POSTED BY: Robert DiNunzio (March 20, 2007 02:50 AM)
This is a great book and an excellent Management tool. After 25 years in the Human Resources field, I can say with certainty; this is a sure fire way to interview with confidence and hire the best and brightest.Dr. Still makes a very difficult task very doable!

POSTED BY: kiki (March 20, 2007 12:29 PM)
nice advice!

POSTED BY: Viking (March 30, 2007 09:24 AM)
Great in theory, but behavior based interviewing can be beat by just the kind of person you don't want to hire: the charming bullshooter who has a little awareness of this interviewing approach (so has a few anecdotes in mind going into the interview) and who's a good storyteller. So caution - using this approach sets you up for being snowed!

POSTED BY: Madds (March 30, 2007 02:24 PM)
While this is a great way to exclude poor performers questions like "What incident most comes to mind when you had to completely feel the emotional pain that another person was experiencing?" reduces your job pool to only extroverts excluding introverts who can be stellar performers. Introverts tend not to empathize but rather sympathize. If you are going to use Behavior-based interviewing, please beware that not all good performers are extroverts, and review the Myers-Briggs personality types. Good Luck!

POSTED BY: James M. Loveland (March 30, 2007 02:54 PM)
What a bunch of poppycock. Experience teaches us whatever we want to decide that we learned from it. Instead of relying on our gut feelings and subjective evaluations, there needs to be more objectivity in the process. For example, "...the most complex thing you have done on Quick Books" Why not actually have the person attempt to solve contrived problems on the computer? The last thing anyone should do is interview with confidence; interviews are useful in determining that a person is not too much off kilter. For the time and money, having real work samples is a much more scientific and productive approach.

POSTED BY: DEL J STILL (March 31, 2007 03:02 AM)
Thanks to all for your thoughtful comments. Some of you have correctly pointed out the potential weakness and pitfalls characteristic of poorly planned and executed Behavior-Based Interviews. A well designed interview is based on a thorough job analysis accompanied by carefully crafted questions, and is conducted in a manner ensuring that the process is highly objective, complete, and data driven. These interviews are rich with verifiable information and, at the same time, provide a measure of legal defensibility. I completely agree that gut feelings and premature decision making have no place in a properly conducted interview. Also, as one reader pointed out, an actual (validated and job-related) performance test is an excellent supplement to the information a candidate provides verbally during an interview. As with all articles written to introduce a subject, much is left out of my brief treatment of this powerful technology. If you are tempted to throw out this "baby" with the bath water, take some time and gather more information about the Behavior-Based Interviewing system I have taught to thousands of professionals. It's based on years of research and practical experience. I'm certain you will grow to appreciate the potential of this methodology to improve the selection process and eliminate many potential hiring mistakes.

POSTED BY: Steve (April 01, 2007 06:27 PM)
This is utter tomfoolery. Behavior-based interviewing operates on the premise that a person's past actions in situations will predict how they will behave in the future. Think about this for a moment. Are you the same person that you were even one year ago? Haven't you learned new skills? Don't you handle certain situations differently than you did in the past? Unfortunately, interviewers who use behavior-based questions typically do so with the intentions of trying to ferret out some reason to exclude a candidate. Far, far more productive would be to focus on the specifics of the work involved with the job, and ask the candidate to demonstrate his/her ability in a "real-life" scenario.

POSTED BY: DEL J STILL (April 02, 2007 11:57 AM)
It sounds like Steve is referencing the "Assessment Center" system of employee selection. This methodology was popular about 25 years ago. The center is set up either off-site in a special facility run by a consulting firm or within your company. The assessment resembles a simulation except that it has a more complex structure and the evaluation is completed by a team of trained evaluators. For example: A candidate might spend a full day in an office with a telephone, computer, fax machine, desk, etc. Periodically, the phone rings, people come into the office with various requests, papers and reports are dropped into an in-basket, etc. The candidate must respond to all of these situations, make decisions and take appropriate action. They can be required to prepare and give a presentation to a simulated board of directors or to a hostile customer. All the while, the person is being observed and evaluated. A special feature of assessment centers is their capability to evaluate a number of candidates simultaneously. They are able to set up leadership and teamwork situations and observe the interaction among job candidates. The biggest drawback is cost. For some senior positions the investment is justified, but for most jobs the assessment center method is too complex and too time consuming. Steve also correctly points out that people do change over time. That's why it's important to get the most recent examples of how candidates have handled job-related situations that provide data about their skills and abilities. From reader comments, it seems that Behavior-Based Interviewing is receiving a bad rap either because the process is being used in an incomplete fashion or by untrained interviewers. On the surface BBI seems simple enough, but, in truth, it is a difficult process to administer and requires special techniques to be used successfully. One last comment: The best predictor of future behavior is still past behavior and Steve's comment about "change" requires that we carefully examine and verify the data we gather during selection interviews.

POSTED BY: Orlando (April 02, 2007 12:04 PM)
Hiring the right person assumes that the hiring authority has the firm's best interest at heart (ie., that hiring the "best" person for the job = (1) the most competent (2) is affordable (3) best cultural fit...this is not always the interviewer's desire- given the popularity of the Peter Principle, etc.. Most of us know from experience of working for jerks, and interviewing with jerks, and seeing what gets left in a firm after layoffs that most hiring authorities have little interest in objective hiring approaches. If more firms were honest and transparent about the positions description, the pay, the boss, the culture, the resources, working hours, job security, etc...maybe more interviewees might reciprocate the honesty for a better match.

POSTED BY: Sean (April 03, 2007 10:32 AM)
Steve, you don't have a clue. Orlando, I would agree with you that that is true within large companies, but in small companies when people don't work out it's easy to determine who screwed up. If it happens repeatedly, that mgr. of hiring is history in a good company. I would add to this article, that you need to ask questions which make the interviewee recall good and bad situations. It's not so much the answer you're looking for it's also to see what emotions are demostrated by their eyes if not their voices.

POSTED BY: Ron S. (December 27, 2008 11:15 AM)
Regarding the viability of your much-vaunted behavior based interview technique. They're a waste of time and our talent. I've been interviewed using these methods and passed only to discover the companies (and their HR managers) were low-performers themselves. One large retailer I was hired for filed Chapter 11. This means several employers were nearly defunct at hire (one firm was closed by the Fed). On my last go around with a poorly run school district our Dept. head resigned rather than be cashiered. Their HR Dept. was utterly outclassed and lame beyond belief. Virtually all my co-workers, who passed behavior based interviews, quit rather than put up with inane managers who can't think and who make irrational HR decisions. Immediately prior to this I was hired by a regional furniture firm who is now out of business. Virtually every one of these organizations used 'performance based interviews.' So what was the benefit to us; the new hires? All too often HR hides the truth. I've discovered US firms have a huge creditability gap between their job adverts and what happens inside.