STRUCTURED AND UNSTRUCTURED

SELECTION INTERVIEWS:
BEYOND THE JOB-FIT MODEL
Robert L. Dipboye
ABSTRAO
Unstructured, intuitive processes still appear to dominate HRM practices, despite
the evidence in favor of more structured, rational approaches. The present paper
is concerned with one example of this: the continued dominance of unstructured
interviews in employee selection. Through structuring interview procedures,
biases in information gathering, judgment, and decision making can be reduced
and the reliability and validity of interviewer judgments improved. Despite the
empirical support for the use of a structured interview process, organizations
continue to rely primarily on unstructured interviews. The present paper proposes
that the dominance of unstructured interviews can be attributed to the
interviewer's attempts to achieve personal satisfaction, attain a good fit of
employees to the job context, acquire and maintain power, make just decisions,
and communicate the values of the organization. It is also suggested that a
broader perspective is needed in the research and theory on employee selection
that encompasses other functions of the selection process in addition to hiring
the best person for the job.
Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Volume 12, pages 79-123.
Copyright 1994 by JAI Press Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISBN: 1-55938-733-5
80
ROBERT L. DIPBOYE
INTRODUOION
Achieving a good fit between people and their jobs is a primary objective
of human resources management (HRM). Recruitment, training,
performance appraisal, and selection are the chief strategies, and in each case,
a structured process has been proposed to achieve an optimal person-job
fit. The usual recommendation is to start with a formal job analysis to
determine the knowledge, skills, and abilities required of incumbents and
the criteria for measuring their performance. On the basis of this analysis,
as well as a rational consideration of costs and benefits, techniques are chosen
for implementation that are considered to be best suited for the situation.
A formal evaluation follows, and those techniques that achieve the desired
outcomes are retained while those that fail are modified or discarded.
Although structuring HRM practices has been shown to have immense value
to organizations (e.g., McDaniel, Whetzel, Schmidt, & Maurer, in press),
the irony is that so many organizations fail to use a structured process and
instead rely on intuitive, highly subjective approaches. More attention needs
to be given to understanding why some HRM methods that have been shown
to be effective are largely ignored, while methods that have never been
scientifically evaluated or that have been thoroughly discredited are
enthusiastically embraced.
In considering this issue, the present paper focuses on perhaps the most
notable example of how HRM practice and the empirical research diverge:
the ubiquitous use of unstructured interviews in employee staffing. This
paper starts with a comparison of structured and unstructured approaches
to selection and then shows how the typical unstructured interview is
vulnerable to a variety of biases in information gathering, judgment, and
decision making. Evidence that structured procedures can enhance
reliability and validity is next considered, but as already mentioned,
organizations have been reluctant to adqpt these procedures. The remainder
of the paper examines the possible re11sons that unstructured interviews
continue to be the dominant method qf selection, promotion, and
placement, despite the evidence that favors struct\)red approaches. (In the
interest of parsimony, I will refer to selection, even though the discussion
applies to placement and promotion ~ well.) My central argument is that
HRM needs to broaden its focus to take into account not only whether the
best person is chosen for the job, but also whether other important functions
are fulfilled, such as achieving a good person-job context fit, acquiring
power, maintaining justice, socializing new hires, conveying the values of
the organization, and satisfying the needs of those who implement the HRM
procedures.
Structured and Unstructured Selection Interviews
UNSTRUCTURED AND STRUCTURED
APPROACHES TO SELECTION
81
The present discussion views the sequence of events involved in selection,
placement, and promotion decisions as a process that involves several
sources of information on applicants (e.g., applications, reference checks,
tests), with the interview as a core component of this process (American
Society of Personnel Administration, 1983; Blocklyn, 1988; Bureau of
National Affairs, 1988; Shackleton & Newell, 1991). Indicative of the
importance of the interview is that the information generated by other
procedures often influences the final decision only after it has been filtered
through interviewer judgments. Two general strategies in handling the
interview can be distinguished and are outlined in Figure 1: the structured
approach which is formal and research guided, and the unstructured
approach which is informal and guided by intuition. The comparison in
Figure I is not meant to imply that all selection, placement, and promotion
activities fall into one of these two categories. Rather, these two approaches
are presented as prototypes to aid in understanding, much as comparisons
have been made by decision theorists between intuitive and rational
judgment processes (e.g., Hammond, Hamm, Grassian, & Pearson, 1987).
The Unstructured Approach to Selection
Most selection processes in organizations are probably semistructured in
that they possess elements of both the structured and unstructured
approaches, but I would argue that the typical interview more closely
resembles the unstructured than the structured process in Figure I.
Interviewers are guided by their personal, often idiosyncratic views of what
is required in the job. The gathering of information and the subsequent
judgment and choice of applicants are highly subjective and influenced by
vague impressions of overall fit. Finally, the evaluations of how well
interviewers have performed in choosing applicants is based on casual
observations rather than systematic investigation. Although typical of the
selection process, the research on interviews suggests that unstructured
procedures are vulnerable to a variety of biases that can lower the quality
of decisions. I now review this research, as well as recent evidence that
structuring the process is a way to eliminate these biases and improve
decision making.
General, Undifferentiated Theories of the Ideal Applicant
With a structured approach to selection, decisionmakers start with
detailed information on the knowledge, abilities, and skills required in the
82
STRUCTURED
INTERVIEW
Formal job Analysis
Identifying KSAs
Standardized Search
For Information
Diagnostic of KSAs
Quantitatively Evaluate
Separate KSAs
Choice Based on
Rational Consideration
of Costs and Benefits
Empirical Validation
of judgments Against
Job Criteria
-
-
f-
f.-
f.-
FEATURES COMMON
TO SELECTION PROCESS
Decide What Traits
-
Are Required in the job
' Gather Information on
Applicant's Traits and
1-
Qualifications
'
judge Applicant on
1-
Trait Dimensions.
' Make Selection
Decisions
1-
t
Evaluate Interview
Process on Perlormance
1-
In Selecting Applicants
ROBERT L. DIPBOYE
UNSTRUCTURED
INTERVIEW
Personal Beliefs
of the Interviewer
Unstandardized
For Information
Biased by Impressions
Categorize On
General Traits
Noncompensatory
and Intuitive Judgment
of General Fit
Subjective, Casual
Observation of
Hiree Performance
figure 1. A summary of the major components involved in the structured
and unstructured approaches to selection interviews.
job. Information is gathered and evaluated in reference to this profile of
requirements. On the other hand, decisionmakers in the unstructured
process (Figure I) rely on their beliefs about the attributes of the qualified
applicant. Unlike the detailed information on knowledge, skills, and
abilities that would come from a formal job analysis, these beliefs are more
general and diffuse, and are often peculiar to the particular decisionmaker.
The research on occupational stereotypes has shown that people hold
strong beliefs about the attributes of individuals in occupations (Crowther
& More, 1972; More & Suchner, 1976; Triandis, 1959a, 1959b; Westbrook
& Molla, 1976). Moreover, the conceptions of the ideal applicant appear
Structured and Unstructured Selection Interviews
83
diffuse and undifferentiated (Hake! & Schuh, 1971; Shaw, 1972). Indeed,
a study of over 5,000 interviewers revealed a "good applicant" profile (e.g.,
cooperative, trustworthy, dependable) that was common across diverse
occupations and that bore a striking resemblance to the profile of a good
boy scout (Hake! & Schuh, 1971). Experienced interviewers do not appear
to differ markedly from inexperienced interviewers in their descriptions of
either the ideal or typical applicant (Hake!, Hollmann, & Dunnette, 1970;
Imada, Fletcher, & Dalessio, 1980; Marks & Webb, 1969; Paunonen &
Jackson, 1987). I would hypothesize that the lack of information
characteristic of unstructured procedures leads interviewers to categorize
on the basis of these prior conceptions and, as a consequence, lowers the
validity of their decisions.
There are some caveats that should be mentioned in posing the above
hypothesis. There is some evidence that beliefs about the personality traits of
a typical incumbent (as opposed to an ideal incumbent) are reasonably accurate
(Jackson, Peacock, & Holden, 1982). Also, experts generally have more
complex, reliable, and accessible knowledge structures than nonexperts (Fiske
& Kinder, 1981; Kozlowski & Kirsch, 1987; Lurigio & Carroll, 1985; Smither
& Reilly, 1987); so it is possible that expert interviewers will not show as large
a decline in validity as nonexpert interviewers. Despite these caveats, it seems
unlikely that the conceptions held by an interviewer, even an experienced one,
can match the accuracy and specificity of a well-<iesigned set of personnel
specifications. Thus, when unstructured procedures force a reliance on personal
beliefs about job requirements, the likely result is a deterioration in the validity
and reliability of interviewer judgments.
Biased Information Gathering
At the heart of an interview session are the verbal and nonverbal exchanges
that occur as the interviewer gathers information on the applicant's
qualifications. A highly structured approach severely restrains these exchanges
by requiring interviewers to ask exactly the same questions, in the same order,
with no spontaneous comments or side conversations allowed (Campion,
Pursell, & Brown, 1988). The intent is to remove the influence of the
interviewer's behavior, so that what is obtained in the session is a genuine
reflection of who the applicant is rather than how the interviewer conducted
the session. In contrast, the absence of restraints in the unstructured format
can encourage a variety of biases in the conduct of the session. Consequently,
what interviewers see on the part of the applicant can become the product of
what they have done in the session rather than the applicant's traits and
qualifications (Dipboye & Gaugler, 1993). The end result is to lessen the
diagnosticity of the information gathered, and to lower the quality of the final
decisions.
84
ROBERT L. DIPBOYE
One type of bias that can intrude into an unstructured procedure is the
tendency for interviewers' opinions of the applicant to "leak" into their
nonverbal and paralinguistic behavior (Dougherty, Turban, & Callender, 1992;
Farina & Feiner, 1973; Matarazzo & Wiens, 1972; Word, Zanna, & Cooper,
1974). Impressions can also influence the time spent with the applicant
(Anderson, 1960; Phillips & Dipboye, 1989; Tullar, 1989). Perhaps the most
important aspect of the interviewer's conduct that is subject to bias is the
questioning of the applicant. Interviewers appear less likely to ask questions
if they are favorably impressed with the applicant than if they have negative
impressions (Sydiaha, 1961; Tengler & Jablin, 1983). Also, a tendency toward
an inverted funnel in the sequencing of questions has been shown in which
interviewers ask closed questions at the beginning of the session, followed by
open-ended questions, possibly as an attempt to test stereotypes of the ideal
applicant (Tengler & Jablin, 1983). Snyder (1984) found some evidence of a
confirmatory bias in questioning in which interviewers asked questions that
were slanted in the direction of prior hypotheses about the personality of the
interviewee. Subsequent research has shown that initial impressions can bias
the phrasing of the questions asked of applicants, although not necessarily in
a confirmatory direction (Binning, Goldstein, Garcia, & Scattaregia, 1988;
Eccher, Shes key, Levalle, & Binning, 1988; Macan & Dipboye, 1988; Radefeld,
Williams, & Binning, 1990).
The linkages between interviewer opinions of the applicant and the conduct
of the session remain unexamined for the most part, but the evidence gathered
so far is fairly clear in showing that how well the applicant performs in the
session reflects to some degree the interviewer's own behavior. Generally,
applicants appear to perform better in the session and provide more
information when interviewers show support and positive regard in their
nonverbal and paralinguistic behavior (Keenan, 1976; Matarazo, Wiens, &
Saslow, 1965), ask about job-related matters as opposed to personal matters
(Matarazzo, Wiens, Jackson, & Manaugh, 1970), ask open-ended questions
(Tengler & J ablin, 1983), and ask about information not in the application
(Daniels & Otis, 1950). There is also some evidence that the interviewer's
conduct of the session can influence the quality as well as the quantity of the
information gathered. Martin and Nagao (1989) compared an interviewer who
acted "warm" with an interviewer who acted "cold" in their nonverbal behavior
during the session. Although fewer of the interviewees with a warm interviewer
overreported their SATs and grades, these same interviewees tended to show
a larger magnitude of overreporting than those who had a cold interviewer.
In another experiment, Dipboye, Fontenelle, and Gamer (1984) found that
allowing interviewers to form preinterview impressions led to the generation
of more information, but also led to more variability in the conduct of the
sessions and consequently lowered the reliability and accuracy of final
judgments.
Structured and Unstructured Selection Interviews
85
In summary, the interviewer's behavior can influence the quality of the
information that is gathered, but the specific mechanisms by which this effect
occurs needs further explication. Elsewhere, I have proposed three alternative
processes that can emerge in the gathering of information--confirmatory,
disconfirmatory, and diagnostic-and the possible moderators of these
processes (Dipboye, 1992). Although much remains to be known about this
topic, I would propose that biases such as those discussed here are more likely
to creep into the conduct of the session, and lessen the diagnosticity of the
information gathered, when the interview procedures are unstructured.
Categorical and Biased Judgments
Throughout the interview process, interviewers are involved in judging the
characteristics of the applicant and the fit of these characteristics to the
requirements of the job. In the absence of clear information, interviewers rely
on their own personal and possibly erroneous conceptions of the job and the
applicant. Cognitive categorization theory provides a framework for describing
this process (Rowe, 1984). For instance, an interviewer might believe that all
or most philosophy majors lack common sense, are manipulative, and possess
liberal political attitudes. Upon discovering that an applicant is a psychology
major, the interviewer categorizes that person, assigning other traits believed
to be characteristic of philosophy majors (i.e., no common sense, manipulative,
and liberal). Moreover, the interviewer judges the applicant on the general "fit"
of the individual to the conception of the ideal applicant. The specific categories
that influence the perception of the applicant and the job can be activated in
a serendipitous manner by a variety of factors, including the mood of the
interviewer (Isen & Baron, 1991) and the particular mix of applicants
(Cleveland, Festa, & Montgomery, 1988; Heilman, 1980).
