"Hi, I'm Joan Peterson with XYZ Corporation, and I'd like to ask you a few questions about the resume that you submitted for the position of sales associate with our firm. Do you have a few moments to talk?"

Telephone interviews are primarily used in the preselection phase of the selection process. Their purpose is to narrow the number of applicants who will receive a formal interview by eliminating those who don't have the requisite education, experience, and skills to successfully do the job. Telephone interviews are used to obtain answers to any questions that may be posed by the applicant's resumé, and to obtain additional information about the skills and experience of an applicant.

One advantage of the telephone interview is that it can be accomplished quickly and economically. Without telephone interviews, organizations would be overwhelmed by the task of interviewing candidates face to face who could have been disqualified much earlier in the process.

In a typical telephone interview, the interviewer spends a few minutes explaining the position and how it fits into the organization. The interviewer then asks some predetermined questions about background and education, and attempts to clarify any inconsistencies in the resumé.

Typically, the interviewer inquires whether the applicant has any questions about the position, and concludes the interview by explaining what the applicant can expect to occur next in the selection process.

Telephone interviews are usually highly focused and last about 10 to 15 minutes.

Advantages: . Telephone interviews are fast, easy to accomplish, and cost-efficient. They are an effective way to narrow the field of applicants to those who will be offered a personal interview.

Disadvantages: . Telephone interviews eliminate the possibility of evaluating an applicant's nonverbal behavior. In addition, it's easy for an interviewer to judge a candidate on the basis of "telephone presence" instead of mandatory success factors. People who would otherwise make excellent candidates may not have good telephone communication skills.

"Tell us a little about yourself."

The traditional interview is the most common form of interview in small- to medium-sized organizations, and it's not all that uncommon in large organizations and government offices.

Here are some characteristics of the traditional interview:

In the traditional format, questions are often predictable, allowing applicants an opportunity to rehearse their responses in advance. Here are some of the more common questions that are usually part of a traditional interview:

And my all-time favorite:

The traditional interview has always bothered me. Interviewers too often surrender control of the interview to the applicant, which is absurd. Moreover, interviewers seem resolutely determined to ask the kinds of questions that can easily be anticipated by candidates, many of whom have rehearsed their answers.

Then, too, there's the matter of honesty. Using the traditional interview format, there's absolutely no way of knowing whether a candidate is telling the truth or engaging in pure fantasy. Furthermore, the traditional interview offers the candidate who's well rehearsed or proficient in the art of interviewing a tailor-made opportunity to eclipse those who are better qualified for the position.

But the most irritating part of the traditional interview is the contribution it makes to poor hiring decisions. Because interviews of this type often lack substance, "gut feelings" frequently replace solid, objective judgements based on a candidate's strengths and competencies. Too often, the subjective information derived from the interview is used only to support and reinforce decisions based on "gut feelings."

Interviewers sometimes attempt to "structure" the traditional interview— ask the same prepared questions of every candidate—especially for civil service positions. While structuring the traditional interview may prevent claims of unfair hiring practices by unsuccessful applicants, they do little to solve the real problem of figuring out who's best for the job. The kinds of questions asked in the typical traditional interview usually result in hiring decisions based on unreliable and highly subjective information. And most attempts at structuring don't even include a uniform method of evaluating candidates based upon the job's mandatory success factors.

Advantages: . The traditional interview provides an opportunity to engage in a rapport-building exercise that may be enjoyable.

Disadvantages: . Numerous. In my opinion, the traditional interview, and the poor hiring decisions that it inspires, is a surefire way for an organization to guarantee itself a high percentage of hiring mistakes. The fact is, the traditional interview no longer works, and probably never did.

"Do you see this paper clip I'm holding in my hand? Paper clips are useful little tools, wouldn't you agree? Tell me 12 uses for a paper clip. You have 60 seconds, beginning now."

The role of an interviewer drastically changes in a stress interview. The interviewer becomes more of an interrogator who deliberately asks questions designed to make an applicant feel uncomfortable and insecure.

The purpose of stress interviews is to discover whether a candidate can cope with difficult, demanding situations in which the best in performance is required even in the worst of conditions. Some jobs, after all, not only necessitate someone with the technical expertise to do the job, but also someone who can keep cool even in incredibly stressful situations.

Questions asked of candidates in a stress interview can often sound crude and offensive. They're designed to be. Questions are phrased to determine whether a candidate will react to the sarcasm and general nastiness of the interviewer, or maintain a sense of restraint and deal with questions in a noncombative manner. Will the candidate lose composure or maintain it in the midst of a stressful environment?

Stress interviews are justified when job-related questions like these need to be answered:

For these and similar occupations, a stress interview may well be an important part of the selection process.

Advantages: . Stress interviews, although unpleasant for the candidate and the interviewer, are an effective method of determining whether a candidate can function professionally under extreme conditions.

