Behavioural interviewing can be hard on candidates and should probably be used sparingly
By Brian Kreissl
Behavioural interviewing techniques have been popular among HR practitioners, recruiters and hiring managers for many years. The idea is that previous behaviours are generally good indicators of how candidates are likely to behave in a given situation in the future.
Interviewers probe for a candidate’s level of proficiency with respect to one or more specific competencies or behaviours –— generally those that are considered core competencies for the role in question and which are part of the organization’s competency framework. For this reason, behavioural interviewing (also called behavioural-focused or behavioural description interviewing) is sometimes referred to as competency-based interviewing.
Because most competencies relate to soft skills, behavioural interviewing generally probes things such as candidates’ written, verbal and interpersonal communication skills, as well as things such as innovation, creativity and customer service orientation. However, competencies can also relate to technical or professional skills such as computer skills or financial and business acumen.
A very common example of a behavioural interview “question” is: “Tell me about a time when you went above and beyond the call of duty to satisfy a customer.” Such a question probes a candidate’s ability to provide superior customer service and seeks to evaluate her problem solving skills and ability to be proactive, take ownership of a problem, find a solution and see that solution through to completion.
Candidates should provide specific, real-life examples of situations that demonstrate certain behaviours or competencies. Ideally, the situation should be a relatively recent work-related example that demonstrates full mastery of the competency in question.
The interviewer may need to ask one or more probing questions to gain full insight into the candidate’s role as an individual or what the end result was in the situation. Candidates are often evaluated based on the STAR model: situation, task, action and results, and should frame their answers in such a manner that explains the situation, the tasks involved, their specific actions and the end results of those actions.
Advantages of behavioural interviewing
Some of the advantages of behavioural interviewing include the ability to predict future behaviours based on previous behaviours in similar situations, the fact that it provides a somewhat objective means of scoring and ranking candidates (with points assigned for the quality of responses based on a rubric), the ability to align interview questions to the core competencies of the job and the organization’s competency framework, and consistency among interviewees, which helps ensure legal defensibility. Because of these advantages, many organizations insist that candidates undergo at least one behavioural interview as part of the selection process – either with a recruiter or hiring manager.
Limitations and recommendations
Nevertheless, as a former recruiter I found there were limitations associated with behavioural interviewing and I tended to use this technique somewhat sparingly. My biggest two complaints related to the fact that candidates often assumed behavioural interview questions were hypothetical “What would you do if?” type scenarios (as opposed to “What did you do when?” situations), and the fact that behavioural interview questions are really tough on candidates.
People can’t always think of a specific example off the top of their heads, and sometimes they haven’t actually encountered the situation in question. Because of that, I would often rephrase the question, ask probing questions, give the person additional time or offer to return to the question later in the interview.
As a candidate, I have personally encountered many situations where I knew I had mastered certain competencies but struggled to come up with specific examples on the spot in the stressful environment of a job interview. I also found that people sometimes lied and that some questions were better asked using other formats.
HR can even sometimes be accused of being too “touchy-feely” by focusing too much on behavioural competencies rather than actually determining whether the candidate can do the job in question.
In spite of the fact we were initially advised in our training to include two to three behavioural questions per competency, because of these limitations I found it best to include no more than a total of about five or six behavioural questions in an interview. I personally believe it is perfectly acceptable to have an interview with both behavioural and non-behavioural questions. I also like what one colleague of mine did by sharing the core competencies of the job with candidates before the interview so they could think of specific examples beforehand.