An implication of cognitive categorization theory is that the manner in which
interviewers judge applicants can occur automatically without much self-
insight into the underlying reasons (Feldman, 1981). A theory such as that of
Fiske and Neuberg (1990) would suggest that unless interviewers encounter
disconfirming information, their search for and processing of information is
done in an unthinking manner that has the effect of confirming their initial
categorizations. Perhaps suggestive of this automaticity, when interviewers are
asked why they evaluated applicants as they did, they often appear to grasp
for an explanation. The most common response is that the applicant does or
does not provide a good "fit." Caplow and McGee (1960) found this in their
classic study of faculty hiring in universities. One of their sources commented
that among the most important considerations was whether the candidate fit
the department and was someone they could live with: "We take a good look
at their letters and then when they're down here we look at them and talk to
them and then we take a good look into our crystal ball and pull out the best
86
ROBERT L. DIPBOYE
man. In other words, we're completely subjective about the whole thing" (p.
123). More recently, Judge and Ferris (1992) reported that numerous interviews
with college recruiters about what they look for in a qualified candidate
revealed an "amazing convergence across decisionmakers on a statement that
goes something like this: 'I can't articulate it, but I1l know it when I see it"
(p. 3).
A variety of rating effects have been found that possibly reflect the
tendency to categorize applicants on the basis of the vague and
undifferentiated conceptions of the ideal applicant. These effects include halo
(Dipboye, Gaugler, & Hayes, 1990; Hake!, 1971; James, Campbell, &
Lovegrove, 1984; Knicki & Lockwood, 1985; Kinicki, Lockwood, Hom, &
Griffeth, 1990; Shahani, Dipboye, & Gehrlein, 1992), negativity (Rowe,
1989), primacy (Farr, 1973; Farr & York, 1975; Johns, 1975), and contrast
(Burkhardt, Weider-Hatfield, & Hocking, 1985; Cesare, Dalessio, &
Tannenbaum, 1988). Numerous studies in both the laboratory and the field
have shown similar-to-me effects in which the interviewer gives more
favorable evaluations to the extent that the applicant is similar to the
interviewer on background characteristics, education, attitudes, and other
factors (Graves & Powell, 1988; Milstein, Burrow, Wilkinson, & Kessen,
1976; Orpen, 1984). Related to these effects, personal liking for the applicant
has been found to bias judgments of qualifications (Anderson & Shackleton,
1990; Graves & Powell, 1988; Keenan, 1977; Raza & Carpenter, 1987). The
highly subjective nature of interviewer evaluations also is revealed by the
effects that the applicant's style of self-presentation can have on interviewer
judgments. Applicants are viewed as more qualified if they show positive,
responsive verbal and nonverbal behavior, including enthusiasm, warmth,
good eye-contact, smiling, head nodding, voice modulation, energy, hand
gestures, and vocal expressiveness (e.g., Anderson & Shackleton, 1990;
Baybrook, 1985; Forbes & Jackson, 1980). Moreover, style is usually found
to be more important than objective information on the applicant (Gilmore
& Ferris, l989a; Kinicki & Lockwood, 1985; Parsons & Liden, 1984;
Rasmussen, 1984; Sharf, 1970; Tessler & Sushelsky, 1978).
Further evidence of the categorical nature of interviewer judgments comes
from research showing that interviewers are influenced by the race, disability,
gender, and age of the applicant. Professional interviewers as well as
inexperienced interviewers can be influenced by these factors (Barr & Hitt,
1986; Hitt & Barr, 1989; Turner, Fix, & Struyk, 1991; Van Vianen & Willemsen,
1992), although questions remain as to the consistency and strength of the
effects (Dipboye, 1992; Stone, Stone, & Dipboye, 1992). The evidence is much
clearer with regard to another irrelevant factor, the physical attractiveness of
the applicant. The applicant's facial attractiveness has been shown to influence
the interviewer's selection decisions at all phases of the selection process
(Carlson, 1967; Carroll, 1966; Kinicki & Lockwood, 1985; Raza & Carpenter,
Structured and Unstructured Selection lntetviews
87
1987; Rynes & Gerhart, 1990; Shahani, Dipboye & Gehrlein, 1993; Springbett,
1958). In one of the more recent demonstrations of the effects of attractiveness,
Rynes and Gerhart (1990) obtained ratings of the physical attractiveness of
MBA applicants and then examined the correlations of these ratings with
recruiters' evaluations of the applicants. Attractiveness was more important
as a correlate of recruiter evaluations of firm-specific fit than were objective
characteristics of the applicants such as GPA, sex, business experience, major,
and extracurricular activities. In addition to these field studies, numerous
experiments have shown an attractiveness bias for both organizational
decisionmakers and college students (e.g., Morrow, 1990; Morrow, McElroy,
Stamper, & Wilson, 1990; Morrow & McElroy, 1984; Rothblum, Miller, &
Garbutt, 1988).
Finally, research has shown that interviewers are subject to a variety of
attributional biases (Herriot, 1989). Perhaps the most important of these is
the tendency of interviewers to underestimate the influence of their own
conduct of the session on the applicant, and to overestimate the importance
of the applicant's traits. The interviewer's prior expectations can moderate this
effect (Belec & Rowe, 1983; Phillips & Dipboye, 1989; Tucker & Rowe, 1979).
Internal factors are seen as more important causes of the applicant's behavior
when the behavior of the applicant is consistent with the interviewer's initial
impressions. External factors are seen as more important when the behavior
of the applicant violates these expectations.
In summary, interviewers appear prone to a variety of judgmental biases.
These biases appear to reflect an automatic, unthinking categorization in which
the applicant is judged as fitting or failing to fit a diffuse and undifferentiated
conception of the ideal applicant. Also, there is reason to believe that they are
more likely to occur in the context of an unstructured than a structured
procedure (Dipboye & Gaugler, 1993).
Biases in Decision Making
After gathering information on applicants and judging them against the
requirements of the position, a decisionmaker must eventually decide on whom
to hire, promote, or place. In an unstructured process, decisionmakers are
unlikely to base their final choices of applicants on a careful analysis of benefits
and costs associated with each applicant. That decision making in organizations
deviates from a rational model has been thoroughly documented in the
organizational literature (Cohen, March, & Olsen, 1972; Lindblom, 1959;
Mintzberg, Raisinghani, & Theoret, 1976; Weick, 1979), and there is little
reason to believe that decisionmakers in the interview are an exception.
Beach's (1990) image theory provides a framework for describing
nonrational decision making in the unstructured interview and is a rich source
of ideas for future research. Beach noted that "most decisions are made quickly
88
ROBERT L. DIPBOYE
and simply, on the basis of 'fittingness,' and only in particular circumstances
are they made on the basis of anything like the weighing and balancing of gains
and losses that is prescribed by classical decision theory .... " (p. xiii). Decision
making is guided by cognitive structures called value images that determine
the rightness or wrongness of a decision. The decisionmaker frames the decision
by calling upon those images that seem most relevant to the situation, and
then uses two tests in choosing from among alternatives. Compatibility testing
involves assessing whether the option is incompatible with the framed image.
If an option exceeds the threshold for rejection, then the option is rejected.
This is a noncompensatory decision, in that compliance with some facets of
the image cannot compensate for violations of other aspects of the image.
Moreover, the decisionmakers are often not even conscious of what they are
doing. Instead, they act in a "rapid, smooth process that can be called "intuitive"
in that it requires minimal cognitive processing and control" (Mitchell & Beach,
1990, p. 14). If a single candidate survives the compatibility testing, then this
is the choice and no further deliberation occurs. If more than one candidate
survives, then the decisionmaker engages in profitability testing, which is
conscious and deliberate. The purpose of this process is to pick the option that
provides the most benefits relative to the plans, goals, and principles of the
decisionmaker.
Image theory has yet to be tested in the context of interviewer decision
making, but there is some evidence that supports the notion that interviewers
make decisions rapidly in a noncompensatory fashion. Perhaps the most
frequently cited of these findings are those of Springbett (1954), who found
that interviewers decided on applicants after only four minutes into the session.
Although subsequent research has failed to replicate the "four-minute-to-
decision" finding (Buckley & Eder, 1988; Hake!, 1982), the evidence suggests
that interviewers make their decision well before the end of the interview
(Tschirigi & Huegli, 1979; Tullar, Mullins, & Caldwell, 1979; Tucker & Rowe,
1977). The specific time interviewers decide is perhaps not as important as the
tendency of interviewers to short-circuit the process and reach a decision before
all the data have been gathered. This finding seems to reflect a process similar
to compatibility testing, but the research has yet to be conducted that applies
image theory to decision making in the interview.
The Failure to Learn From Experience
In the final step in the process in Figure I, interviewers evaluate their
decisions by tracking their hits and misses, and then adjusting their selection
practices on the basis of the results. In most situations, decisionmakers do not
have the information that would allow them to check on how well they have
performed in picking winners and losers. Moreover, they may tend to
remember judgments that were correct, while forgetting their errors. As a
Structured and Unstructured Selection Interviews
89
consequence, those making selection decisions fail to learn from experience
(Garb, 1989). This problem has its source in both the structure of the decision
task and the basic cognitive limitations of the judge (Einhorn & Hogarth, 1978).
Decision tasks are often structured so that people never receive adequate
feedback on their judgments. This is especially true of selection interviews,
where feedback is almost always limited to those who were hired and is usually
anecdotal. Take, as an example, a decisionmaker who is convinced that male
college graduates from small private liberal arts colleges are the best candidates,
and who then only hires those who fit this profile. Obviously, the decisionmaker
in this instance would be unable to test his theory because he would only know
about those who fit the profile and were hired, and would know nothing about
the nonliberal arts majors from large state universities who were rejected.
Decisionmakers could evaluate their intuitive judgments following the same
procedures contained in structured process, but this almost never happens
because they lack the necessary information.
The failure to learn from experience also results from the cognitive
limitations of decisionmakers and their bad judgment habits (Faust, 1984).
There is evidence that people in general, and interviewers in particular, are
prone to seek information that confirms their hypotheses and unable or
unwilling to use disconfirming information (Snyder, 1984). Where the
interviewer later supervises or works with the applicant, the impressions formed
in the interview may even carry over to the workplace in a manner similar
to the escalating commitments that have been observed in performance
appraisal (Bazerman, Beekun, & Schoorman, 1982; Schoorman, 1988). Related
to confirmatory biases are illusory correlations. In the first demonstration of
this bias, Chapman and Chapman (1969) found a systematic tendency to
overestimate the frequency of occurrence of word pairs if the words were
naturally associated (e.g., hat and head or knife and fork), or if both words
in a pair were distinctive (i.e., they were atypically long). In a similar fashion,
interviewers in an organization might perceive correlations that do not exist
between personal characteristics of employees and their success in the
organization. If an interviewer observes tall employees achieving outstanding
success, the observed co-occurrence of these two relatively distinctive events
could lead interviewers to perceive a correlation of height to success when there
is none.
Further compounding these errors, interviewers are prone to hindsight bias
when reflecting on past decisions in that they believe that what has already
happened was inevitable (Fischhoff, 1975). Imagine an interviewer who
observes a short applicant who is hired and then fails. Subsequently, a rule
is derived from this experience (i.e., short people will fail on the job) that is
then applied in future interviews. This bias reflects a tendency to reconstruct
past events so that they make more sense, even if the reconstruction bears little
relation to reality. Overconfidence is a final tendency that is both a consequence
90
ROBERT L. DIPBOYE
and an antecedent of the aforementioned biases. While the accuracy of
prediction declines with increases in the redundancy and amount of
information available to those making the predictions (Kahneman & Tversky,
1973; Oskamp, 1962, 1965), the confidence of these individuals in their own
predictions tends to increase.
Because of the structure of the selection task as well as cognitive limitations
and habits, interviewers do not have the information that they need to fully
evaluate how well they have performed in selecting employees. The perversity
of the highly unstructured situation is that increased experience with these
procedures may only lead to stronger beliefs in the validity of one's judgments.
As aptly stated by Dawes (1991, p. 256), "The basic problem with experience
is that you have no idea what would have happened if you or someone else
had done what you or they didn't do."
Structured Approaches to Selection Produce Higher Quality Decisions
In contrast to the unstructured process depicted in Figure I, structured
selection is rational in that it uses the scientific method and contains
accuracy checks at every step. The first step is to conduct job analyses to
determine the knowledge, skills, and abilities required to perform the tasks
in the position. On the basis of the analysis, interview questions and rating
scales are crafted to measure these KSAs. The actual conduct of the
interview is highly standardized so that each applicant is asked the same
questions. The choice among candidates is a rational decision based on
anticipated worth to the organization of each candidate's predicted
performance (Cascio, 1991). Finally, and perhaps most important, research
is conducted to evaluate the validity of the predictors used in selection.
If a criterion-related strategy is used, predictors are validated against
measures of what formal job analyses have shown to be the critical job
criteria.
As already indicated, much of the research showing the biases in
judgment and decision making in the interview has used unstructured
procedures. In the typical study, few formal guidelines for gathering and
evaluating information were provided to those in the interviewer role.
Moreover, they were often given global rating scales that were unrelated
to specific job requirements. There has been surprisingly little research
explicitly testing this hypothesis, but, as already mentioned, the biases and
intuitive processes described earlier seem likely to flourish to the detriment
of the quality of interviewer judgments in unstructured interviews
(Dipboye & Gaugler, 1993). Structuring the selection process should
reduce the magnitude of these biases, thereby enhancing the reliability and
validity of interviewer judgments.
Structured and Unstructured Selection Interviews
91
Meta-Analytic Support for the Use of Structured Interviews
Support for the contention that structuring improves the quality of
interviewer judgments comes from several recent meta-analyses. Wright,
Lichtenfels, and Pursell (1989) reviewed six unpublished and seven published
validations of structured interviews and found a mean observed validity
coefficient of .29 and a mean corrected validity of .39. In a much more extensive
review, Wiesner and Cranshaw (1988) reviewed a total of 150 validities
involving a total sample size of 51,459. The mean observed validity was .26.