Disadvantages: . While stress interviews may help determine an applicant's ability to work under extreme conditions, it's important to remember that those with some rather severe types of personality disorders will also do well. Also, overly zealous interviewers can chase off all but the most confrontational (and therefore potentially unmanageable) candidates.

"As you know, it's our unit's job to publish the monthly company newsletter. Tell us what publications experience you've had in your present and former jobs."

Team interviews are becoming increasingly popular. They operate on the premise that the more knowledgeable people who are involved in the hiring process, the better the hiring decision will be.

Using the team interview approach, selected members of a division, department, or unit where the job opening exists meet with the candidate either individually or as a group. Each team member is free to ask the candidate job-related questions.

Following the interview, team members discuss the candidate's strengths and weaknesses in relationship to the job and record their impressions.

Team interviews can be effective, but only when they're structured (all applicants are asked the same job-related questions) and team members use a common assessment guide to rate applicants. Unstructured interviewing by teams often degenerates into group conversations, with the hiring decision being based on "gut instinct."

Advantages: . Team interviews involve people with a vested interest in selecting the right candidate for the job. After all, they are the people with whom the successful candidate will eventually work. An additional advantage is that employees are more committed to helping a newcomer succeed when they have had direct input in the hiring decision.

Disadvantages: . Teams sometimes resist structure and, in doing so, destroy the real value of team interviews.

"Suppose on your first day at work with us the telephone rings. It's a call from an irate customer who is threatening to sue us unless we take back the equipment he bought from us and refund his money. What would you do?"

The situational interview is similar to a traditional interview, with some important differences. The situational interview is usually structured and makes use of a common assessment guide.

Questions are hypothetical and designed to elicit responses that provide a glimpse into a candidate's thinking processes, personal values, creativity, and practical experience.

Hypothetical problems can also be given to candidates to analyze and solve as the interviewer (or interview team) looks on. This presents the opportunity to evaluate candidates as they attempt to solve problems that may actually occur on the job. Is the candidate completely befuddled by the problem? Has the candidate plunged headfirst into the problem only to offer a quick, simplistic solution? In wrestling with the problem, does the candidate demonstrate exceptional problem-solving skills, including analyzing and strategizing a solution? Does the candidate offer reasoned responses that display a unique combination of imagination, courage, and creativity?

The fundamental problem with the situational interview is that it deals only with the hypothetical. You can't assume that a candidate will be a highly creative problem solver on the job just because he or she solved a hypothetical problem in an interview.

Without a doubt, situational interviews provide some insight into the way a candidate thinks, feels, and acts. But they don't provide you with the objective information necessary to help you make an informed hiring decision. For example, one of the most critical deficiencies of the situational interview is that you learn what a candidate could do in the hypothetical situation being discussed, instead of what that person has done in different but similarly challenging situations in the past.

Advantages: . Situational interviews provide some insight into a candidate's problem-solving skills, reasoning abilities, and creativity. They are interesting for the interviewer, and challenging for the candidate.

Disadvantages: . By concentrating on the hypothetical, the interviewer never learns about how a candidate has actually behaved in the past when confronted with different but similarly challenging situations. Hypothetical solutions to hypothetical problems force a candidate to offer only conjecture about what could be done.

"Tell me about a time when you disagreed with a decision made by your boss. What did you do?"

Structured behavioral interviewing is based on this simple premise: The most accurate predictor of future performance is past performance in a similar situation. This form of interviewing focuses on real-life job-related experiences, behaviors, knowledge, skills, and abilities.

Candidates are asked to talk about actual situations in which they've had to use certain skills and abilities. In answering behavioral questions, candidates draw from their past experiences at work, in school, as a volunteer, or even from extracurricular activities and hobbies. Structured behavioral interviewing is considered a modern business best practice.

In Lesson 6, "Structured Behavioral Interviewing: Part 1," we'll discuss structured behavioral interviewing at length. But for the purposes of this lesson, it's important to understand that structured behavioral interviewing can revolutionize your interviewing practices and, according to my research, improve your chances of hiring the right candidates by as much as 300 percent.

Advantages: . Structured behavioral interviewing enables you to catch a glimpse of a candidate dealing with real-life situations that required the same skills and abilities that your open position requires. A structured behavioral format allows you to get "behind" the resume and explore the depth and breadth of a candidate's experience and training. Job-related questions are prepared in advance, and the same questions are asked of each candidate interviewed. Combined with a rating system tied to the mandatory success factors that you're seeking, this model is an objective and highly effective way to select a candidate.

Disadvantages: . Initially, adjusting to the structured behavioral model can be challenging, especially for those who have used the traditional interview model for years. With a little practice, however, you'll soon be comfortable with structured behavioral interviewing.