Forums

I've searched but haven't found any previous discussions on conducting interviews, specifically group interviews versus individual interviews.

My preference has always been to conduct individual interviews with prospective candidates, but many leads and managers in my organization prefer to conduct group interviews; that is, 2 - 3 interviewers at the same time with one candidate.

I'm interested in what this group thinks.

Thank you in advance,

John P. Klein
Greenwood Village, Colorado

HMac's picture

Hi John:

The only thing I can think of is the relatively recent posdcast on how to handle group interviews [i][b]as the candidate.[/b][/i]

[list]How to Handle a Group Interview
December 10th, 2007[/list:u]

You might use some of M/M's reasons about why they dislike group interviews so much to try to dissuade people in your organization from continuing to do them...
-Hugh

jpklein62's picture

Thanks - I haven't listend to that podcast yet, but I will.

I have a pretty healthy distaste for group interviews myself - mostly because its harder to get my questions answered!

terrih's picture

I think part of the reason there isn't much about how to conduct a group interview is that M&M don't much care for group interviews. :wink:

jhack's picture

They don't save time. It's much harder to get a deep conversation going. It puts the candidate on guard.

Why would one want to do them?

John

jpklein62's picture

As to why anyone would want to do group interviews, in my opinion it is because of lacking of training or practice in porper interviewing techniques.

I find them ineffective and inefficient, and now that I've moved up in the company, I refuse to do group interviews.

HMac's picture

It's just laziness: I can reason that other people will have more at stake, so I don't have to prepare. The problem is: EVERYBODY thinks the other people will be prepared!

-Hugh

bflynn's picture

I don't like group interviews either, but I will admit to having been a part of them in the past. If you must do them

1) Consider one last time doing individual interviews instead
2) The interview will be a review board format. This works best for technical evaluation. Only if you must evaluate technical expertise.
3) Have a standard set of questions for each candidate.
4) Make sure each member of the team engages in at least one area.

Not my preferred format and not something I would ever use for hiring a manager. Maybe for a technician.

Brian

jpklein62's picture

Thanks everyone, for validating my instincts on this. I am in the midst of listening to the Group Interview podcast, and am glad to hear my opinion aligns with M&M's opinions.

tomas's picture

One instance where I have found having multiple interviewers useful is when hiring technical staff where the hiring manager does not have sufficiently deep technical skills to evaluate the candidate's answers from a technical perspective.

Having the manager and the technician conduct separate interviews may not be as effective. As an example, the candidate may be responding to an answer on how they dealt with a disaster recovery scenario and it all sounds good to the manager but the technician's BS meter is going off the charts. Some well directed questions might clarify the situation. If you hold separate interviews the candidate might respond with an entirely different example when interviewed by the technically oriented staff.

HMac's picture

tomas - great example. Without contradicting the underlying philosophy of the cast, you're pointing to a certain set of circumstances that might well make sense to have a few people doing an interview together.

Another great example of the power of the discussion boards in helping us think about, and then apply M-T to our particular needs.

-Hugh

AManagerTool's picture

Group interviews tend to degenerate into a feeding frenzy. People tend to follow along with the mob or an alpha figure in these situations. The questions that get asked lead the mobs opinion. If you are going to do a group interview, make it a seminar where the candidate does a presentation to the interviewers and the interviewers each get a chance to ask questions based on the seminar....PRIVATELY with the candidate in their interviews.

kklogic's picture

We do a group interview as a part of our process - but it is the last step. Here's our process -

1. Candidates selected from resumes
2. Candidates interview with hiring manager
3. Candidates interview with the team they will be working for. This is a much more casual discussion more than an interview. We tell them that this is for them to ask questions - be it about dress code, the hiring manager, the culture, etc.
4. Candidates interview with a cross-section of the people they will be working with (multiple departments). Immediately following this, we take them to dinner with the same group.
5. If multiple candidates get this far, we will administer a selection test.

It takes 4-6 weeks to get done, but is well worth it.

stephenbooth_uk's picture

[quote="jpklein62"]As to why anyone would want to do group interviews, in my opinion it is because of lacking of training or practice in porper interviewing techniques.[/quote]

Group interviews are used a lot in the UK public sector and other blame prone environments. This is for two reasons, they make it very easy to avoid blame and they allow you to dodge the equalities challenge. Typically there's a panel of three people: The hiring manager, another manager and someone from HR.

Avoiding blame is probably the most obvious, if you're the hiring manager and the person doesn't turn out as good as you hoped so you have to get rid of them after 3 months and go through the cost and disruption of a recruitment again then you can just blame the other two, "I had doubts but they were so positive about the candidate I figured it was nothing."

A group interview allows you to avoid the equalities challenge as you can make sure that the interview panel reflects the pool of candidates to be interviewed. If you have one-on-one interviews then the interview panel (of one) can only represent one gender and one ethnicity. If they then appoint someone from their own gender and ethnicity the candidates who are not of that gender and/or ethnicity may have an opening to launch a legal complaint of discrimination (this has been very common in the UK public sector). Even if the complaint is totally bogus the cost (money time and reputation) of defending against it can be very high. If the interview panel is mixed to match the candidate pool then there is an inbuilt defence, if someone complains that they were racially discriminated against you can point out that one of the panel was of their race and their case is serious weakened.

Stephen

rthibode's picture

We are required to have an HR rep, the hiring manager, and the direct supervisor at all interviews. HR policies (or maybe it's the union's rules) require that all candidates be asked the same questions. Questions may be followed up with further probing, but the potential probes must be approved by HR in advance. I am not kidding.

During the interview, I have found it best if only one person actually conducts the interview and the others just listen and take notes. This is not typical of my organization, but it's what we do in my department.

In my opinion, the ideal situation would be to introduce the HR rep and inform the candidate they are here to ensure a fair procedure, and introduce the supervisor and inform the candidate they are here to help answer any questions about the position and to take notes. If HR and the supervisor sit off to the side, then you can have more of a one-on-one conversation.

When I'm not required to conduct group interviews (e.g., when interviewing for part-time, union-exempt positions), I usually ask my admin or another junior staffer to sit in and take notes. This allows me to focus on the candidate, and I get value from discussing the candidate with the notetaker, though the decision is ultimately mine.

HMac's picture

[quote="rthibode"]
During the interview, I have found it best if only one person actually conducts the interview and the others just listen and take notes. This is not typical of my organization, but it's what we do in my department.

In my opinion, the ideal situation would be to introduce the HR rep and inform the candidate they are here to ensure a fair procedure, and introduce the supervisor and inform the candidate they are here to help answer any questions about the position and to take notes. If HR and the supervisor sit off to the side, then you can have more of a one-on-one conversation.[/quote]

I think you're on the right track here - of making the best of the curcumstances. Putting youreslef in the candidate's seat, a couple of thoughts:

* At minimum, you want to make sure everybody introduces himself/herself to the candidate, and the reason for their presence is explained

* A nuance about the "sitting off to one side": it shouldn't be out of the candidate's peripheral sightline - because that's just mean (it's like sitting behind the candidate)

* Ideally, everybody should have "a speaking role" even if it's only asking one or two questions - because I think it can be unnerving to the candidate to have somebody sit mute throughout the interview.

-Hugh