Correcting for criterion unreliability and range restriction yielded a validity
of .47. A comparison of structured and unstructured interviews revealed much
higher validities for the former than the latter. Unstructured individual
interviews had a mean corrected validity of .20, whereas structured individual
interviews had a mean corrected validity of .63. Unstructured board interviews
had a mean corrected validity of .37, whereas the structured board interviews
had a mean corrected validity of .60.
The most comprehensive of the meta-analyses is that of McDaniel et al. (in
press). Their analysis included 106 validity studies that used job performance
as the criterion and involved a total N of 13,011. A mean observed validity
of .23 was obtained, and after correcting for criterion unreliability and range
restriction, this coefficient increased to .45. A further subgrouping of these
validities revealed that structured interviews in comparison to unstructured
interviews had higher observed (.24 vs .. 21) and corrected (.47 vs . .40) validities.
Because the unstructured interviews used in this study were probably more
structured than the typical unstructured interview, McDaniels et al. (in press)
suggested that their meta-analysis may have actually underestimated the
differences in validity.
The complexity of the issues involved in using interviews is greater than for
other selection techniques such as mental ability tests or biodata and consequently,
there are ambiguities in the interpretation of the results of these meta-analyses.
A particularly important issue is the variation among individual interviewers in
the criterion-related validity of their judgments that has been observed with
unstructured procedures (Dipboye et al., 1990; Dougherty, Ebert, & Callender,
1986; Kinicki et al., 1990). These studies show that, even in the context of an
unstructured procedure, some individual interviewers are capable of highly valid
judgments whereas others are abysmally low in the validity of their judgments.
Despite the questions that remain, one conclusion of these meta-analyses is quite
clear: structured interviews yield better results than unstructured interviews.
Characteristics of the Structured Interview
What are the attributes that account for the higher validities of structured
interviews? Answering this question is difficult, given the differences that exist
92
ROBERT L. DIPBOYE
among so-called structured procedures. There are several formats that have
been described as structured, including the patterned behavior description
interview (Janz, 1982), the situational interview (Latham, Saari, Pursell, &
Campion, 1980), the multi-modal employment interview (Schuler & Funke,
1989), as well as other varieties developed for use in specific firms or industries
(Arvey, Miller, Gould, & Burch, 1987; Brown, 1980; Landy, 1976; Yonge,
1956). The prototypic example is Campion et al.'s (1988) highly structured
interview technique. The interview format that they propose is intended to
eliminate the subjectivity of the typical interview procedure and contains the
following basic attributes.
First, the interview questions are constructed based on the knowledge,
skills, and abilities found through formal job analyses to be required in the
job. A variety of question types are permitted, including questions about job
knowledge, how the applicant would handle specific situations, and
demographic information such as past experience and education. However,
only questions that pertain to KSAs found to be critical prerequisites are
allowed. A second feature is that exactly the same questions are asked of
all candidates, with no variations allowed. Although questions can be
repeated, interviewers cannot ask follow-ups or prompts. A third
characteristic is that interviewers rate the answers to the questions on scales
that behaviorally anchor the good, marginal, and poor answers. These
anchors can be developed either through having experts provide actual
answers they have heard in interviews that exemplify each point on the scale,
or through having persons familiar with the job brainstorm potential
answers. A fourth attribute is that it involves a. panel of interviewers who
are familiar with the job requirements.
The fifth, and perhaps most important, attribute of the highly structured
interview technique is that the panel conducts the interviews and evaluates
applicants consistently across all applicants. There are several safeguards to
ensure consistency. The panel members are trained prior to the session on how
to use the procedures and to avoid bias, and then independently rate the
applicant's answers. Also, information on applicants is withheld from
interviewers prior to the sessions, the same panel is used across all candidates,
and discussion is delayed until all interviews have been conducted. The ratings
of panel members are averaged, and only in the case of large discrepancies
is there a discussion of the applicants. Candidates are not allowed to ask
questions during the interviews, but are provided this opportunity in a separate,
nonevaluative session. Finally, throughout the process, special attention is
given to ensuring compliance with legal guidelines and professional standards
of testing as set forth in the EEOC's Uniform Guidelines (1978) on employee
selection and the validation principles of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology ( 1987).
Structured an.d Unstructured Selection Interviews
93
Reasons that Structured Interviews Might Improve the Quality of judgments
Because of variations among the various structured formats, it is difficult
to pinpoint the exact source of the higher validities and reliabilities (Dipboye
& Gaugler, 1993). Nevertheless, there are at least three categories of features
that serve as possible explanations.
One likely source of advantage is that structured interviewing procedures
are based on formal job analyses and are consequently more job-related than
unstructured procedures. In support of this contention, Wiesner and Cranshaw
(1988) found that higher validities were associated with procedures that were
based on formal job analyses than those based on informal or no job analyses.
Formal job analysis may have these benefits because it leads to better sampling
of behavior that is part of the criterion domain (Wernimont & Campbell, 1968).
For instance, if customer relations is identified as a crucial dimension of
effective performance then this provides the basis for asking questions about
how the applicant would interact with and relate to customers. Still another
reason that job analysis may benefit the selection process is that it provides
decisionmakers with a common perspective on the knowledge, skills, and
abilities required in the job. Previous research has shown that such information
on specifications can improve reliability (Langdale & Weitz, 1973), reduce the
effects of primacy (Peters & Terborg, 1975) and irrelevant information (Wiener
& Schneiderman, 1974), and increase the discrimination between qualified and
unqualified applicants (Osburn, Timmereck, & Bigby, 1981).
A second potential advantage of the various structured formats is the manner
in which these formats deal with ancillary data, such as test scores, biographical
data, reference checks, and school transcripts. Interviewers usually have
ancillary information, and their final impressions of an applicant can be
influenced to some extent by these data (Dipboye, 1989; McDaniel et a!., in
press). Structured interviews either do not allow interviewers to preview
ancillary information (Campion et al., 1988), or else provide for a more
structured preview of this information than found in the typical unstructured
interview (Brown, 1979).
A key feature in structured interviews that possibly accounts for their
reliability and validity is that they standardize the process by which information
is gathered on an applicant by holding interviewers to the same line of
questioning. In the case of highly structured interviews (Campion et al., 1988)
and situational interviews (Latham, 1989), exactly the same questions are asked
in the same order with no follow-ups or probes. Other structured procedures,
such as the patterned behavior description interview (Janz, 1982), the selection
interview blueprint (Brown, 1979), and the multimodal employment interview
(Schuler & Funke, 1989), hold the interviewer to the same pattern of
questioning but allow some degree of freedom in pursuing independent lines
of questioning.
94
ROBERT L. DIPBOYE
Structured interviews incorporate a variety of procedures in the judgment
phase of the process that have been shown in previous research to enhance
the accuracy and reliability of judgment. These procedures typically encourage
interviewers to delay their evaluation of the applicant until after the session,
thus separating information gathering from the final integration and evaluation
of information. Well-defined rating scales (e.g., behaviorally anchored scales)
are provided (Maas, 1965; Vance, Kuhnert, & Farr, 1978), rather than the less
well-defined graphic and trait scales so often found in unstructured interviews.
Ratings are often decomposed, meaning that the interviewer rates the
applicant's qualifications on separate dimensions, in contrast to the holistic
ratings of the applicant's overall qualifications so often found in the
unstructured approach. Note-taking is permitted and encouraged in some
structured procedures (Janz, 1982; Mayfield, Brown, & Hamstra, 1980), thus
possibly reducing errors in recall (Macan & Dipboye, 1986; Schuh, 1980). The
end result of the standardization and job-relatedness of these various
procedures is that the interviewer has a firmer basis for inferring dispositions
from the statements and behavior of the applicant (Herriot, 1989).
Finally, in forming a final judgment of the applicant's qualifications,
structured procedures statistically combine the information gathered on the
applicant, usually through simple averaging or summation. In contrast, the
global evaluations formed with unstructured procedures allow interviewers to
combine their impressions of applicants using intuitive and idiosyncratic
combinations. Numerous studies have compared the accuracy of prediction
using intuitive combinations of information with the accuracy achieved with
statistical combination of the same data. In the typical study, judges are given
the same set of information and predict an event (e.g., predict bankruptcy from
information in a loan application). A comparison is made of the accuracy of
the judges' intuitive forecasting with the accuracy achieved through statistical
prediction, usually from a linear model. Decades of this type of research has
shown that statistical combinations almost always outperform predictions
based on judges' subjective combinations of the same information (Faust, 1984;
Sawyer, 1966). Meehl (1986) has observed that "There is no controversy in
social science that has shown such a large body of qualitatively diverse studies
coming out so uniformly in the same direction as this one" (p. 374).
The Difficulties of Implementing Structured Selection Procedures
Many questions remain as to why structuring the selection process might
lead to higher quality decisions (Dipboye, 1992; Dipboye & Gaugler, 1993),
but the evidence is compelling that the inclusion of formal job analyses,
standardized questioning of applicants, and behavioral rating scales improve
the validity and reliability of interviewer judgments (Dipboye, 1992).
Regardless of the evidence, however, unstructured interviews remain the
Structured and Unstructured Selection Interviews
95
method of choice in organizations. Structured interviewing appear to have
gained more acceptance in recent years (Solomon, 1989), but the frequency
of its use pales in comparison to the overwhelming amount of unstructured
interviewing that is still used in the initial selection, placement, and promotion
of employees. Take, for example, academic settings. I am unaware of university
departments that have implemented anything remotely resembling a structured
selection process in the hiring of faculty. Indeed, a faculty member who has
the audacity to suggest such an approach is likely to be hooted down. Because
of affirmative action and EEOC pressures, more employers are using
quantitative evaluation sheets and are more sensitive to questions that are
illegal and unethical, but relatively few organizations appear to base their
procedures on a formal job analysis, hold interviewers to the same line of
questioning, impose behavioral rating scales, or use decomposed rating
procedures. Probably the least likely aspect of the structured process to be
implemented is the statistical combination of data on applicants. Even where
objective measures are included (e.g., such as aptitude tests, personality
measures, and quantifiable biographical data), the final decision to hire is most
frequently based on an intuitive combination of these data.
Nat only are structured procedures less frequently used, I would further
hypothesize that once implemented, they become progressively unstructured
over time. It is important to remember that most of the validation research
on the interview consists of one-shot studies evaluating relatively short-term
effects, and only rarely are there replications in which validity is evaluated at
several points in time. Hulin, Henry, and Noon (1990) have found that
criterion-related validities of tests show a systematic and large decline over time.
They attribute these decrements to changes in the actual abilities of the
individuals as they acquire proficiency on their tasks. I suspect that if follow-
up studies were conducted with interviews, one might find even larger
decrements in validity. In testing this supposition one would not only need
to examine validity as a function of the time between the collection of
interviewer evaluations and the criteria, but also as a function of the time the
structured interview has been in use.
In predicting a large decline in validity of interviewer evaluations, I am
proposing that when an interviewer's judgment of the applicant's abilities is
the predictor, there are not only changes in the abilities of those hired, as shown
by Hulin eta!. (1990), but also changes in the predictor itself. As time passes,
a process of destructuring occurs in which interviewers stray from the original
guidelines in the direction of more intuitive, less structured procedures. One
of the few studies providing evidence of this tendency was reported by Latham
and Saari (1984) in a validation of the situational interview. They found a
validity coefficient that was much lower than typically found (r = .14) with
this type of interview. Closer examination revealed that the interviewers had
deviated from the structured procedures which dictated rigid adherence to a
96
ROBERT L. DIPBOYE
pattern of questioning and instead, used the questions as a guide to forming
an overall impression. The authors suggested that in the future researchers
should be "present when the data are being collected" (p. 573). I suspect that
the destructuring observed in this study was not an anomaly but a frequent
occurrence. Researchers obviously cannot continue to monitor the interview
indefinitely, and interviewers eventually revert to more informal, intuitive
practices.
The reluctance of employment interviewers to use structured information
gathering and decision procedures appears to reflect a more general resistance
to structured approaches by decisionmakers. The reluctance of physicians to
use statistical equations or computer-assisted diagnoses is well documented
(Komaroff, 1982; Schwartz, 1979). In research with managers, Isenberg(l984)
found that even those who had been trained to use decision aids seldom did,
and if such structured procedures went against their intuition, they rejected
these aids. In a survey of clinical psychologists, Wade and Baker (1977) found
that only 8.6% were concerned with reliability or validity of their assessment
practices. Moreover, 81% of the respondents in this same survey indicated that
they used "personalized procedures" in evaluating the results of tests used in
their practice, and a mere 18.5% reported the use of standardized
interpretations. The results of another survey show that psychologists involved
in individual assessment in industry show an overwhelming preference for an
interview (93.8%), with only 15.2% saying that they follow a strictly structured
procedure and only 39% stating that they conduct a formal job analysis prior
to their assessments (Ryan & Sackett, 1987).
Evidence of destructuring also comes from decision-making research that has
revealed what appears to be an irresistible urge to go beyond simple decision
rules, even when these rules clearly aid the accuracy of decisions. Two
experiments conducted by Arkes, Dawes, and Christensen (1986) provide
interesting demonstrations of this. In the first experiment, undergraduates
predicted whether each of 40 students made the honor roll or not on the basis
of grades in three randomly selected courses. They were given a rule to follow
in which they were to predict honors when the student had 2 or 3 A's and not
honors when A's numbered 0 or l. The subjects were told that following this
rule would allow a 70% hit rate. One group was encouraged to try and beat
this accuracy rate, whereas another group was warned to stick with the rule.
