There is no one method for collecting a sample of behavior. In general, the best way is to observe the candidate performing the actual tasks required for the position. Because this is rarely feasible, an alternative is to create a simulated experience that will require the candidate to engage in the behavior you are seeking. The most common method is the demonstration. Ask the candidate to demonstrate each of the important skills required to perform adequately in the position. For example, at the end of an interview with a candidate for a secretarial position, you might dictate a brief letter and ask the candidate to type it in completed form. In this way you can check shorthand, typing, and setting up a letter in correct form. If the position is copywriter for a radio station, you might give candidates information about a selected sponsor and ask them to write 10-second, 30-second, and 60-second "spots." When editing skills are required, you can request the candidates to edit a sample of the kind of material they would actually be working with. If the position is sales, you might ask each candidate to prepare and deliver a 10-minute "sales pitch" for a selected product. When public speaking is required, you might ask candidates to prepare and deliver a brief talk on an assigned topic.
Demonstrating skills is a common practice in academic settings. Candidates for assistant professorships are invited to the college and asked to deliver a colloquium to the faculty and students in their area of research followed by a "coffee hour." In this way, the search committee can evaluate candidates’ demeanor in front of a group, as well as in a social situation; their ability to communicate complex material; the way in which they handle questions; and the nature and depth of their research. If you opt to use the demonstration method, it is important that you not surprise candidates with the request to demonstrate; rather, when the interview is scheduled, inform them that they will be asked to demonstrate specific skills. At that time you might also ask them to bring to the interview pertinent samples of their work, such as articles they have written, graphics, class lesson plans, and so forth.
Another approach is the "in-basket." This is particularly useful when evaluating complex skills such as administrative ability. All you do is ask the incumbent to prepare a packet of actual letters, memos, phone calls, and complaints that he or she has had to deal with. To this add a brief scenario of the situation and responsibilities. The candidate's task is to read over each item and decide upon an appropriate action. Instruct candidates to respond to each item in writing as if they were already in the position and to write out the rationale for each of their decisions or actions. Because this exercise requires considerable time, have candidates take it home and return it later. In this manner you can evaluate how candidates handle specific problems inherent in the position, and how they make decisions and why.
You can also learn a lot of information about candidates' work styles. Did the candidate scribble out in longhand or carefully type the responses? Were the responses concise, and to the point, or were they overly detailed and drawn out?
When the position requires complex interaction skills, you might utilize role playing. Develop several scenarios of typical problem situations. Then present a scenario to the candidates and ask them to act out what they would actually do in that situation. You assume the role of the other person involved in the scene. Role playing is a way to evaluate a candidate's supervisory skills. For example, you might present candidates with a situation in which an employee's performance has deteriorated, with the purpose of observing how candidates go about determining the cause of the drop in performance and what actions they will take to correct it. Or you can give candidates a situation in which an employee must be terminated and see how they react.
After role playing such situations, you will have considerable information about how candidates actually relate to employees; Are they overly apologetic? Too curt and abrasive? Did they give constructive feedback? After each situation, discuss what the candidates did and why they chose that particular action. When time and facilities permit, the role-playing sessions can be tape recorded or videotaped for later evaluation. If actual role playing is not feasible due to time constraints or discomfort with role playing, you can present candidates with the problem scenarios and ask them to describe what actions they would take and why. This is less effective, of course, because once again you are evaluating how the candidates talk about the situation and not how they actually perform.
Another approach is the performance exercise. You might use this when it is not possible to present candidates with an actual situation they will encounter on the job. Suppose that you are screening people for a position for which they will have to be trained, and your objective is to discover whether or not they have the potential to learn the skills. For example, take an electronic assembler. Here you would be seeking a person with excellent eye-hand coordination and manual dexterity. You might have the R & D department develop a performance task that requires all the necessary movements. When you present the task to the candidates explain the procedure and ask them to complete the task. Now you have an opportunity to evaluate how rapidly each candidate learns, follows instructions, and completes the task. If the position involves debugging electronic equipment, present the candidates with a component that has a specific problem and ask them to locate and correct the problem. Here again you can observe how candidates approach a problem situation. Do they proceed systematically? Do they become frustrated easily?
Performance exercises can be developed for more complex skills as well. Suppose you wanted to evaluate executive leadership skills. One exercise you might try is the "leaderless" group. Here you place six or eight candidates in a group and present them with a written list of 10 or 12 qualities of a group leader. The candidates' first task is to rate the skills in order of importance. Then ask candidates to arrive at a group consensus as to the priority of skills. During the discussion, an observer can rate each candidate on the leadership skills you are seeking. You can quickly observe how assertive each candidate is in getting an opinion across; whether or not the candidate quickly drops his or her position or clings to it tenaciously; how carefully each listens to another's view, and so forth.
The final method is the "two-week consultancy." This approach is used when hiring for upper-level, highly paid positions. Hiring the wrong candidate for such key positions can damage morale and jeopardize productivity. Once you have settled upon a candidate who appears most suitable for the position, hire that individual for two weeks or for a short-term project. At the end of this period, you can decide whether to retain the person permanently. With this approach you can observe the candidate in action, and at the same time the candidate will be able to evaluate the company. If you discover that the candidate does not perform well or does not fit into the company, you will have lost only two weeks rather than months or years. Likewise, if the candidate is not comfortable in the position, he or she will leave immediately rather than in six months.
Behavioral sampling has been used in corporate assessment centers since the early 1950s. The difference between the method described here and the assessment center method is one of degree.
Conducted in a retreat setting over a two to three-day period, the assessment center approach involves extensive evaluation of several candidates. Trained raters observe candidates perform in exercises that simulate the demands of the job. The data collected forms the basis of reports on each candidate. The fact that in the 1970s nearly 2,000 leading companies used the assessment center method attests to its usefulness. A major drawback is cost: Preparation of materials and evaluation of candidates require a large, specially trained staff.
Consequently, assessment centers are used primarily in large companies to select senior executives or when there are several openings in one job category. Therefore, it is difficult to tailor the exercises to a specific job in a specific work unit. By following the guidelines described here, any manager can develop with minimal expense a mini-assessment center tailored to measure candidates' potential to perform in a specific position.
Clearly, behavioral sampling requires greater preparation than the personal interview alone, but the advantages are great: Not only is a wider variety and greater depth of information about each candidate obtained, but by presenting each candidate with the same task it is much easier to compare candidates with one another, thereby maximizing the chances of hiring personnel who will perform well and offering such people a better opportunity to know more about the work they will be doing. All too often, candidates are unclear about the actual duties of a job and, once they are in the position, are dissatisfied. This leads to lowered performance and high turnover.
Time and money can be saved in other ways as well. A personnel officer can collect the behavioral samples, and at a later date the supervisor of the position in question can review the material from all the candidates. This can save the supervisor the time of interviewing each person and solve some of the problems inherent in personnel officers interviewing people for positions about which they know little.
Based on this initial screening of work samples, the supervisor can select the two or three most qualified candidates for intensive interviewing. The supervisor can use the work sample as a springboard during the interview.
