[MUSIC] >> Thanks for coming Caroline. I've got some questions for you. If you were managing a small team and one member of that team kept criticizing others and upsetting them, what would you do? >> I'd probably take that person to one side and kind of just find out what the issue was and why they were being so critical. And just really monitor it quite closely and see if the talk makes any difference. And then, yeah, just monitor it quite closely. >> Now you're off to manage a project involving four people. >> Okay. >> You speak to them, they all seem uninterested and bored with the project. How would you motivate them? >> I'd probably do kind of a day away or something like that just to kind of get the team really integrated together. Like maybe some kind of, yeah, exercises and things like fun activities. Yeah, I'd probably do that. >> Let's say a member of your team who's generally punctual starts to arrive at work late. What would you do about that? >> Yeah, that would probably not be good, obviously. So what I'd do is have a word with them first, to see kind of, because maybe they're not aware, maybe they think that it's quite a relaxed office. And they're not aware that they need to be punctual on time. If it continued I'd just probably try and get them in half an hour earlier, and just say, okay, you're start time is 8:30 instead of 9, and that hopefully from there, it would just improve. >> All right, thank you Caroline. Thanks for coming in. >> Thank you. >> If you were managing a small team, and one member of that team was upsetting and criticizing the others, what would you do? >> I think the important thing is to take that person aside, just have a quiet conversation with them, and let them know how it is actually affecting the rest of the team, and we just go back to our day to day activities and see if that conversation helped any bit >> Now, you're asked to manage a project involving four people, and you speak to them, they all seem, they're uninterested, they're bored with the project, how would you motivate them? >> Well I guess maybe I'm missing something that they're interested in doing with the project, so I think I would just open the floor to the other rest of the team. And see what they would like to add to the project. And make it more of their own. And hopefully that would help motivate them a little bit. >> A member of your team who is generally punctual starts arriving at work late. What would you do? >> I would actually just as the previous question, I would pull them aside, just have a conversation with them. Because they might not be familiar with our policies. That there is a certain time that they are required to come in at and hopefully that helps change things. >> Good, thank you very much for coming in. >> Well, thanks for having me. >> In this session we're going to look at a structured interview which are designed to avoid the limitations of the unstructured form. The basic characteristics of structured interviews are simply Candidates are all asked the same questions in the same order. The questions are derived from a systematic analysis of what is known to be critical to performance in the specific job on offer. The candidates responses are scored according to a strict set of criteria. And, of course, because all the candidates are asked the same questions, their responses can be readily compared. So structured interviews do need careful preparation and some expertise. The first and most important stage in preparing for the interview is careful analysis of the job in question. This can involve observing existing job holders doing the same job, talking to supervisors and other experts. Careful examination of the job description, and so on. This job analysis is then used as the basis for the creation of strictly job related questions and the criteria for assessing their responses. During the interview, candidates should be given a standardized introduction to including outlining how the interview will proceed, and how responses will be carefully noted or recorded. Follow on, or supplementary questions should be strictly limited and focused on objective knowledge skills and abilities. Structured interviews can vary, in that some involve questions which ask candidates how they would behave in some future job related situation. For example, what would you do if you became aware a colleague was acting unethically. On the other hand, some structured interviews focus on past behavior. For example, what did you do the last time you came across some unethical behavior at work? Future based interviews would clearly be more appropriate when the candidates have limited relevant work experience. For example, those just leaving school or college. When the interviews are finished the candidates responses are compared against the strictly job related criteria established before the interviews were held and a candidate, or candidates, can be selected. So, the balance sheet for structured interviews is, that they have high predictive power, up there with the best, like cognitive ability tests and work samples. If you want prediction, then use them. They avoid discrimination and biases by using a process which focuses strictly on what is needed to do the job. By using an objective assessment method, the risk of bias is seriously reduced. But, they are expensive in time and resources. A separate job analysis and a separate set of questions is required for every single job. They also require a degree of expertise from interviewers who must understand the principles of the process, who can avoid the temptation to deviate from the set questions. They maybe in their totality impractical for a small business owner for example, but that said some basic features like the same question and the same order for all candidates. Was the questions based on the knowledge and skills needed for the job and a system of assessment could be introduced by almost any interviewer any time. To make an informed evidence based decision whether or not to use structured interviews or any other selection masses are over, it is necessary to make a comparison with the alternatives. A wide range of selection masses are used around the world. In France, for example, graphology, the analysis of a candidate's handwriting, remains a very widespread technique. But in the limited time and space we have today, I'm going to limit my comparisons to just three methods with proven good to high predictive power. Cognitive ability tests, work sample tests and assessment centers. And we should ask whether or not they should be used instead of structured interview some or all of the time. >> [MUSIC]