The group that was explicitly warned to not deviate from the 70% rule did better
than the other groups, especially when they were given no incentives. Also,
subjects who were paid incentives for the accuracy of their judgments tended
to go beyond the decision rules they had been given and subsequently made
more errors than those who were not paid. In a second study, subjects were
given items of information and predicted whether a baseball player would be
chosen the most valuable player in the National League on the basis of this
information. They were told that by choosing the player whose team finished
Structured and Unstructured Selection lnteNiews
97
highest in the standings that they would be correct in about 75% of their choices.
Although both high and moderate knowledge groups fell short of the level of
performance they could have achieved if they had conformed to the rule, the
moderate knowledge subjects actually outperformed the high knowledge group.
Although the Arkes et al. ( 1986) research did not directly address selection
decisions, I would suggest that similar effects occur as interviewers embellish
and add to structured procedures. I would go a step further to suggest that
it may be virtually impossible to induce decisionmakers to "adhere rigidly" to
an optimal strategy, especially if they are experts and are positively impressed
with their own perspicacity.
FORCES THAT WORK AGAINST STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS
When attempts have been made to explain why decisionmakers fail to follow
a structured process, the most common explanations have been in terms of
cognitive biases. A frequent suggestion is to use training to debias users
(Fischhoff, 1982). The reasons for reliance on unstructured procedures run
deeper, however, than the cognitive biases that have been the focus of much
of the discussion in recent years. Figure 2 depicts the centrifugal forces at work
in the organization that can draw decisionmakers toward the unstructured.
The most immediate pressures come from the needs of the persons who must
actually implement the process. A second force is the desire to broaden the
Cultural Assumptions
and Values
Politics of the Organization
Norms for Procedural and
Distributive Justice
Attempts to Provide a
Good Person-Context Fit
Personal Needs of
the Interviewer
Structured lnverview.
Procedures
figure 2. Organizational forces that work against structured interview
procedures.
98
ROBERT L. DIPBOYE
scope of selection to provide a better fit of the hiree to the context of the job.
A third consists of the norms for fairness and justice that exist in the subunit
or the organization as a whole. Political pressures are another force that can
act against structured procedures, while sustaining unstructured processes.
Finally, unstructured procedures are used because they communicate the
cultural values associated with the organization or subunit.
The Personal Needs of the Decision maker
Interviewers must not only know how to properly use a structured process,
but they must also have sufficient motivation to use the procedures as they
were intended to be used. A reason that unstructured procedures persist while
structured procedures are resisted is that the former can better fulfill the
personal needs of those who must implement them. The greater potential of
unstructured procedures to allow personal gratification derives from the
freedom that these procedures allow in expressing preferences, the basic task
characteristics involved, the lower cognitive costs associated with intuitive
judgment, and the self-image and personality traits of the interviewer.
Perhaps the major reason that unstructured procedures are preferred is that
decisionmakers can express their idiosyncratic and particularistic leanings to
a greater extent with this format. They can show favoritism toward those who
are similar, physically attractive, and likable. Bigots can let their prejudices
run rampant, while the more socially conscious can give advantages to the
disadvantaged. Although often unfortunate and unfair, unstructured selection
procedures are perhaps more enjoyable because they provide the opportunity
to vent these preferences.
A second source of personal satisfaction are the task characteristics involved
in selection. Hackman and Oldham (1980) in their Job Characteristics Model
predict that jobs having autonomy, skill variety, identity, feedback, and task
significance are more likely to be satisfying than jobs that lack these same
dimensions. To some extent, an unstructured procedure is higher on all of these
core characteristics. Unstructured interviews are high on autonomy in that they
allow the decisionmaker discretion in the topics that are discussed, the content
and order in which questions are asked, the criteria that are used in the final
evaluations, and the pace at which each interview is conducted. For instance,
an interviewer might choose to spend most of the time on the academic record
with one applicant while concentrating on the work record with another
applicant. This is not optimal in making valid, reliable evaluations, but it may
be more gratifying to the interviewer who feels a sense of control over the
process. The unstructured interview allows a variety of skills to be applied to
the task that may include report writing, conversational skills, recruiting,
?bservation, and, above all, skills in integrating information to form a holistic
JUdgment of the applicant's qualifications. Again, the opportunity to express
Structured and Unstructured Selection Interviews
99
these skills is not always conducive to making good decisions, but the diversity
of activities involved makes the typical unstructured interview less boring, less
routine, and more challenging. Because of the two-way communication
allowed, unstructured interviewing appears to contain more feedback from
interviewee to interviewer. Unstructured interviews could be seen as having
more task significance relative to structured procedures that, in some cases,
relegate the interviewer to the role of observer and recorder. To the extent
that unstructured procedures involve the interviewer in the entire selection
process (writing the ad, recruiting potential applicants, interviewing, evaluating
the information, deciding among applicants, negotiating salary), the process
also contains more task identity.
Not only are unstructured procedures more likely to gratify important needs
of the decisionmaker, but there is also some degree of intrinsic satisfaction
associated with intuitive decision processes. This possibly reflects the tendency
of persons to take the path involving the least cognitive effort. According to
image theory, compatibility testing requires limited cognitive capacity, is often
unconscious, and feels effortless (Mitchell & Beach, 1990). As long as
compatibility testing proceeds without an alternative passing the threshold for
rejection, the choice of alternatives is accompanied by positive feelings and
a sense of conviction. In contrast, when the decisionmakers are forced to pay
closer attention to the alternatives, as would be the case in a highly structured
procedure, the process is more effortful and more likely to arouse negative
affect.
All of the above factors suggest that interviewers will tend to find
unstructured procedures more personally satisfying, but there are likely to be
individual differences that moderate these preferences. The job characteristics
model of Hackman and Oldham (1980) posits that the core job characteristics
induce high levels of job satisfaction mainly for those who are high in growth
needs. If their reasoning can be extended to the interviewing task, then
interviewers who are high on growth needs should be most satisfied with
unstructured interviews and least satisfied with structured interviews.
Interviewers who are experiencing a high degree of role conflict and who place
little importance on the interviewing role seem likely to prefer the structured
procedures. Holland's (1985) occupational classification scheme suggests
personality differences that may moderate these preferences. Interviewers who
are social types gain satisfaction from social interaction and should prefer
unstructured interviews, whereas those who are conventional types are drawn
to record keeping, filing, and other clerical activities and should prefer
structured interviews. The self-image of the interviewer is another potential
moderator (Meehl, 1986, p. 374). Interviewers who view themselves as highly
perceptive and skilled in "reading" people seem more likely to prefer the
unstructured interview than those who view themselves more modestly on this
dimension. Predictions also can be drawn from the widely used, albeit
100
ROBERT L. DIPBOYE
controversial, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Interviewers who are high on the
intuitive and feeling scales should show the strongest preference for
unstructured procedures, whereas those on sensing and judging should show
the least preference.
Providing a Good Fit of the Applicant to the job Context
The various motives that possibly influence the use of unstructured
interviews are too numerous to fully enumerate but are crucial determinants J
of whether structured interview procedures are used or avoided and whether
they stay structured. As important as they may be, however, we need to go
beyond the individual level to consider additional forces at the level of the group
and the organization that pull decisionmakers toward unstructured procedures.
One of these is the pressure on decisionmakers to achieve a good fit between
hirees and the context of the job.
A common criticism of structured selection procedures is that they focus
narrowly on the requirements of the job itself and ignore the requirements of
the various contexts of the job, such as being a team player or a good
organizational citizen. Several researchers have suggested broadening the
predictor and criterion domains to include the context (Bowen, Ledford, &
Nathan, 1991; Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Campbell, 1990). Consistent with
these suggestions, recent research has demonstrated the positive outcomes
associated with a good fit between the job-context and the person's goals
(Vancouver & Schmitt, 1991) and values (Chatman, 1989; O'Reilly, Chatman,
& Caldwell, 1991). According to Schneider's (1987) Attraction-Selection-
Attrition (ASA) model, fit is achieved through a cycle that involves selection,
recruiting, and socialization. I now show how the unstructured interview might
contribute to each of these phases of the process.
In selecting for fit to the context, values, personality traits, and goals are
particularly important (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993), and it has been proposed
that interviews are the best means of assessing these attributes. Dobbins, Cardy,
and Carson (1991) suggested that"._. the traditional employment interview,
much maligned when using typical validation strategies, may in fact be found
to be more appropriate as a predictor of fit within the organization" (p. 18).
Similarly, Chatman ( 1991) noted that the reason interviews continue to be used
is that they fulfill a primary function of selection processes by allowing the
organization to "assess how well a person's values fit the organization's values
and norms" (p. 343). Recently Judge and Ferris (1992) stated that "calls for
structured interviews as a way to improve the validity of the interview may
be misplaced if the true goal, and utility, of the interview lies not in selecting
the most technically qualified, but the individual most likely to fit into the
organization" (p. 23). They recommend using tests and other objective
procedures to evaluate fit of the applicant to the KSAs of the job while using
Structured and Unstructured Selection Interviews
101
the interview to determine fit of the applicant to the goals and values of the
organization. One could go a step further to suggest that in assessing contextual
fit, unstructured interviews are preferred over structured interviews. The
primary reason is that unstructured interview procedures allow the interviewer
to go beyond KSAs and explore attributes that are ignored in structured
approaches, but are crucial to predicting contextual performances.
Just as an unstructured procedure might allow the organization to pick the
applicant that best fits the job context, the same type of procedure also might
allow the applicant to make better choices. A recent experiment suggests that
applicants can make choices among organizations that provide a fit of the
organization to their personalities (Bretz, Ash, & Dreher, 1989). However, none
of the research conducted so far has evaluated the hypothesis that unstructured
interviews allow applicants to make better decisions than structured interviews.
Still, there are several reasons that this might be the case. With an unstructured
procedure, the applicant is able to ask questions about whether there is a match
to his or her abilities, interests, goals, values, and needs. The interviewer can
provide realistic previews of the job and the context. Bargaining and
negotiation can even occur, and as a consequence, the interviewer and applicant
may accommodate to some of the demands of the other in return for
concessions. In contrast, the highly structured interview provides limited
opportunity for the applicant to gather information or influence the conditions
of employment.
To provide a good fit to the context, the right types of persons not only
must be selected but they also must be attracted to join the organization. The
belief that structured selection procedures interfere with the recruitment of
applicants, while unstructured procedures facilitate recruitment, provides
another reason for the continued use of unstructured interviews. Perhaps the
most consistent finding in the research on recruiting is that applicants are more
favorably disposed to interviewers who are attentive, warm, thoughtful, socially
perceptive, and likable in their conduct of the session (Campion, 1980; Harn
& Thornton, 1985; Harris & Fink, 1987; Keenan, 1978; Schmitt & Coyle, 1976;
Young & Heneman, 1986). On the basis of these findings, one could surmise
that unstructured interviews are more effective in recruiting because the
interviewer can add a more personal touch to the process, and can better convey
attributes such as warmth and empathy. Also, the flexibility of the unstructured
procedure allows the interviewer to shift away from assessment when the
applicant is highly qualified and concentrate instead on selling the job and
organization.
The evidence gathered so far on the relative impact of structured and
unstructured interviews on the success in recruiting applicants has yielded
mixed findings. In support of structured procedures, Taylor and Bergmann
(1987) found that the more structured that recruiters perceived their interviews
to be, the more likely applicants were to say they would accept a job offer.
102
ROBERT L. DIPBOYE
Also, there is some evidence that applicants respond favorably to recruiters
if they ask job-related questions (Alderfer & McCord, 1970; Taylor & Sniezek,
1984). Not surprisingly, the most negative reactions occur in response to "shoot-
from-the hip" questions about inappropriate topics such as marital plans and
childrearing (Craig & Greenberg, 1986; Rynes, 1993), conduct that should be
less likely with structured interviews.
There is also evidence to support the use of unstructured procedures. One study
found that students perceived a particular type of structured interview to be
boring, fakable, and, possibly irrelevant (Rynes, 1993). In perhaps the only direct
comparison of structured and unstructured interviews, Latham and Finnegan
(1987) found that college students rated the unstructured interview as more likely
to favorably influence them to accept a job offer than either a patterned or
situational interview. The research of Martin and Nagao (1989) suggests that the
reaction to structured procedures may depend on the position for which the
interviewee is applying. Undergraduate students role played an applicant for
either a desk clerk or a management trainee. The subjects were interviewed by
means of a paper-and-pencil form, computer, or a face-to-face session with an
interviewer who conducted the session in either a cold or warm manner. Subjects
who interviewed for a high status job (manager) felt more resentful toward the
procedures when the session was conducted by means of a paper-and-pencil
instrument or a computer than when it was face-to-face. This greater resentment
was expressed even when the interviewer in the face-to-face session acted in a
cold manner. The actual effectiveness of interviewing procedures in attracting
potential employees is an issue that remains unresolved. The fear that structured
procedures may actually "tum off" prospective employees seems prevalent and
deserves much more attention than it has received so far.
A primary means of ensuring that individuals fit the job context is
socialization, which consists of those actions taken by the organization to
influence its members to adopt the behaviors, attitudes, and values appropriate
to their roles (Fisher, 1986; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Selection procedures
are rarely discussed as tactics of socialization, but as the first significant
encounter with the organization, the selection process can be part of the
"unfreezing" of the potential new hire, in which the individual is shaken loose
from previous attitudes, values, and norms possibly through stressful
experiences such as ridicule and intimidation. The interview and other selection
procedures can also motivate applicants by signaling that they will have a
difficult task ahead of them if they are hired, or by leading them to believe
that membership in the organization is reserved for the fortunate few and
should be highly valued (Trice, Belasco, & Alutto, 1969). Deal and Kennedy
(1982, p. 12) alluded to these functions when they described interviews at
Tandem Corporation as a type of "'inquisition' in which applicants were called
back several times. The message conveyed to prospective employees is 'we take
longer, and take care of people we hire-because we really care.'"
