insights that are important to the job description. Henceforth, it is easier to concentrate on the concerned areas without bias or to get personal.
References
Green, D., Rosenfeld, B., & Belfi, B. (2013). New and improved? A comparison of the original and revised versions of the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms. Assessment, 20(2), 210-218.
Tarescavage, A. M., & Glassmire, D. M. (2016). Differences between Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) and SIRS-2 sensitivity estimates among forensic inpatients: A criterion, group comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 40(5), 488.