How can you evaluate candidates' responses to behavioral questions?

I believe the STAR method tends to make candidates over think their answers & be someone they are not. Having your teams recruiter tell a interviewer to answer questions using the STAR method before a interview, will only distract the interviewer from being themself & over thinking questions. Not a fan of the STAR method or at least requiring candidates to answer questions following this method.

As much as I agree, yes the STAR method is tried, and tested, but sometimes it can cause folk to overthink, and become too regimented in their response. Scripted almost. I like to keep it casual and assess their tone, body language, and rationality when discussing a scenario. Does it really matter if the Situation, Task, Action and Result were scripted off to a T? Ask sensible, straightforward questions, and look for a simple straightforward answer.

The STAR method is great for evaluating behavioral questions in many dimensions. When observing their responses, carefully consider the following: if the situation is relevant to your opportunity, the task is similar to one they might perform at your organization, the action was appropriate, and the result was positive. Carefully weigh these factors to select the strongest culture and skill fit while minimizing the possibility of ethical or legal risks.

I focus on the STAR method—assessing the Situation, Task, Action, and Result. I scrutinize their ability to articulate specific examples, ensuring relevance to the queried competency. I pay attention to the depth of their responses, seeking insights into problem-solving and decision-making skills. Consistency and alignment with our company values are critical evaluation criteria. By probing for specifics, I gain a comprehensive understanding of their behavioral competencies, facilitating a well-rounded assessment for informed hiring decisions.

The STAR method is an effective framework used for structuring behavioral interview responses. It comprises Situation, Task, Action, and Result—requiring candidates to articulate a specific scenario they encountered, their assigned task, the actions taken, and the ultimate outcome. By employing this method, interviewers gain comprehensive insights into a candidate's experiences and capabilities. Evaluating responses against the STAR framework ensures candidates sufficiently cover pertinent details, substantiating their assertions with evidence-backed examples.

Identifying competencies ( Functional/technical/Behavioral ) is quite instrumental in evaluating candidates and check if they are a right fit. Questions can be raised around similar competencies to check on relevance and experience of candidate to desired roles. This also helps to have a focussed approach while interviewing instead of asking random subjective questions.

Any behavioral question you ask should be linked to competencies required for the job. To craft new behavioral questions reflective of competencies, take a step back and evaluate the required skills for the role. If the role is highly technical, structure your questions around software or equipment they might use. Regardless of whether the role is technical or not, always incorporate behavioral questions that reflect their emotional intelligence and team work capabilities. These are universal competencies that must be measured to ensure the candidate is a cultural fit and won't engage in maladaptive behaviors.

When preparing behavioral questions, it's essential to establish the competencies relevant to the role. These competencies, encompassing skills and abilities required for the job, should be clearly defined beforehand. For instance, in a customer service role, key competencies might include communication, problem-solving, and empathy. Employing a competency framework or job description aids in pinpointing crucial competencies. Subsequently, tailor behavioral questions to assess these competencies, seeking examples that illustrate their demonstration by candidates.

When hiring, start with an up-to-date (this can't be stressed enough) job description to identify the competencies needed to perform the tasks presented in the job description. It is also essential to consider the type of organization, the leader, and the team in place. Each behavioral question should allow you to test one competency. I tell my students to avoid naming the competency in their behavioral questions. One error I often see my students make when I teach them to write behavioral interview questions is to include two competencies in one question. If a candidate can score low on one competency and high on the other, it becomes impossible to score that question. Each behavioral question should test only one competency.

Or you can use an objective job fit appraisal like PXT Select that builds a behavioral interviews based on job related challenges the candidate is likely to face in this role complete with listen for tips and more.

It is important to anchor level of competency required to perform the job and candidate can be assessed basis the benchmark agreed upon by Hiring Manager/TA through a rating scale. For eg. proficiency level required for one competency may be different for 2 different jobs. Like verbal communication skills proficiency level required for Voice process may be high from that required for chat process in BPOs

Personally, I'm against the use of rating scales during behavioral interviews or screenings. I find them to be a bit dehumanizing, relegating the candidate to a number rather than a holistic individual with unique skills to offer. However, rating scales should certainly be leveraged for technical assessments alongside behavioral interviews to fully gauge the candidate's fit for the role.