Structured and Unstructured Selection Interviews
103
Also important to the socialization of a new hire is the information that
an applicant can acquire as interviewers spin tales about their experiences in
the organization and engage in other chit-chat. The perceptive applicant can
learn a variety of lessons from these conversations, such as who is subservient
to whom, how employees should dress, what topics are open to discussion and
which are off limits, who are the favored employees, and who is in the out-
group. Thus, unstructured procedures allow the organization to begin
socializing the potential new hire even before the selection decision has been
made. Although selection is unlikely to have as large an impact as later
experiences in the organization (Chatman, 1991), the selection process can set
the stage for subsequent attempts to socialize the new hire.
In summary, unstructured interviews can be part of the overall effort to
provide a good fit between the hiree and the context of the job. These
procedures can provide the basis for selecting, recruiting, and socializing hirees
so that they conform to what is considered to be "right type." Whether
unstructured procedures are actually more effective in this regard will need
to be examined in future research. The more important consideration for the
purpose of this paper is that they are perceived by organizational members
to be important to attaining a good person-context fit, thus providing one more
reason that they are preferred over structured procedures.
Maintaining Procedural and Distributive justice
An additional force that needs to be taken into account in explaining the
prevalence of unstructured procedures is the fairness of the selection
procedures. Generally, selection techniques are more likely to be used if they
are consistent with the distributive rules for allocating outcomes (i.e., allocating
jobs to applicants), and the procedural rules for making the decisions. Although
structured procedures actually may be fairer in most circumstances, I am
proposing that decisionmakers frequently use unstructured interviews in the
attempt to ensure both distributive and procedural justice.
From a distributive justice perspective, one could predict that
decisionmakers will judge the fairness of a procedure on the basis of how
outcomes are distributed. There are at least three rules that might be used
(Deutsch, 1975). An equity rule would lead decisionmakers to view a fair
selection decision as one in which the most qualified candidates are hired
(Adams, 1965). If the distributive rule was based on need, then job offers would
go to those who need the job the most. For instance, preference might be given
to applicants with dependents because they have a greater need for money,
or to women and minorities because they have suffered past discrimination.
Finally, an equality norm would dictate that no distinctions be made and that
all candidates have an equal chance of being hired, perhaps as the result of
a random draw. Research on the effects of these alternative rules shows that
104
ROBERT L. DIPBOYE
equity is the dominant rule, but that the other two can be salient under some
circumstances (Cohen, 1987; Bierhoff, Cohen, & Greenberg, 1986). The
advantage of unstructured interviews in maintaining distributive justice is that
they allow the decisionmaker the flexibility to implement whichever rule
happens to fit the dominant norms in the situation. Moreover, unstructured
procedures allow interviewers to distort their perceptions of the selection
process so that decisions that actually deviate from the dominant rule are seen
as complying with this rule.
From a procedural justice perspective, the distribution of outcomes is not
as important as the fairness of the procedures leading to the distribution
(Folger, 1977). Research has suggested several procedural rules (Folger &
Greenberg, 1985; Tyler & Bies, 1990). Decisions are perceived as fairer if
the participants are: (I) allowed to voice their opinions, (2) their opinions
are not muted, (3) once opinions are asked, they actually influence the
decisionmaker, ( 4) the decisionmakers are neutral and suppress their biases,
(5) decision making criteria are consistently applied across employees, (6)
timely feedback is provided after the decision, and (7) procedures are
explained and justified.
More important than these rules, according to Tyler and Bies (1990), is the
quality with which decisionmakers interact with others in implementing
procedures and allocating outcomes. The importance of the interactional
quality as a determinant of perceived fairness was demonstrated in a study
conducted by Bies and reported in Tyler and Bies (1990, pp. 81-82). MBA
students recalled past interviews in which they felt fairly or unfairly treated.
Selection procedures were seen as fairer when the MBAs had the opportunity
to present their credentials and qualifications to the interviewers, were treated
with honesty, courtesy and respect, were given timely feedback on the results,
and no illegal or unethical questions were asked regarding their race, sex, or
marital status. Most important, Bies's results suggested that higher quality of
interpersonal treatment in the interview led to perceptions of fairness even when
the student had been turned down for employment. Bies and Shapiro (1988)
conducted a follow-up to this research in which they manipulated some of the
factors identified in the earlier survey of MBAs. They were assigned to one
of four conditions which differed on whether the interview procedure had
allowed voice, and whether justification was provided for the final decision.
In the mute condition, subjects were told that the interviewer had not asked
the candidate any questions concerning the resume, and that the candidate was
given no opportunity to ask the interviewer about the job and the company.
In the voice-procedure condition, subjects were told that the candidate had
an opportunity to ask questions about the job and the company, and that there
had been an opportunity for the applicant to present his credentials. Subjects
perceived a decision to not hire as fairer when voice was allowed than when
voice was not allowed (mute condition).
Structured and Unstructured Selection Interviews
105
If interviewers attempt to be fair to applicants by incorporating a higher
quality of interaction, as suggested by Bies and colleagues, then the effect may
be to destructure the selection process. Possible testimony to the success of
these efforts to be fair is the very low frequency of discrimination lawsuits in
which the interview has been the focus of the complaint. Indeed, Campion and
Arvey (1989) found that the interview was an issue in fewer than I% of the
more than 8,000 cases reported between 1979-1987. Although these statistics
suggest that unstructured interviews are unlikely to provoke a suit, it is
important to note that once a lawsuit is filed, structured interviews appear easier
to defend in court. Gollub and Campion (1991), in an analysis of91 Federal
District Court cases, found that the decision was more likely to be in favor
of the employer if the interview was job related, contained specific behavioral
criteria, and was standardized. Other features that enhanced defensibility were
the use of a panel, a formal employment decision system, systematic
combination of ratings, and record keeping.
In summary, unstructured procedures are a two-edge sword. By allowing
discretion in the questions asked, there is greater risk that the interviewer will
engage in improper behavior. I believe, however, that as long as the interviewer
does not engage in such behavior, an unstructured interview will be seen as
fairer as the result of having more open and informal communication. This
perceived fairness could be still another reason that unstructured interviews
are more frequently used than structured procedures.
Acquiring and Maintaining Power
Although it seems at odds with pressures to be fair in the selection process,
politics are a reality of organizational life. Indeed, politics offer a possible
explanation for why the criterion-related validities of the interview are much
lower when they are used to select police than when they are used in other
occupations (McDaniel et al., in press). The strong pressures from competing
constituencies and internal power struggles that can occur in police selection
may lower the reliability and validity of interviewer judgments in this type of
situation.
Despite the damage done to the validity of judgments, the attractive
opportunities that unstructured interviews offer for wielding power is a primary
reason that they are preferred over structured procedures. Pfeffer (198la) has
defined power as the ability to achieve desired outcomes and politics as the
"activities taken within organizations to acquire, develop, and use power" (p.
7). In his theory, political activity arises from scarcity, interdependence,
heterogeneous goals, and heterogeneous beliefs about the means of
goals. Among the ways decisionmakers acquire power is by reducmg
uncertainty, controlling the decision process, and building coalitions (Pfeffer,
198lb). Moreover, skilled politicians seek situations that are sufficiently
106
ROBERT L. DIPBOYE
ambiguous that their actions cannot be closely scrutinized and monitored.
From the perspective of this theoretical framework, unstructured interviews
offer several advantages to decisionmakers seeking power and influence.
Power is acquired by reducing uncertainty, and there are few situations that
have as much uncertainty associated with them as the selection of a new
employee (Graanovetter, 1974; Kanter, 1977; Pfeffer, 198la). A lack of
agreement regarding the requirements of the position or doubts about the
applicant's qualifications present opportunities to the power seeker. Although
it seems paradoxical, interviewers may prefer the looseness associated with
unstructured interviews because it allows them to manage the uncertainty that
surrounds selection decisions. With unstructured procedures they have more
opportunity to persuade others as to who should and should not be hired than
with the tight guidelines of a structured interview. Unstructured procedures
also allow both interviewer and applicant to engage more freely in impression
management tactics. A skilled self-presentation by applicants can convey their
qualifications (Baron, 1989; Gilmore & Ferris, 1989b), and as a consequence,
can also help interviewers to reduce the uncertainty surrounding the hiring
decision. Unstructured procedures can allow the interviewer to engage in
impression management as well, thus enabling them to convince others of the
qualifications of their preferred candidates and their own ability to judge these
qualifications.
An additional advantage of the unstructured interview is the control it
provides over the decision process. The unstructured interview provides an
opportunity for the interviewer to control the alternatives, and the information
on these alternatives. Also, interviewers can stress those criteria that favor their
preferences while de-emphasizing or ignoring the criteria that do not provide
them an advantage. Salancik and Pfeffer (1976) demonstrated how this might
occur in an experiment in which subjects chose from among applicants, and
then wrote justifications for their decisions. They found that when asked to
justify their choices, the judges stressed the socially-sanctioned criteria of
grades, experience, and recommendations. In no case did the judges mention
the similarity of the applicant, although similarity had, in fact, strongly
influenced their evaluations. Manipulating the criteria to justify decisions is
likely to be difficult in a structured procedure where standards are explicit and
much harder to bend to the decisionmaker's preferences. In contrast, the
ambiguity of an unstructured procedure allows the power seeker to use
language and symbols to rationalize their decisions and to hide their true
intentions.
Unstructured procedures make it easier to use what can be the most blatant
power tactic, coalition building. Pfeffer (198la) has described several examples.
In one case, executives at GM promoted obviously unqualified candidates to
posts to win their loyalty and to build a power base. A second case involved
a large retailing organization that tended to promote people on the basis of
Structured and Unstructured Selection Interviews
107
their retailing background despite their lack of expertise in the areas they were
to head. Given that the primary objective was to ensure that the company would
maintain the dominance of the retailing department, having experience in the
area being managed was a drawback, not an asset. Obviously, selection
procedures that build on careful analysis of job requirements and that are
standardized would make such coalition tactics hard to accomplish without
revealing the underlying motivation of those using them.
Finally, unstructured procedures provide political advantages because they
make it more difficult to evaluate decisionmakers. Regardless of which of the
specific power tactics is used, skillful politicians seek unstructured situations
because they are ambiguous and prevent close scrutiny and monitoring
(Gilmore & Ferris, 1989b). For instance, unstructured interviews can be seen
as a way of avoiding inspection by the EEOC, affrrmative action officers, and
potential plaintiffs (Lancaster, 1975; Daniel, 1986). They also can play a role
in the internal politics of the organization as departments attempt to avoid
monitoring of their selection practices by those outside the department,
especially the HRM department. There is research to suggest that HRM
departments use standardized testing as a way of gaining power over other
units in the organization (Cohen & Pfeffer, 1986), but I would suggest that
the other side of this struggle is the use of unstructured interviewing by
operating departments to retain authority over staffing decisions.
In summary, the selection process is one of many contexts in which
individuals and groups in an organization engage in opportunistic behavior.
The ambiguity and lack of accountability present in unstructured procedures
make it more attractive to those seeking to acquire and maintain power.
Additionally, political pressures may lead to a destructuring of a structured
procedure as interviewers and other decisionmakers shape the procedures to
their advantage.
The Symbolic Functions of the Interview
The last and most inclusive reason that unstructured procedures dominate
the selection process is that they are an important means of expressing and
maintaining the values of the group, subunit, and organization (Trice & Beyer,
1984, p. 665). I will start with Schein's (1985) definition of culture as "deeper
levels of basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by members of an
organization, that operate unconsciously, and that define in a basic 'taken-for-
granted' fashion an organization's view of itself and its environment" (p. 6).
The values of the organization define what "ought to be" and are a crucial
component of a culture. The selection process, as well as other organizational
practices, can have the symbolic function of communicating these values, and
in so doing, can channel the energy of participants and help maintain the system
(Dandridge, Mitroff, & Joyce, 1980). Symbols can be instrumental in nature,
108
ROBERT L. DIP80YE
in that they convey information about some logical aspect of selection, or
primarily expressive (e.g., myths, stories, cocktail parties), in that they deal
with the feelings and emotional needs of participants (Daft, 1983).
When organizations confront poorly understood problems that require
intuition, symbols can provide a rich source of information that can be used
in understanding the situation (Daft, 1983). Along these lines, Pfeffer (l98lb)
noted that symbols are important especially when the preferences for
alternative outcomes from organizational actions are unclear or conflicting.
In coping with an uncertain environment, organizational symbols can help
participants find common ground in the interpretation of events, can serve as
a source of motivation, and can reduce the anxiety associated with the
uncertainty, Given that the factors that predict success in the organization are
often poorly understood, the selection process seems especially open to the use
of symbols. By drawing from the analyses of Daft (1983) and Pfeffer (l98lb),
the prediction can be made that expressive symbols are more likely to be found
in the selection process the more uncertain organizational participants are
about the qualifications of the position. It follows that one could expect to
find more symbolism in the selection process used in filling higher level
managerial and professional positions than for lower level positions. For
instance, there is often uncertainty and anxiety surrounding the replacement
of a high level person, such as a President or CEO. The ceremonial activities
associated with the search for such an individual can serve as a visible symbol,
proclaiming to those inside and outside the organization that attempts are being
made to find a suitable replacement (Pfeffer, l98la).
There are several vehicles for communicating symbols that are associated
with unstructured selection processes. In some cases the selection process
consists of rites, which Trice and Beyer (1984) defined as unified events
consolidating a number of cultural expressions in an elaborate and dramatic
manner. In other cases they are ceremonials consisting of several rites connected
with an occasion or event. Other cultural forms that can occur in the selection
process are the telling of sagas (i.e., historical narratives about the
accomplishments of the organization and its leaders), myths (i.e., dramatic
descriptions of imagined events), stories (i.e., descriptions of true events
contaiqing some fiction and some truth), legends (i.e., an embellished
recounting of an extraordinary event in the history of the group or
organization), and folktales (i.e., completely fictitious stories).
