What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of using structured versus unstructured interviews?

Effective hiring is the most important management practice because your team’s performance tomorrow depends on your hiring decisions today. Aside from performance and doing the actual work, employees shape the culture of any company and make it what it is. That’s why hiring is the most important thing organizations do. The cost of a wrong hire is so high – and the benefits of a great hire are so disproportionate – that even marginal improvements to the hiring approach will deliver sizeable benefits to your team and the organization. Critically, most new managers don't learn how to hire effectively. By reducing variance, structured interviews are the most effective way to manage the parts of the hiring process that can be controlled.

I recently had an interview with the director of the human resources department along with two other hiring managers. Unstructured interviews, they throw anything at you.

I am a strong advocate for structured interviews, specifically competency-based interviews. When working as an In-house Recruitment Manager, I always ask myself these 3 questions: - is our hiring process consistent? - is it fair? - how does it meet legal compliance? Having worked with many start ups over the years, I'd also add the 4th one, how does it represent our company's culture. For me, using something like a competency based interview helps to focus on candidates past performance and their competencies. Not, opinions and my assumptions.

Unstructured interviews tend to better at gauging culture fit and serve as an opportunity to learn more about the person versus the professional. I have seen these best used to build rapport and comfortability with everybody involved, have an open and honest conversation about the role and potential future at the company, and allow for hiring managers to be open to candid questions. I always encourage companies to hold at least one unstructured interview per candidate, so you can get a much better understanding of who they are without the performative aspect of a professional interview. This also seems to go over well with candidates as they have a better experience since not every interaction is an unintentional interrogation

Structured interviews allow us to compare candidates fairly and reduce the impact of attributes other than competence. Here are some effective ways to approach this: 1) Identify in advance the key attributes and characteristics you are looking for in a candidate. Then, look for them in the resumes and rank them (e.g. High, Medium or Low) for each candidate. 2) Later during the interview, ask the same questions to all candidates and also ask them in the same order to compare their answers. 3) After the interview, each panel member sends the hiring manager a Hire / No Hire recommendation via private message. The hiring manager aggregates the independent responses before starting a debriefing session.

I find the main advantage of structured interviews to be consistency in evaluation, as all candidates are asked the same set of predetermined questions. This consistency enables fairer comparisons between candidates and reduces the influence of interviewer bias. Additionally, they tend to be more reliable predictors of job performance, as they assess specific job-related competencies and behaviors, leading to better hiring decisions.

If you are over formal and over structured, you risk turning off a candidate who could otherwise be an amazing fit for your organization. You still need to be cognizant of building rapport, making a connection, and being human while asking structured and direct questions. If you are unable to balance structured questions with human interaction, you risk presenting a very poor and sterile candidate experience that will most likely drive away top talent. Don't let your interviews devolve into unintentional interrogations.

Are you looking to hire somebody who is good at answering interview questions, or somebody who is able to go with the flow of a natural conversation? The advantage of an unstructured interview is that it allows you to cultivate a genuine conversation with somebody you hope to work with on a full-time basis. It enables all parties to let their guard down, show their true colors, and develop connection and trust from the get-go. Unlike a structured interview, an unstructured interview can go in many different directions. It allows a natural and welcomed pace of conversation that gets people engaged, rather than on edge to answer any particular question "correctly".

Structured = assessing acquired skills in relationship to the business needs Unstructured = assessing the character, integrity, aptitude, attitude and ambition

In my opinion, there would be some unexpected things happened when we did not structure set of interview criteria: - Lack of focus - Difficulty in Evaluation - Could not build the connection with candidate in sharing story in the interview For examples: I have collaborated with some new hiring managers who has not much experienced in interviewing, they just speak anything they remember to talk, so there were many misunderstanding questions, sometimes bias question had occurred and that led our story line go the wrong way and candidates have feel bad impression about our professional working style

The structured interviewing process offers consistency and reduces personal bias by allowing the interviewer to focus on the role requirements rather than anything else. However, it leaves less room for follow-ups, which are sometimes required to address any communication gaps. Additionally, since every candidate is different, interviews should be directionally aligned rather than solely focusing on a fixed set of questions.

The Synergistic Power of Blending Structured and Unstructured Interviews - Balancing structured and unstructured interviews unlocks numerous benefits in candidate selection. Structured interviews provide reliability and validity through standardized questions, ensuring objective skill assessment. Unstructured interviews offer authenticity and adaptability, exploring candidates' personalities and cultural fit. This synergistic blend empowers organizations to make informed decisions, strengthening talent acquisition and fostering a culture of growth and excellence.

From my experience, combining structured and unstructured interviews provides a strategic edge in candidate selection and yields outcomes that neither method could achieve individually. By capturing both tangible skills and intangible qualities, employers can select candidates who possess the required competencies and also exhibit the potential for growth & excellence within the company's environment. Additionally, this balanced approach resonates with candidates, as it conveys an organization's commitment to a fair and thorough selection process. The combination of the two contributes to a positive candidate experience, which in turn can bolster an organization's employer brand.

At the core of our evaluation process are three key components: the Head, the Heart, and the Briefcase. The Head represents a person's natural thought processes and decision-making style (aka their drivers). The Heart represents their values and alignment with the culture and vision of the team or organization. The Briefcase represents their knowledge and experience, including the technical skills and relevant expertise needed for the role. The key to successful hiring is finding a candidate who excels in all three areas. By looking at all the data points together, we can hopefully get a consistent picture of the candidate and determine if they are the right fit for the role.

A solid interview needs a bit of both. You need a clear framework for assessing your criteria but need to be flexible in how you get there. The magic happens when the conversation moves away from feeling like an interrogation. Don't fall into the trap of listening for the 'right' answer - rather, look at how and IF you see yourself working together.