When assessing candidates' responses to behavioral questions, employing a rating scale enhances objectivity. Utilizing a scale from 1 to 5 allows consistent evaluation based on predefined criteria. A rating of 1 signifies poor, 3 stands for average, and 5 indicates excellence. Each level corresponds to particular criteria within the competencies and STAR method. For instance, a poor response might lack detail or relevance, while an excellent one offers specificity and relevance. This approach ensures systematic evaluation across candidates.

There is a risk of introducing bias when you compare candidates. Some committee members may prefer a candidate over another (for reasons other than the candidate's competency profile) or have a negative bias against a candidate and, therefore, tend to ignore pre-established behavioral anchors and evaluation scores and manage to present their evaluation of a candidate based on their biases. If the committee member with a biased vision of a candidate has more hierarchical power, their opinion will bear more weight. I have seen structured selection interview processes, including behavioral questions and clear scoring procedures, that went awry in the end due to final discussions driven by biases, invalidating the entire selection process.

After assessing candidates' responses to behavioral questions, comparing and contrasting them is pivotal. Using tools like spreadsheets or software helps organize and detect patterns. This process unveils candidates' consistency in various competencies and reveals strengths or weaknesses in specific scenarios. Additionally, it aids in aligning responses with job expectations, determining standout performers, and identifying any gaps.

I always allow my candidates the opportunity to elaborate on their skills. This allows myself, as the recruiter, to identify transferrable skills that may compensate for technical or soft skill requirements. This can be achieved through gentle probing, allowing the candidate to express their involvement with similar technology or situations.

Follow-up questions are very helpful when it comes to diving deeper into what candidates share. Probing shows you how candidates respond when you go beyond their initial response to a question. Today a candidate told me why she was interested in leaving her company, and I stayed on the topic with her and more information came out that was insightful; I would not have that extra insight if I had not sat with her in that space for awhile.

The follow-up questions gives the opportunity to confirm the credibility of the candidates answers to the behavioural questions. Also when the candidate answers honestly, the follow-up questions may give us great insights about the candidate.

Asking follow-up questions during interviews is essential for gaining deeper insights into a candidate's experiences and decision-making processes. It allows for a more comprehensive understanding of their capabilities. Follow-ups like, "Can you elaborate on the steps you took to handle that situation?" or "How did you reach that conclusion?" encourage candidates to provide specific details, offering a clearer view of their problem-solving skills and adaptability. These inquiries help gauge their reflections on past experiences and illustrate their thought processes and abilities in action.

Asking follow up questions is important. Sometimes the candidate might be going in a different direction, giving hints, asking relevant questions to make him go on the track we are expecting would help both the candidate and you. :-)

Give candidates some grace when asking behavioral-based questions. I will give them a heads-up to let them know that I will be asking questions relating to their past experiences, and if something doesn't come immediately to their mind, it's OK to take a moment to think through that. If you need additional information or you don't think they fully answered the question, give them another chance to elaborate.

In evaluating responses to behavioral questions, I delve into how candidates detail their past experiences, prioritizing specifics over vague statements. It’s about discerning their approach to situations, the reasoning behind actions, and decision impacts. I listen for problem-solving, teamwork, and adaptability evidence. Consistency between their answers, resume, and past discussions is crucial for credibility. Not just their words, but their omissions can be revealing. Observing communication style and body language provides further insights into their confidence and genuineness. This comprehensive approach combines content analysis with behavioral cues to assess their fit for the role and alignment with company culture.

As recruiting professionals, I believe we have a duty to make our interviews and screenings as inclusive and holistic as possible. Consider expanding the breadth of your questions to encompass other skills that may be transferrable. This allows the candidate to progress through the interview process to the best of their ability, ensuring they've had a fair chance at employment.

It's important to evaluate the questions you are asking candidates, and ensure the questions set the candidate up for success. Interviews can be a nerve wracking experience for a candidate. Avoiding questions that may easily default to a yes or no answer, or asking "would you" questions can make it easy for a candidate to only provide a short answer without much context, just because of how the question is phrased. When the interviewer determines quality, competency based interview questions upfront, this sets both the interviewer and the candidate up for a solid interview.

In my experience, using the Predictive Index interview guide is a great way to dive into those behavioral situations. PI generates specific questions to compare a candidate's behavioral drives with the job target for the role. These questions are designed to confirm a candidate's behavioral fit and/or explore areas of disparity. Fully understanding what is required for the role is just as important as how the candidate answers the questions, and this guide provides a template for what you need to know!