With repeated use, an unstructured interview and other selection procedures
can become an integral part of the culture (Schein, 1985). In the beginning,
selection techniques are implemented as a consequence of decisionmakers'
values, their beliefs about the nature of reality, and their beliefs about how
to deal with this reality. Imagine, for instance, that the key people in an
organization value creativity and believe that applicants with unconventional
backgrounds should be preferred over applicants with conventional
Structured and Unstructured Selection Interviews
109
backgrounds. This value then leads to the selection of applicants who have
taken unusual routes in their careers, and the rejection of applicants with more
conventional records. If the persons selected on these bases succeed, then this
value evolves into a widely shared image that successful applicants are
unconventional (Beach, 1990; Borman, 1987). The image is part of the body
of knowledge in the organization defining what is correct, and is so deeply
held that it constitutes a basic assumption of the culture. This is particularly
true if a practice receives continual support, in which case the assumptions
underlying the practice may be taken for granted and alternative practices not
even considered. The cultural functions of organizational practices can be so
strong that they persist even though there is little evidence that they serve their
manifest goals effectively. In this case, they become rituals that reduce anxieties
and convey values but do not fulfill their manifest purposes (Bolman & Deal,
1991; Trice et al., 1969). According to Bolman and Deal (1991), tests and
interviews "often produce data of doubtful validity, but ... may bolster the self-
confidence of those who are hired and allow those who are not to feel that
they were treated fairly" (p. 265).
The idea that interview procedures become empty symbols, devoid of
instrumental value, is consistent with institutional theory (!D. According to
Meyer and Rowan (1977), perhaps the leading advocates of IT, the formal
structures and practices of many organizations "reflect the myths of their
institutional environments instead of the demands of their work activities" (p.
341). From the perspective of this theory, selection procedures have ceremonial
value in demonstrating to participants in the environment of the organization
(e.g., the federal government, potential customers, stockholders, competitors)
that legitimate techniques are being used in the hiring of employees. Therefore,
unstructured interviews are more frequently used in the selection of managerial,
professional, and other higher level employees because they are seen as more
legitimate than structured approaches by important constituents of the
organization. For example, a university department might avoid structured
selection procedures (e.g., weighted application blanks, personality testing) in
hiring faculty because such procedures would look bad to the administration
and faculty of other universities.
Once a procedure such as an unstructured interview becomes institution-
alized, IT proposes that a decoupling occurs in which the interview is evaluated
solely for its ceremonial value rather than on the basis of how it performs in
achieving organizational goals. A primary use of myths and ceremonies that
masquerade as rational selection practice is to decouple the actual performance
of the work from external evaluation. For instance, using a procedure that
is widely seen as legitimate, such as an unstructured interview, makes it more
difficult for the EEOC or potential litigants to scrutinize the selection practices
uf an organization. Thus, the unstructured interview is used not only because
it can hide questionable practices, as mentioned in the discussion of politics,
110
ROBERT L. DIPBOYE
but also because of strong normative pressures in the institutional environment
of the organization.
In summary, unstructured interviews are frequently used because they are
more effective than structured interviews in expressing values important to both
the culture and the institutional environment of the organization. In contrast,
structured procedures hold the interviewer to knowledge, skills, and abilities
that are job-related, and discourage the rich mix of behaviors that are so
important to maintaining and communicating the values of the organization.
TOWARD AN ORGANIC VIEW OF THE SELECTION PROCESS
A variety of forces have been covered in this paper that might work against
structured employment procedures. The implication is that we need models
of employee selection that are more dynamic than those that have dominated
past discussions of the process. In short, we need to replace the mechanistic
models that underlie much of the work on selection with more organic views.
The reality is that the selection process is not like an electric appliance that
can be plugged in and expected to perform as originally intended for an
indefinite period of time. Rather, selection involves a dynamic interplay among
selection procedures, the social system that these procedures serve, and the
personal needs of those implementing the procedures. Barley's (1986) theory
of structuration provides some useful insights into how this process might work.
According to his theory, any structure surrounding the use of a technology
is subject to change as those using the technology interact and interpret their
experiences. As slippages between the "institutional template and the exigencies
of daily life" occur, they eventually become institutionalized as the accepted
pattern of doing things. This process is referred to as structuration and consists
of people socially constructing and reconstructing the technology in the attempt
to employ its rules and procedures. The understanding of these dynamics
requires longitudinal research in which observations are made of how people
"give life" to a new technology in the process of implementing it.
An important area for future research is to examine the process of
structuration following the introduction of structured HRM procedures. As
I have indicated at several points in this paper, the final outcome may represent
a marked departure from the theory underlying the procedure, the specific
practices associated with the procedure, or both. In the case of selection
procedures, some interviewers form global judgments of the applicants, ask
their own questions, and then ignore the rating form. These interviewers violate
both the practice and the theory underlying structured procedures. Other
interviewers conform to the theory underlying the method by maintaining
uniformity in questioning and withholding judgment, but modify the specific
procedures by evaluating applicants on dimensions not included in the
Structured and Unstructured Selection Interviews
111
structured form. Still other interviewers conform to the specific procedures but
violate the underlying theory. For instance, they might proceed through the
entire process as intended, using all the dimensions of the rating form in their
final ratings of the applicant. While maintaining the superficial appearance of
compliance to the structured procedures, however, they form a global opinion
of the applicant early in the process, and their final ratings represent a
justification of their snap judgments. Research is needed that tracks the
implementation of structured interviews over time and the emergence of these
alternative patterns of compliance. Such research would allow a determination
of the conditions under which various types of deviations from prescribed
procedure occur, the process by which they become institutionalized, and their
impact on the reliability and validity of interviewer judgments.
The focus of this paper has been on deviations from structured interviews,
but structured procedures are not always rejected, and in some situations are
preferred. An important area for future research is to explore the antecedent
conditions associated with acceptance and rejection. In this regard, Ouchi's
(1977) modification of Thompson's (1967) typology may prove useful. Ouchi
proposed that two task dimensions need to be considered when deciding on
the type of control to exert in a situation: (I) the completeness of knowledge
on cause-effect relationships, and (2) the degree to which there are crystallized
standards of desirability on which participants can evaluate outcomes.
Organizations find it easier to be rational and to maximize their outcomes in
a situation in which knowledge of relationships are clear, and there is agreement
as to the preferred outcomes.
I would hypothesize that when there is complete knowledge of cause-<:ffect
relationships and a consensus as to preferred outcomes, structured procedures
are more acceptable to the organization and more effective in selecting
applicants. Partial evidence of this comes from the meta-analysis of McDaniel
et al. (in press), which found that structured interviews were more valid in low
complexity occupations than in moderate or high complexity occupations. The
lower the complexity of the position, the more likely it is that the knowledge
of the causes of performance is complete and the standards for assessing the
performance of the employee are crystallized. For instance, the various
personal abilities underlying the performance of an assembly line worker are
better understood than the abilities underlying the performance of a top-level
executive. Likewise, the standards for evaluating performance are easier to
identify and much less controversial in the former type of position than in the
latter. The flip side of this argument is that unstructured procedures are
preferred and more effective when there is uncertainty as to what the position
requires and disagreement over objectives.
Drawing from the previous discussion of the forces acting to destructure
selection procedures, I would propose several possible explanations for why
unstructured procedures are better suited than structured procedures when
112 ROBERT L. DIPBOYE
there is incomplete knowledge of cause-effect relationships and disagreement
about preferred outcomes. First, unstructured approaches allow for richer
communication among interviewers and between interviewer and the applicant
(Daft & Lengel, 1986); as a consequence, those involved in the selection process
can achieve greater reductions in the equivocality associated with hiring
decisions (Weick, 1979). Second, the political behavior that can emerge with
an unstructured procedure can prove valuable in resolving conflict over
underlying objectives and alternative job candidates. Third, when knowledge
of cause-effect is incomplete and there is no consensus on standards, fairness
becomes more of an issue, and the interactional quality of an unstructured
interview can provide for greater procedural justice. Fourth, the overall fit of
the individual to the job context becomes more important in these situations
and as discussed earlier, unstructured procedures seem to provide a better basis
for achieving a good fit to this broader context. Finally, it is in these ambiguous
situations that the personal commitment of those conducting the interviews
is especially important to the ultimate success of the decision, and through
providing autonomy, an unstructured procedure may help build this
commitment.
CONCLUSIONS
The structured approach to selection emphasizes the need to use techniques
that are predictive of job success and that yield monetary benefits to the
organization, but gives little attention to what happens once selection
procedures are put in place. The implicit assumption is that if a procedure is
valid and has utility for the organization, then full implementation will follow.
I have attempted to show in this paper that in identifying the advantages of
structured approaches to selection and other HRM practices, there has been
a failure to appreciate that organizations are complex systems. Moreover, there
has been a failure to appreciate that wielding power, maintaining fairness,
obtaining personal satisfaction, achieving a good fit to the context, and
conveying the values of the culture can compete with goal-attainment in these
complex systems.
There are several ways that a structured selection process can conflict with
the existing system, and as a consequence can be rejected or destructured. In
the search for personal satisfaction, interviewers deviate from guidelines by
incorporating task characteristics such as variety and autonomy. In the attempt
to achieve a good fit to the organization, interviewers stray from the job-related
attributes to consider the personality, values, and goals and to allow recruiting,
socialization, rind self-selection. Other deviations occur as a consequence of
power tactics, such as building coalitions or controlling the decision process.
In the attempt to be fair, interviewers deviate from the one-way interrogation
Structured and Unstructured Selection Interviews
113
prescribed by some structured forms to allow two-way communication in which
the applicant has voice. Finally, interviewers deviate from the prescribed
procedures in the interest of communicating the values of the organization.
What are the practical implications of what I have discussed for improving
the selection process? One option is to give into the realities of the organization
and give up the idea of structured procedures altogether. This would be a
mistake. Structured procedures are more valid (McDaniel et aL, in press) and
more defensible in court (Gollub & Campion, 1991). Moreover, as valuable
as the functions served by unstructured interviews are, these functions can
become justifications for unfair discrimination against minorities and others
who do not "fit" the image of the ideal employee.
The resolution of the dilemma requires integrative solutions in which
structure is maintained in the assessment of applicants, while providing for
the fulfillment of the other functions such as achieving a good fit to the
organization. To start with, a careful assessment should be made of the
preexisting system, including its culture, values, and norms. Part of this would
involve determining the impact of the new system on the needs of those who
are actually implementing it Also, consideration should be given to whether
the new selection system is congruent with the values of the organizational
culture and the dominant subcultures. In the actual design of the system, the
attributes that are assessed should be broadened to include contextual
performances, personality characteristics, and values, all of which had been
neglected in the structured interview approaches. Those who will use the system
should be involved in the actual design of assessment procedures. Another
possible solution is to provide for periods of free interaction during the
interview procedures such as is done in the multi-modal interview (Schuler &
Funke, 1989). In short, we need to take a midcourse between the extremes
that seem to have dominated past discussions.
Structured procedures in selection, training, and other HRM practices represent
major advances. Nevertheless, it is naive to assume that they will be assimilated
with the same enthusiasm of those who designed them. Structured procedures
must pass through human hands and as a consequence, the final outcome can
differ markedly from what was originally intended. There are creative solutions
to these dilemmas that researchers in HRM need to begin to explore.
REFERENCES
Adams, J.S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press.
Alderfer, C.P., & McCord, C.G. (1970). Personal and situational factors in the recruitment
interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 377-385.
American Society of Personnel Administration (1983). ASPA-BNA Survey No. 45: Employee
Selection Procedures. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.
114 ROBERT L. DIPBOYE
Anderson, C.W. (1960). The relation between speaking times and decision in the employment
interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 44,267-268.
Anderson, C.W., & Shackleton, V.J. (1990). Decision making in the graduate selection interview:
A field study. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 63-76.
Arkes, H.R., Dawes, R.M., & Christensen, C. (1986). Factors influencing the use of a decision
rule in a probabilistic task. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37,
93-110.
Arvey, R.D., Miller, H.E., Gould, R., & Burch, P. (1987}. Interview validity for selecting sales
clerks. Personnel Psychology, 40, 1-12.
Barley, S.R. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of
CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 31, I 08.
Baron, R.A. (1989). Impression management by applicants during employment interviews: The
"too much of a good thing" effect. In R.W. Eder & G.R. Ferris (Eds.), The employment
interview: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 204-217). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Barr, S.H., & Hitt, M.A. (1986). A comparison of selection decision models in manager versus
student samples. Personnel Psychology, 39, 599-617.
Baybrook, R.M. (1985). The influence of candidate credentials and nonverbal behaviors on
decision making in employment interviews. Unpublished dissertation, University of South
Florida.
Bazerman, M.H., Beekun, R., & Schoorman, F.D. (1982). Performance evaluation in a dynamic
context: A laboratory study of the impact of a prior commitment to the ratee. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 67, 873-876.
Beach, L.R. (1990). Image theory: Decision making in personal and organizational contexts.
Chichester: John Wiley.
Belec, B.E., & Rowe, P.M. (1983). Temporal placement of information, expectancy, causal
attributions, and overall final judgments in employment decision making. Canadian
Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 15,
Bierhoff, H.W., Cohen, R.L., & Greenberg, J. (1986). Justice in social relations. New York:
Plenum.
Bies, R.J., & Shapiro, D.L. (1988). Voice and justification: Their influence on procedural fairness
judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 31,676-686.
Binning, J.F., Goldstein, M.A., Garcia, M.F., & Scattaregia, J.H. (1988). Effects of preinterview
impressions on questioning strategies in same- and opposite-sex employment interviews.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 30-37.
Blocklyn, P.L. (May, 1988). Employment recruitment practices. Personnel, 65, 63-65.
Belman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (1991). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Borman, W.C. (1987). Personal constructs, performance schemata, and "folk theories" of
subordinate effectiveness: Explorations in an army officer sample. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 40, 307-322.
