In a stress interview the interviewer attempts to find how applicants would respond to aggressive, embarrassing, rude and insulting questions. The whole exercise is meant to see whether the applicant can cope with highly stress producing, anxious and demanding situations while at work, in a calm and composed manner Such an approach may backfire also, because a typical applicant is already somewhat anxious in any interview. So, the applicants that the firm wants to hire might even turn down the job offer under such trying conditions.
In a typical panel interview, the applicant meets with three to five interviewers who take turns in asking questions. After the interview, the interviewers pool their observations to arrive at a consensus about the suitability of the applicant . The panel members can ask new and incisive questions based on their expertise and experience and elicit deeper and more meaningful responses from candidates. Such an interview could also limit the impact of personal biases of any individual interviewer . On the negative side, as an applicant a panel interview may make your feel more stressed than usual.
The interview is a good selection tool in the hands of the person who knows how to use it. If it is not used properly or the interviewer himself is not in a positive fame of mind ,mistakes may occur . The interviewer, for example may.
1) favor applicants who share his own attitudes:
2) find it difficult to establish a rapport with interviewees, because he himself does not possess good interpersonal skills.
3) Not be asking right questions and hence not getting relevant responses;
4) Resort to snap judgments making a decision as to the applicant’s suitability in the first few minutes of the interview. Often interviewers form an early impression and spend the balance of the interview looking for evidence to support it;
5) May have forgotten much of the interview’s content within minutes after its conclusions.
6) may have awarded high scores by showing leniency (leniency).
7) May have been influenced by cultural noise. To get the job the applicants try to get past the interviewer . If they say wrong things about themselves they realize that they may not get the job, so they try to give the interviewer responses that are socially acceptable, but not very revealing. These type of responses are known as cultural noise responses the applicant believes are socially acceptable rather than facts.
8) May have allowed himself to be unduly influenced by associating a particular personality trait with a person’s origin or cultural background and that kind of stereotyping / generalizing ultimately determining the scores of a candidate (stereotyping) . For example he may feel that candidates from Bihar may find it difficult to read , write and speak in English language and hence not select them at all!
9) May allow the ratings to be influenced by his own likes and dislikes (bias).
10) Many conclude that a poorly dressed candidate is not intelligent, attractive females are good for public dealings etc. This is known as halo effect where a single important trait of a candidate affects the judgment of the rater. The halo effect is present if an interviewer allows a candidate’s accomplishments in athletics to over shadow other aspects and leads the interviewer to like the applicant because athletes make good sales people.
11) have rated an applicant poorly, following the interview of very favorable or unfavorable candidates (an anomaly know as candidate order error the order in which you interview applicants can also show how you rate them).
12) Have been influenced more by unfavorable than favorable information about or from the candidate. Unfavorable Information is given roughly twice the weight of a favorable information .
13) Have been under pressure to hire candidates at short notice:
14) Have been influenced by the behavior of the candidates (how he has answered, his body language) his or her dress (especially in the case of female candidates )and the other physical factors that are not job related.
Source: HRM VSP