How do you verify your interview impressions?

After an interview, start by reviewing my notes and comparing them with the job description and evaluation criteria. Seek evidence that confirms or challenges our impressions of the candidate's strengths and weaknesses. For instance, if you perceive strong communication skills, assess their responses, examples, and questions. If technical skills are in question, evaluate their coding performance, identifying any struggles, errors, or knowledge gaps. This method helps ensure accurate and unbiased verification of your interview impressions.

Verifying interview impressions involves a systematic approach. Firstly, review your notes immediately after the interview to capture your initial thoughts and observations. Then, objectively analyze the candidate's responses, demeanour, and body language. Compare impressions with predefined criteria for the role. Cross-reference with multiple interviewers' viewpoints to minimize biases. Consider consistency in answers and behaviours. Seek evidence of skills through behavioural examples. Utilize reference checks to validate claims and traits. Compare impressions with past successful employees in similar roles. Remain open to revising judgments based on new information. Trust a data-driven and approach to ensure accurate assessment

Here are five tips for verifying whether a candidate is fit for the job after an interview: 1. Reference Checks 2. Skill Assessments 3. Background Checks 4. Behavioral Assessments 5. Panel Interviews Remember, while verification methods are valuable, it's important to use them as a complement to your initial impression, rather than solely relying on them. The goal is to gather as much information as possible to make an informed and unbiased hiring decision.

In my experience only questions directly related to tasks at hand are relevant. The interviewer must have experience/ exposure on the job they ask questions about.

I strongly believe on the notes that are captured by me during the interview. It helps to overcome the perceptual errors such as halo effect, projections and rationalization. When the notes are compared to the performance metrics, it give clarity to the interviewer on their impartial evaluation and most important the suggestions to improve the interviewing process.

One thing I have found to be helpful is to discuss notes taken with other panel member(s) after the interview to agree on the best candidate. Notes are also compared to understand why some candidates score lower or higher in some areas so we all understand and come to an agreement on feedback.This to to ensure that there is no bias and overall process is fair across the board.

Validation Through Probing Questions: Utilize targeted interview questions to delve deeper into the candidate's experiences and capabilities. For instance, inquire about challenging projects they've handled, teamwork scenarios, reactions to feedback, time management under pressure, and leadership instances. Analyze their responses in the context of the role's requirements and your initial impressions. Candidate's Questions as Indicators: Pay attention to the questions the candidate poses. Their inquiries not only reflect their motivation and engagement but also indicate the depth and breadth of their experience. Thoughtful, insightful questions can provide insights into their understanding of the role, organization, and industry.

Having a review with other interviewers can help challenge any bias (conscious or unconscious) you may have. It's a good way to help you stay objective through out the process.

Bias can inevitably creeps into interviews. We all have things we look for, things we like to see and hear. This is why I prefer to have a panel conduct all interviews. It allows hiring boards to have a broad range of impressions. Either the chairperson for the panel or the hiring manager can then review the scores for the candidate. If there are outliers in one person’s score you can have a conversation with the interviewer to get a better idea of what brought them to that score.

Bias is common and multiple persons that work in separate places ( Zoom interview) could select a better candidate versus one person without supporting background experience.

Because references are not reliable or objective a month of direct observation weighs more .A candidate may not have gad the best work experience until the present job.Consider the candidate perspective as well.

References are another data point for us to consider. It is a simple exercise to ask the candidate to include the relationship to the reference, at what workplace they worked together and the years they worked together. This data may then be cross referenced with the resume and identify any discrepancies you may want to explore with the reference and candidate. It is helpful to clarify the work relationship with the reference. Managers sometimes identify specific questions they would like to probe during the reference check related to essential parts of the role. If done well and thoroughly, references can provide a wealth of information about the candidate.

Using a push pull technique in the 2nd interview will help give you better insight of how they will react to adversity in the position or role. Don't be afraid to dig deep, peel back the layer of onion per say, and challenge them to think.

During the Great Resignation, I have counselled managers to pare the amount of selection stages they had for a position. I am a big believer of not subjecting the candidate to unnecessary assessments and streamlining this process as much as possible. Sometimes a second round interview could be an opportunity to meet with the divisional leader etc and maybe the team on site. This will give the candidate a sense of the culture and the team they would be working with and also engages the team in the selection process. Second interviews can be useful for complex positions where you want to ascertain the technical and human centric skills a candidate brings. From my experience the second interview is focused on emotional intelligence.

As a hiring manager, I have used structured interviews & we used to calibrate the score based on STAR answers. This approach limited biases & was easy to document. The organization should follow the calibration process & have a panel interview to evaluate candidates. Calibrate with notes to avoid the contrast & halo effect. This is why I have a problem with the statement "Hiring is based on attitude/cultural fit". How do you measure attitude/cultural fit in an interview? Is it based on STAR? Define the "Fit" Managers need to self-reflect on biases by defining fit. Is it personality test scores? How is testing done? Are you comparing top performers to test new hires? That is bias itself. Attitude is identified after working IMO.

I feel using a structured approach definitely gives the candidates a fairer chance against any inherent biases that may come about from the interviewers. It's either you have it or you don't. The results can be clearly justified since all candidates were rated using the same scale.

As a recruitment business owner our whole business model focuses on doing more than just interviewing. If you want to test “fit” (and you should) you must see how people work together as opposed to simply asking a bunch of questions. Candidates can become practised at interview and it’s risky to hire using this method alone. We run interview “days” where candidates aren’t asked any questions whatsoever. We simply give them tasks related to the job and test their working style and capability at the same time. Their personality is clear to see when you remove the mask of interview and patterns in behaviour become apparent. The client also doesn’t see the CV until after the event thereby removing bias based on pre judgement.

A structured approach is equitable and fair to candidates. It makes sure that all candidates are treated consistently in the process and in no way have inadvertent preference or worse allowing your unconscious biases treat candidates differently. It is a great safeguard against improper interviewing claims. It is the easiest thing to do and also ensures that the panel can compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Probing will allow the panel to explore different areas of a candidate's experience while starting from a common denominator. Whenever I coach a new manager on interviewing practices, I equate proper practices with consistency through the selection process even if a rogue panelist decides to ask other questions.

I believe one of the best ways to eliminate bias is to conduct a first round telephone interview. Sure, you lose body language and a bit of social interaction, however you also ensure you are not basing your opinion based on factors unrelated to qualifications for the actual job. Asking each interviewee the same questions also assists in true comparison as others have said. Since most jobs do require positive interaction with co-workers the final stage could involve video or an in-person meeting.

For me it is important that we record and listen carefully to the answers from the candidates so that when something is not clear we can confirm this question so that we can get candidates who are objective based on the candidate's skills and experience

I believe that most important factor to identify during an interview is what is the motivation behind a candidate application. I would be adamant that a candidate should not be attracted to a position just because is paid well.It is also important to understand if a candidate seeks growth within a company not just a stable position.

I have no issues with the steps mentioned so far but here's something to look for. All the efforts of positive intent selection can come crashing down if any decision makers is demonstrating "hubris". Please consider learning more about this condition. Hubris develops at the top level of your organizational tier. It's almost like a top leader acting like an emperor. In their dysfunctional mindset "he or she" know all, and see all. The fact is, this person doesn't value subordinates' feedback. They will play the interview process game but in the end an interview boards decision will be overridden.