Overcoming managerial bias in employment interviewing

Abstract

The efficacy of using the employment interview to predict employee effectiveness and retention has been subject to intense scrutiny. Yet research has failed to provide conclusive evidence that the employment interview significantly aids in the matching of employers with applicants. Studies reveal that employment interviewing has significant shortcomings and that modest reforms of the process are of limited value. Thus, a thorough reexamination of the fundamental premises which underlie interviewing research and practice is warranted. The most important premise which merits reconsideration is the belief that interviews should be considered primarily as an instrument of managerial interests. We argue in this paper that the conduct of employment interviews should weigh equally the interests of all parties involved. In so doing, participants can meet the ethical obligation to balance the interests of all parties, while at the same time enhancing the practical utility of the interaction. The present essay develops this argument in three steps. The first section briefly examines previous efforts to reconsider the fundamental aims and methods of the employment interview. In the second section, Jurgen Habermas's model of the ideal speech situation is used to reveal and critique norms of employment interviewing. The concluding section discusses theoretical implications and recommends alternative approaches to interviewing designed to promote the interests of all parties and enhance the usefulness of the employment interview.