Situational or behavioral interviews — also known as competency-based interviews — are becoming the norm. Seen to offer a better glimpse into how a person will behave than simply asking them who they are, the interview allows candidates to provide a picture of themselves that speaks straight to the issue at hand, i.e. their ability to perform in ways that the job demands, rather than talk in platitudes or generalities.
In behavioral interviews, candidates are asked to describe past behavior, most often to give examples from one’s professional life. The premise is that past behavior can give a good idea of what the person’s future behavior will be. In situational interviews, on the other hand, candidates are asked how they would act in a hypothetical job-related situation. The idea being that intentions predict behaviors.
These types of job interviews yield better results in terms of picking the right person for the job than traditional interview questions, like, “Why do you want this position?” or “What drew you to this company?” — though it may be important to ask those questions as well, just to get to know a person. Yet, there is still a big difference between asking a person what they have done in the past and asking them what they may do in a future or hypothetical scenario. And asking what they have done in the past is better at predicting job performance.
When behavioral interviews focus on a candidates’ experiences, and when candidates provide concrete examples of how they acted in a situation and what they learned from the experience, they demonstrate that they possess certain knowledge, values and abilities, as exemplified by their behavior. When asked what they would do in a situation, they demonstrate a motivation to act on knowledge and values. The answer does not necessarily say anything about whether they will actually carry out those wishes in practice.
These types of job interviews yield better results in terms of picking the right person for the job than traditional interview questions, like, “Why do you want this position?” or “What drew you to this company?” — though it may be important to ask those questions as well, just to get to know a person. Yet, there is still a big difference between asking a person what they have done in the past and asking them what they may do in a future or hypothetical scenario. And asking what they have done in the past is better at predicting job performance.
When behavioral interviews focus on a candidates’ experiences, and when candidates provide concrete examples of how they acted in a situation and what they learned from the experience, they demonstrate that they possess certain knowledge, values and abilities, as exemplified by their behavior. When asked what they would do in a situation, they demonstrate a motivation to act on knowledge and values. The answer does not necessarily say anything about whether they will actually carry out those wishes in practice.
Wanting to do something and doing it are not the same. Oftentimes, the correlation between these two isn’t even that high.
One reason for the disconnect is a failure to recognize that knowing what to do, knowing how you can do it and being motivated to act are all different. The first two are skills that one can develop. The third is a desire or a willingness to get up and change something. While we like to think that knowing what to do automatically leads to both motivation and effective acting — hence the basis for situational interviewing — this is not the case. Sometimes, we have two out of the three, but we need all three components to be successful.
Even if the past is a good precursor to the present and future, it need not be determinative. People only repeat themselves if they don’t learn from their mistakes or they don’t want to change. As such, both behavioral and situational interviews can provide a good base for evaluating which candidates may be successful, but only if the company recognizes that each of these interview styles highlights only two out of the three components of values-driven action.
Behavioral interviewing and evaluation cannot assume that a person’s motivations will remain constant over time and situations. Situational interviewing and evaluation cannot assume that experience or organizational pressure won’t affect a person’s future choices. The good news is that people can become better at acting on their values. Yet, they can also become weaker. Competency to act on one’s values — like any professional development — demands that training match the deficiency and reinforcement speaks to what may become weak. Otherwise, like any other skill, lack of practice makes it imperfect.
>> Read more: Top 5 reasons why candidates withdraw
JobHopin Team