Borman, W.C., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements
of contextual performance. InN. Schmitt & W.C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in
organizations (pp. 71-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bowen, D.E., Ledford, G.E., Jr., & Nathan, B.R. (1991). Hiring for the organization, not the
job. Academy of Management Executive, 5,
Bretz, R.D., Jr., Ash, R.A., & Dreher, G.F. (1989). Do people make the place? An examination
of the hypothesis. Personnel Psychology. 42,
Brown, S.H. (April, 1979). The results of ajtjteen year research program investigating the selection
interview. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association,
Philadelphia.
Structured and Unstructured Selection JnteNiews
115
Brown, S.H. (1980). The interview-putting research results into practice. Paper presented at the
conference "Alternatives to tests as an employee selection procedure," sponsored by the
Institute of Industrial Relations, University of California, Berkeley, San Francisco.
Buckley, M.R., & Eder, R.W. (1988). B. M. Springbett and the notion of the "snap decision"
in the interview. Journal of Management, 14, 59-67.
Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (May, 1988). Recruiting and selection procedures. Personnel
Policies Forum Survey No. 146. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
Burkhardt, J.C., Weider-Hatfield, D., & Hocking, J.E. (1985). Eye contact contrast effects in the
employment interview. Communication Research Reports, 2, 5-10.
Campbell, J.P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problems in industrial and
organizational psychology. In M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of
industrial and organization psychology (Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp 687-732). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Campion, J., & Arvey, R. (1989). Unfair discrimination in the interview. In R.W. Eder & G.R.
Ferris (Eds.), The employment interview: Theory, research. and practice (pp. 61-73).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cam pion, M.A. ( 1980). Relationship between interviewers' and applicants' reciprocal evaluations.
Psychological Reports. 47, 1335-1338.
Campion, M.A., Pursell, E.D., & Brown, B.K. (1988). Structured interviewing: Raising the
psychometric properties of the employment interview. Personnel Psychology, 41, 25-42.
Caplow, T., & McGee, R.J. (1958). The academic marketplace. New York: Basic Books.
Carlson, R.E. 1 9 ~ 7 ) . Evaluating interview and employment application data. Personnel
Psychology, 20, 441-460.
Carroll, S.J., Jr. (1966). Relationship of various college graduate characteristics to recruiting
decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50, 421-423.
Cascio, W.F. (1991). Costing human resources: The financial impact of behavior in organizations
(3rd ed.). Boston: PWS-Kent.
Cesare, S.J., Dalessio, A., & Tannenbaum, R.J. (1988). Contrast effects for black, white, and
female interviewees. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1261-1273.
Chapman, L.J., & Chapman, J.P. (1969). Illusory correlation as an obstacle to the use of valid
psychodiagnostic signs. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 74, 271-280.
Chatman, J.A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-
organization fit. Academy of Management Review. 14, 333-349.
Chatman, J .A. ( 1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public
accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459-484.
Cleveland, J.N., Festa, R.M., & Montgomery, L. (1988). Applicant pool composition and job
perceptions: Impact on decisions regarding an older applicant. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 32, 112-125.
Cohen, M.D., March, J.G., & Olsen, J.P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1-25.
Cohen, R.L. (1987). Distributive justice: Theory and research. Social Justice Research, I, 19-
40.
Cohen, Y ., & Pfeffer, J. ( 1986). Organizational hiring standards. Administrative Science Quarterly,
31, 1-24.
Craig, B., & Greenberg, R.M. (1986, Spring). In search of the perfect interview. Journal of College
Placement, 46, 4047.
Crowther, B., & More, D.M. (1972). Occupational stereotyping on initial impressions. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 2, 87-94.
Daft, R. (1983). Symbols in organizations: A dual-content framework for analysis. In L.R. Pondy,
P.J. Frost, G. Morgan, & T.C. Dandridge (Eds.), Organizational symbolism (pp. 199-207).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
116
ROBERT L. DIPBOYE
Daft, R., & Lengel, R.H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and
structural design. Management Science, 32, 5 5 4 ~ 5 7 1
Dandridge, T.C., Mitroff, 1., & Joyce, W.F. (1980). Organizational symbolism: A topic to expand
organizational analysis. Academy of Management Review, 5, 77-82.
Daniel, C. (1986). Science, system, or hunch: Alternative approaches to improving employee
selection. Public Personnel Management, 15, 1-10.
Daniels, H.W., & Otis, J.L. (1950). A method of analyzing employment interviews. Personnel
Psychology, 3, 425-440.
Dawes, R.M. (1988). Rational choice in an uncertain world. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace
1 ovanovich.
Dawes, R.M. (1991). Probabilistic versus causal thinking. In D. Cichetti & W.M. Grove (Eds.),
Thinking clearly about psychology. Volume 1: Matters of public interest (pp. 235-264).
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Deal, T.E., & Kennedy, A.A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Deutsch, M. ( 1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the
basis of distributive justice'! Journal of Social issues, 31,137-149.
Dipboye, R.L. (1992). Selection interviews: Process perspectives. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Dipboye, R.L. ( 1989). Threats to the incremental validity of interviewer judgments. In R.W. Eder
& G.R. Ferris (Eds.), The employment interview: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 45-
60). New bury Park, CA: Sage.
Dipboye, R.L., & Gaugler, B. (1993). Cognitive and behavioral processes in the selection interview.
InN. Schmitt & W.C. Borman and associates (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations
(pp. 135-171). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dipboye, R.L., Fontenelle, G.A., & Garner, K. (1984). Effects of previewing the application on
interview process and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 118-128.
Dipboye, R.L., Gaugler, B., & Hayes, T. (April, 1990)./ndividual differences among interviewers
in the incremental validity of their judgments. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings
of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc., Miami, FL.
Dobbins, G.H., Cardy, R.L., & Carson, K. (1991). Examining fundamental assumptions: A
contrast of person and system approaches to human resource management. In G. R. Ferris
& K.R. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol.
9, pp. 1-38). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Dougherty, T.W., Ebert, R.J., & Callender, J.C. (1986). Policy capturing in the employment
interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,9-15.
Dougherty, T.W., Turban, D.B., & Callender, J.C. (1992, May). Expectancy confirmation
behavior of employment interviewers. Paper presented at the meeting of employment
interviewers. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Montreal, Quebec.
Eccher, P.H., Sheskey, T.A., Lavelle, T.A., & Binning, J.P. (1988, April). Confirmation of
preinterview impressions: Differential use of biased versus bidirectional questioning. Paper
presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.
Einhorn, H.J., & Hogarth, R.M. (1978). Confidence in judgment: Persistence of the illusion of
validity. Psychological Review, 85, 395-416.
Farina, A., & Feiner, R.D. (1973). Employment interviewer reactions to former mental patients.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 82, 268-272.
Parr, J.L. (1973). Response requirements and primacy-recency effects in a simulated selection
interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58,228-233.
Parr, J.L., & York, C.M. (1975). Amount of information and primacy-recency effects in
recruitment decisions. Personnel Psychology, 28, 233-238.
Faust, D. (1984). The limits of scientific reasoning. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Structured and Unstructured Selection Interviews
117
Feldman, J.M. (1981). Beyond attribution theory: Cognitive processes in performance appraisal.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 127-148.
Fisher, C. D. (1986). Organizational socialization: An integrative review. In K.M. Rowland & G.R.
Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 4, pp. 101-
145). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight= foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment and
uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
I, 288-299.
Fischhoff, B. (1982). De biasing. In D. Kahneman, P. Slavic, & A. Tversky(Eds.), Judgment under
uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 422-444). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fiske, S.T., & Kinder, D.R. (1981). Involvement, expertise, and schema use. InN. Cantor & J.F.
Kihlstrom (Eds.), Personality, cognition, and social interaction (pp. 171-187). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S.L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation from category-based
to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and
interpretation. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.
23, pp.l-74). New York: Academic Press.
Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of ''voice" and
improvement on experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35,
108-ll9.
Folger, R., & Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural justice: An interpretative analysis of personnel
systems. In K.M. Rowland & G.R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human
resources management (Vol. 3, pp. 141-183). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Folger, R., Konovsky, M.A., & Cropanzano, R. (1992). A due process metaphor for performance
appraisal. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior
(Vol. 14, pp. 129-177). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Forbes, R.J., & Jackson, P.R. (1980). Nonverbal behaviour and the outcome of selection
interviews. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 65-12.
Garb, H.N. (1989). Clinical judgment, clinical training, and professional experience. Psychological
Bulletin, 105, 387-396.
Gilmore, D.C., & Ferris, G.R. (1989a). The effects of applicant impression management tactics
on interviewer judgments. Journal of Management, 15, 557-564.
Gilmore, D.C., & Ferris, G.R. (1989b). The politics of the employment interview. In R.W. Eder
& G.R. Ferris (Eds.), The employment interview: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 195-
203). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gollub, L.R., & Campion,J.E. (1991, April). The employment interview on trial. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St.
Louis, MO.
Granovetter, M.S. (1974). Getting a job: A study of contacts and careers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Graves, L.M., & Powell, G.N. (1988). An investigation of sex discrimination in recruiters'
evaluations of actual applicants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 20-29.
Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hakel, M.D. ( 1971 ). Similarity of post-interview trait rating intercorrelations as a contributor to
interrater agreement in a structured employment interview. Journal of Applied Psychology,
55, 443-448.
Hake!, M.D. (1982). Employment interviewing. In K.M. Rowland & G.R. Ferris (Eds.), Personnel
management (pp. 129-155). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hake!, M.D., Hollmann, T.D., & Dunnette, M.D. (1970). Accuracy of interviewers, certified public
accountants, and students in identifying the interests of accountants. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 54, 115-119.
118
ROBERT L. DIPBOYE
Hake!, M.D., & Schuh, A.J. ( 197 t ). Job applicant attributes judged important across seven diverse
occupations. Personnel Psychology, 24, 45-52.
Hammond, K.R., Hamm, R.M., Grassia, J., & Pearson, T. (1987). Direct comparison of the
efficacy of intuitive and analytic cognition in expert judgment. IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-17, 753-770.
Harn, T.J., & Thornton, G.C. Ill (1985). Recruiter counseling behaviours and applicant
impressions. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58, 57-65.
Harris, M.M., & Fink, L.S. (1987). A field study of applicant reactions to employment
opportunities: Does the recruiter make a difference? Personnel Psychology, 40, 765-784.
Heilman, M.E. ( 1980). The impact of situational factors on personnel decisions concerning women:
Varying the sex composition of the applicant pool. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 26, 386-396.
Herriot, P. (1989). Attribution theory and interview decisions. In R.W. Eder & G.R. Ferris (Eds.),
The employment interview: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 97-106). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Hitt, E.R., & Barr, S.H. (1989). Managerial selection decision models: Examination of configura!
cue processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 53-61.
Holland, J.L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Hulin, C.L., Henry, R.A., & Noon, S.L. (1990). Adding a dimension: Time as a factor in the
generalizability of predictive relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 328-340.
Imada, A.S., Fletcher, C., & Dalessio, A. (1980). Individual correlates of an occupational
stereotype: A reexamination of the stereotype of accountants. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 65, 436-439.
Isen, A.M., & Baron, R.A. (1991). Positive affect as a factor in organizational behavior. In B.M.
Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 13, pp. 1-53).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Isenberg, D.J. (November/December, 1984). How senior managers think. Harvard Business
Review, pp. 81-90.
Jackson, D. N., Peacock, A. C., & Holden, R.R. (1982). Professional interviewers' trait inferential
structures for diverse occupational groups. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 29, 1-20.
James, S.P., Campbell, I.M., & Lovegrove, S.A. (1984). Personality differentiation in a police
selection interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 129-134.
Janz, T. (1982). Initial comparisons of patterned behavior description interviews versus
unstructured interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 577-580.
Johns, G. (1975). Effects of informational order and frequency of applicant evaluation upon linear
information-processing competence of interviewers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60,
427-433.
Judge, T.A., & Ferris, G. R ( 1992). The elusive criterion offit in human resources staffing decisions.
Human Resource Planning, 25,47-67.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review.
80, 237-251.
Kanter, R.M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Keenan, A. ( 1976). Effects of the non-verbal behavior of interviewers on candidates' performance.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 49, 171-176.
Keenan, A. (1977). Some relationships between interviewers' personal feelings about
candidates and their general evaluation of them. Journal of Occupational Psychology,
50, 275-283.
Keenan, A. (1978). The selection interview: Candidates' reactions and interviewers' judgments.
British Journal of Social and Clinical Psych(}logy, 17, 201-209.
Structured and Unstructured Selection lnte!Views
119
Kinicki, A.J., & Lockwood, C.A. (1985). The interview process: An examination of factors
recruiters use in evaluating job applicants. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 26, 117-125.
Kinicki, A.J., Lockwood, C.A., Hom, P.W., & Griffeth, R.W. (1990). Interviewer predictions of
applicant qualifications and interviewer validity: Aggregate and individual analyses.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 477-486.
Komaroff, A.L. (1982). Algorithms and the "art" of medicine. American Journal of Public Health,
72, 10-12.
Kozlowski, S.W.J., & Kirsch, M.P. (1987). The systematic distortion hypothesis, halo, and
accuracy: An individual-level analysis. Journal of Apph"ed Psychology, 72, 252-262
Lancaster, H. (1975, September 3). Failing system: Job tests are dropped by many companies
due to anti bias drive. Wall Street Journal, p. AI.
Landy, F.J. (1976). The validity of the interview in police officer selection. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 61, 193-198.
Langdale, J.A., & Weitz, J. (1973). Estimating the influence of job information on interviewer
agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 141-144.
Latham, G.P. (1989). The reliability, validity, and practicality of the situational interview. In R. W.
Eder & G.R. Ferris (Eds.), The employment interview: Theory, research, and practice (pp.
169-I 80). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Latham, G.P., & Finnegan, B.J. (August, 1987). The practicality of the situational interview. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, New Orleans.
Latham, G.P., & Saari, L. M. (1984). Do people do what they say? Further studies on the situational
interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 569-574,
Latham, G.P., Saari, L.M., Pursell, E.D., & Campion, M. (1980). The situational interview. The
Journal of Applied Psychology, 65,422-427.
Lindblom, C.E. (1959). The science of "muddling through." Administration Review, 19, 79-88.
Liden, R. C., & Parsons, C. K. (1986). A field study of job applicant interview perceptions, alternative
opportunities and demographic characteristics. Personnel Psychology, 39, 109-122.
Lurigio, A.J., & Carroll, J.S. (1985). Probation offers' schemata of offenders: Content,
development and impact on treatment decisions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 48, 1112-1127.
Maas, J.B. (1965). Patterned scaled expectation interview: Reliability studies on a new technique.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 49,431-433.
Macan, T.M., & Dipboye, R.L. (April, 1986). Biases in interviewers'processing of information
in the employment interview. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southwestern
Psychological Association, Fort Worth, TX.
Macan, T.M., & Dipboye, R.L. (1988). The effects of the interviewers' preinterview impressions
on information gathering. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 42,
364-387.
Marks, E., & Webb, S.C. (1969). Vocational choice and professional experience as factors in
occupational image. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 292-300.
Martin, C.L., & Nagao, D.H. (1989). Some effects of computerized interviewing on job applicant
responses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 72-80.
Matarazzo, J.D,, & Wiens, A.N. (1972). The interview: Research on its anatomy and structure.
Chicago: Airline-Atherton.
Matarazzo, J.D., Wiens, A.N., & Saslow, G. (1965). Studies of interview speech behavior. In L.
Krasner & L.P. Ullman (Eds.), Research in behavior modification. New York: Holt.
Matarazzo, J.D., Wiens, A.N., Jackson, R.H., & Manaugh, T.S. (1970). Interviewee speech
behavior under different content conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 15-26.
McDaniel, M.A., Whetzel, D.L., Schmidt, F.L., & Maurer, S. (in press). The validity of
employment interviews: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology.
120
ROBERT L. DIPBOYE
Mayfield, E. C., Brown, S.H., & Hamstra, B.W. (1980). Selection interviewing in the life insurance
industry: An update of research and practice. Personnel Psychology, 33, 7 2 5 ~ 7 3 9
Meehl, P.E. (1986). Causes and effects of my disturbing little book. Journal of PersonaLty
Assessment, 50, 370-375.
Meyer, J. W ., & Rowan, B. ( 1977). Institutionalized organizations: Fonnal structure as myth and
ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
Milstein, R.M., Burrow, G.N., Wilkinson, L.,& Kessen, W. (1976). Predictionofscreeningdecisions
in a medical school admission process. Journal of Medical Education, 55,451453.
Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Theoret, A. (1976). The structure of .. unstructured"decision
processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 246-275.
Mitchell, T.R., & Beach, L.R. (1990). " ... Do I love thee? Let me count .... " Toward an
understanding of intuitive and automatic decision making. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 47, 1-20.
More, D.M., & Suchner, R.W. (1976). Occupational situs, prestige, and stereotypes. Sociology
of Work and Occupations, 3, 169-186.
Morrow, P.C. (1990). Physical attractiveness and selection decision making. Journal of
Management, 16, 45-60.
Morrow, P.C., & McElroy, J.C. (1984). The impact of physical attractiveness in evaluative
contexts. Basic and Applied Psychology, 5, 171-182.
Morrow, P.C., McElroy, J.C., Stamper, B. G., & Wilson, M.A. (1990). The effects of physical
attractiveness and other demographic characteristics on promotion decisions. Journal of
Management, 16,723-736.
O'Reilly, III C.A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D.F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A
profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of
Management Journal, 34,487-516.
Orpen, C. (1984). Attitude similarity, attraction, and decision making in the emp1oymentinterview.
Journal of Psychology, 117, 111-120.
Osburn, H. G., Timmerick, C., & Bigby, D. (1981). Effect of dimensional relevance on accuracy
of simulated hiring decisions by employment interviewers. Journal of Applied Psychology,
66, 159-165.
Oskamp, S. (1962). The relationship of clinical experience and training methods to several criteria
of clinical prediction. Psychological Monographs, 76 (Whole No. 547).
Oskamp, S. (1965). Overconfidence in case-study judgments. Journal of Consulting Psychology,
29,261-265.
Ouchi, W.G. (1977). The relationship between organizational structure and organizational control.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 95-113.
Parsons, C.K., & Liden, R.C. (1984). Interviewer perceptions of applicant qualifications: A
multivariate field study of demographic characteristics and nonverbal cues. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 69, 557-568.
Paunonen, S.V., & Jackson, D.N. (1987). Accuracy of interviewers and students in identifying
the personality characteristics of personnel managers and computer programmers. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 31, 26-36.
Peters, L.H., & Terborg, J.R. (1975). The effects oftemporal placement ofunfavorableinfonnation
and of attitude similarity on personnel selection decisions. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 13, 279-293.
Pfeffer, J. (198la). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pittman Publishing.
Pfeffer, J. (198lb). Management as symbolic action: The creation and maintenance of
organizational paradigms. In L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior (Vol. 3, pp. l-52). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Phillips, A., & Dipboye, R.L. (1989). Correlational tests of predictions from a process model of
the interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,41-52.
Structured and Unstructured Selection fnteNiews
121
Powell, R.S., & O'Neal, E. C. (1976). Communication feedback and duration as determinants of
accuracy, confidence, and differentiation in interpersonal perception. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 746-756.
Radefeld, P.S., Williams, K.B., & Binnings, J.F. (1990, June). Preinterview impressions and
recruiters' questioning in same- and opposite-sex interviews. Paper presented at the 1990
Annual Meetings of the American Psychological Society, Dallas, TX.
Rasmussen, K.G., Jr. (1984). Nonverbal behavior, verbal behavior, resume credentials, and
selection interview outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69,551-556.
Raza, S.M., & Carpenter, B.N. (1987). A model of hiring decisions in real employment interviews.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 596-603.
Reichers, A.E. (1987). An interactionist perspective on newcomer socialization rates. Academy
of Management Review, 12, 278-287.
Rothblum, E.D., Miller, C.T., & Garbutt, B. (1988). Stereotypes of obese female job applicants.
International Journal of Eating Disorders, 7, 277-283.
Rowe, P.M. (1984). Decision processes in personnel selection. Canadian Journal of Behavioral
Science, 16, 326-337.
Rowe, P.M. ( 1989). Unfavorable information and interview decisions. In R. W. Erler & G .R. Ferris
(Eds.), The employment interview: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 77-89). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Ryan, A.M., & Sackett, P.R. (1987). A survey of individual assessment practices by I/0
psychologists. Personnel Psychology, 40, 455-488.
Rynes, S.L. (1993). Who's selecting whom? Effects of selection practices on applicant attitudes
and behavior. In N. Schmitt, W.C. Borman, & Associates (Eds.), Personnel selection in
organizations (pp. 240-274). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rynes, S.L., & Gerhart, B. (1990). Interviewer assessment of applicant "fit": An exploratory
investigation. Personnel Psychology, 43, 13-35.
Salancik, G.R., & Pfeffer, J. (1976). Uncertainty, secrecy, and the choice of similar others. Social
Psychology, 41,246-255.
Sawyer, J. (1966). Measurement and prediction, clinical and statistical. Psychological Bulletin,
66, 178-200.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schmitt, N., & Coyle, B.W. (1976). Applicant decisions in the employment interview. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 61, 184-192.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40,431453.
Schneider, B., & Schmitt, N. (1986). Staffing organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, &
Co.
Schoorman, F. D. (1988). Escalation bias in performance appraisals: An unintended consequence
of supervisor participation in hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 58-62.
Schuh, A.J. (1980). Effects of early interruption and note taking on listening accuracy and decision
making in the interview. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 13, 263-264.
Schuler, H., & Funke, U. (1989). The interview as a multimodal procedure. In R.W. Eder & G.R.
Ferris (Eds.), The employment interview: Theory, research. and practice {pp. 183-189).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Schwartz, W.B. (1979). Decision analysis: A look at the chief complaints. New England Journal
of Medicine, 300, 556-559.
Shackleton, V., & Newell, S. (1991). Management selection: A comparative survey of methods used
in top British and French companies. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 23-26.
Shahani, C., Dipboye, R.L., & Gehrlein, T.M. (1992). The incrementalcontributionof an interview
to college admissions. Educational and Psychological Measurement.
Shahani, C., Dipboye, R.L., & Oehrlein, T.M. (1993). Attractiveness bias in the interview:
Exploring the boundaries of an effect. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 14, 385-457
122
ROBERT l. DIPBOYE
Sharf, J.C. (1970). Decision making in the employment interview. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Tennessee.
Shaw, E. A. (1972). Community of applicant stereotypes among recruiters. Personnel Psychology,
24, 42!-432.
Smither, J.W., & Reilly, R.R. (1987). True intercorrelation among job components, time delay
in rating, and rater intelligence as determinants of accuracy in performance ratings.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40, 369-391.
Snyder, M. (1984). When belief creates reality. [n L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 17, pp. 248-299). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (1987). Principles for the validation and
use of personnel selection procedures. College Park, MD: Author.
Solomon, J. (1989, December 4). The new job interview: Show thyself. The Wall Street Journal,
p. Bl.
Springbett, B.M. (1954). Series effects in the employment interview. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, McGill University.
Springbett, B.M. (1958). Factors affecting the final decision in the employment interview. Canadian
Journal of Psychology, 12, 13-22.
Stone, E.F., Stone, D.L., & Dipboye, R.L. (1992). Stigmas in organizations: Race, handicaps,
and physical attractiveness. In K. Kelley (Ed.), Issues, theory, and research in industrial
and organizational psychology (pp. 385-457). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Sydiaha, D. (1961). Bales' interaction process analysis of personnel selection interviews. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 45, 393-401.
Taylor, M.S., & Bergmann, T.J. (1987). Organizational recruitment activities and applicants'reactions
at different stages of the recruitment processes. Personnel Psychology, 40, 261-283.
Taylor, M.S., & Sniezek, J.A. (1984). The college recruitment interview: Topical content and
applicant reactions. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 57, 157-168.
Tengler, C.D., & Jablin, F.M. (1983). Effects of question type, orientation, and sequencing in
the employment screening interview. Communicaiton Monographs, 50, 246-263.
Tessler, R., & Sushelsky, L. (1978). Effects of eye contact and social status on the perception
of a job applicant in an employment interviewing situation. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
13, 338-347.
Thompson, J.D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Triandis, H. C. (1959a). Differential perception of certain jobs and people by managers, clerks,
and workers in industry. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43, 221-225.
Triandis, H.C. (1959b). Categories of thought of managers, clerks, and workers about jobs and
people in an industry. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43, 338344.
Trice, H.M., & Beyer,J.M. (1984). Studying organizational cultures through rites and ceremonials.
Academy of Management Review, 9, 653-669.
Trice, H.M., Belasco, J., & Alutto, J.A. (1969). The role of ceremonials in organizational behavior.
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 23,40-51.
Tschirigi, H. D., & Huegli, J.M. (1979). Monitoring the employment interview. Journal of College
Placement, 39, 37-39.
Tucker, D.H., & Rowe, P.M. (1977). Consulting the application form prior to the interview: An
essential step in the selection process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 283288.
Tucker, D.H., & Rowe, P.M. (1979). Relationships between expectancy causal attributions and
final hiring decisions in the employment interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64,
27-34.
Tullar, W.L. (1989). Relational control in the employment interview. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74,971-978.
Tullar, W.L., Mullins, T.W., & Caldwell, S.A. (1979). Effects of interview length and applicant
quality on interview decision time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 669-674.
Structured and Unstructured Selection Interviews
123
Turner, M.A., Fix, M., & Struyk, R. J. (1991). Opportunities denied, opportunities diminished:
Discrimination in hiring. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Tyler, T.R., & Bies, R.J. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of
procedural justice. In J.S. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational
settings (pp. 7798). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures, Section 3, D. (1978). Federal Register, 43,
(166), 38297.
Vance, R.J., Kuhnert, K.W., & Parr, J.L. (1978). Interview judgments: Using external criteria
to compare behavioral and graphic scale ratings. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 22, 279294.
VanMaanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In B.M.
Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior(Vol. l, pp. 209264). Greenwich, Cf: JAI
Press.
Van Vianen, A.E.M., & Willemsen, T.M. (1992). The employment interview: The role of sex
stereotypes in the evaluation of male and female job applicants in the Netherlands. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology. 22, 471-491.
Vancouver, J.B., & Schmitt, N.W. (1991). An exploratory examination of personorganization
fit: Organizational goal congruence. Personnel Psychology, 44, 333352.
Wade, T.C., & Baker, T.B. (1977). Opinions and use of psychological tests: A survey of clinical
psychologists. American Psychologist, 32, 874882.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Wernimont, P.F., & Campbell, J.P. (1968). Signs, samples, and criteria. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 52, 372-376.
Westbrook, F. D., & Molla, B. (1976). Unique stereotypes for Holland's personality types, testing
the traits attributed to men and women in Holland's typology. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 9, 2130.
Wiener, Y., & Schneiderman, M.L. (1974). Use of job information as a criterion in employment
decisions of interviewers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 699704.
Wiesner, W.H., & Cranshaw, S.F. (1988). The moderating impact of interview format and degree
of structure on interview validity. The Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61, 275290.
Word, C.O., Zanna, M.P., & Cooper, J. (1974). The nonverbal mediation of self-fulfilling
prophecies in interracial interaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 109
120.
Wright, P.M., Lichtenfels, P.A., & Pursell, E. D. (1989). The structured interview: Additional
studies and a meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 191-199.
Yonge, K.A. (1956). The value of the interview: An orientation and a pilot study. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 40, 2531.
Young, I.P., & Heneman, H.G. III (1986). Predictors of interviewee reactions to the selection
interview. Journal of Research and Development in Education. 19, 29-36.