A Personal View



Behavioural Job Interview Questions

A Critique

Bruce Barbour - March 2017

I have recently been in the position where I have had to apply for jobs. It has been about 12 years since I was last in the position of doing a formal job interview. Over that time the approach to job interviews has apparently changed. No longer is the emphasis on questions that test the skills and knowledge of the applicant but about how the applicant behaved in situations that they may have encountered in the past.  However I believe that this approach has a number of problems that mean that the best candidate is not always chosen. And yes this is a whinge because my experience to date with behavioural questions has not been good. Let’s face it – I am shocking at answering behavioural questions (hopefully getting better with practice). But I believe that I am good at my actual job. But that doesn’t seem to count for much in this brave new world.

There is an argument I have read that interviewers do not have to ask skills and knowledge questions because those issues have been sufficiently dealt with in the resume provided by the candidate. If the candidate says they have formal qualifications and their list of previous employers appear to show they have experience then that is all that is required for proof of skill and knowledge. I think this is risky in the extreme. Sure they could have been in the job but how well were they actually doing it, how well did they use their supposed skill and knowledge in the service of their employer? For some jobs, such as the type of jobs that I do, even though the job typically requires a tertiary qualification, the detailed skills and knowledge are not taught to any great extent in those tertiary courses. The skills and knowledge for these jobs are largely picked up while doing the job or other related jobs with other employers and through on the job training. So there is potential for a great variation in the skills and knowledge of candidates for the job – even though they may have jobs with a similar sounding name on their resume. For a lot of job types, skills and knowledge can’t be assumed, they need to be tested in the candidate selection process. And employers must recognise that the consequences of employing some one that lacks the technical skills to carry out their job is disastrous for an organisation and, in my opinion, much greater than most behavioural foibles.

Another argument for the behavioural question approach is that past actions are the best way of predicting future actions. But this is premised on the thought that people don’t change and that people can’t learn. If this was actually the case why do organisations spend huge amounts on training courses to tell people how to deal with behavioural issues? People can and do learn – from training courses and from experience, including past mistakes. And even if past actions are the best way of predicting future actions, the behavioural question interviewing system is also premised on the interview process being the best way of determining what the candidates past actions were. Clearly it is not as the interviewer is relying on the candidate (not a dispassionate external observer) to accurately recount their past actions, when, as will be discussed, all candidates will try to paint their actions in the best possible light (it would be a strange and naive candidate who didn’t try to do this), and some may even to totally fabricate what their actions were.

Take an example behavioural question: “Tell us about a situation where you had to deal with a difficult person.” My immediate thought about this is: how many difficult people are there in the organisation?  I have worked many years and in most cases people are co-operative and good to get on with. At my last job I can only think of one person that I had any issues with getting to conform to the organisation’s requirements. That is one in 5 years. I eventually got her onside with a lot of patience.  But this is one in five years. Is the employer going to base their decision on whether to employ me on a situation that only comes up once in five years (a miniscule percentage of my work time), while ignoring, or disproportionately down grading whether I have the appropriate skills and knowledge to actually do the job – which is ninety nine percent plus of the job?  What if it was once a year an issue came up?  Still a miniscule percentage. And if it was any more you would have to ask what is wrong with the culture of the organisation that they have so many difficult people on their staff. And perhaps they should be doing something about that to address the real issue. Get those difficult staff members some corrective training or move them on if that fails, to make life for the rest of the staff so much better.

Another issue is that your ability to answer this question well may depend on the quality of the difficult person that you have encountered. If you have encountered someone that in the end listens to reason you may be able to spin a better tale than if you had to deal with someone that is intractably difficult. So luck would pay a part in how well you could answer the question. And as I said in the previous paragraph I had only encountered one difficult person in the past five years. What if I had encountered none, I would have been forced to scan my memory for an example from an earlier job, more than 5 years before. Who can remember specific instances from more than 5 years ago within the 10 seconds from when the question is asked to when you have to respond?  What if I had of answered that I hadn’t recently encountered a difficult person. I suspect that that would be a big red mark against my name, through no fault of my own.

An alternative is the candidate can always make something up. I am not saying that I would ever do this or would advise anyone else to do it – it is completely unethical, like lying on your resume. However there are a lot less scrupulous people out there than me. It would be easy for them to spin a story about an imagined situation. All they need to do is anticipate the question, look up a website on dealing with difficult people (e.g https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-the-questions/201503/20-expert-tactics-dealing-difficult-people) and then weave a story. They would have it all over me. The unscrupulous will beat the scrupulous.  What a great basis for future employment. How often would their response be checked with a referee for truthfulness?  No candidate is going to tell you the name of the difficult person they dealt with – or they would be very foolish to - that would be a breach of privacy. Now compare that to a question about knowledge and skill. Provided the question is sufficiently targeted and detailed the person cannot make up a story to hide their lack of knowledge.

For a lot of behavioural questions a person can anticipate the question and prepare an answer. Hopefully that answer is truthful but, as discussed in the previous paragraph, there is very little way of determining whether that answer is truthful. However there are also situation of receiving a question that was not anticipated and not prepared for. Now you might think that this is a fairer situation. But is it? I have had this situation. The ability to answer the question depends on how quickly I can scan my memory of all my work that I have done in the last five years and dig out a suitable example and then rendering it into coherent words that explains the situation and puts my response to it into reasonable form that indicates that I did not completely stuff up the handling of the situation. I think that this ability is quite a skill in itself. It is a skill in which that I do not consider myself particularly proficient. However there are others out there that would be able to do it with a lot more ease, in which case they would be more favoured for the job. Other candidates may have the “gift of the gab” meaning they are better able to string words together in a short period of time. Do either of these skills mean they are better able to actually do the job? I think not.  Their skill to be able to quickly recall instances from their past work life and the “gift of the gab” would be a useful skill in various work situations - and in some jobs central. However I have to say that it does not trump technical knowledge and skill when it comes to actually doing many different job types.

Having to do so much preparation is another issue with behavioural questions. Previously for skills based interview the only aspect that an experienced and knowledgeable person had to prepare for the interview was their knowledge of the company that they were applying to and what questions you want to ask of the company. For skills you either have the knowledge, and are therefore, prima facie, suited for the job, or you don’t. It can’t be faked so long as the questions asked are sufficiently detailed and targeted. But with behavioural questions the more preparation you do the better you will do. You may well say that is good, a person should prepare for an interview. But the trouble is it contains an element of luck. If the candidate has anticipated the questions asked and prepared for those the candidate will do better than if they had failed to anticipate the question and were left floundering in the interview trying to scan their memory for a story that is suitable. Is luck what you want to base the selection of the candidate on? Take another example. If I kept doing interviews eventually I will have heard all of the relevant behavioural questions. While I might have stuffed them up in the earlier interviews I will have undoubtedly thought about how the question should have been better answered after the interview. Eventually in one interview all of the questions will have been heard before so I will be fully prepared and would do better – no floundering for answers. Am I any better as a potential employee than before the first or other earlier interviews? Clearly no. I have just learnt the skill of answering behavioural questions, a skill that will not be called upon in the actual workplace. This is a fundamental flaw in the system.

With an interview system that is based entirely around behavioural type questions the organisation could end up getting all the same type of people into the organisation – those that have the type of brain that can answer behavioural questions. I remember it being drummed in how diversity of personality type (extrovert / introvert) and race and culture was good for an organisation. However if people are all selected by behavioural questioning I fear that that diversity of brain type would be somewhat diminished. And the pool of good candidates for the organisation to select from that can do the job well is also diminished, to the detriment of those candidates, of course, but also to the organisation. An organisation needs the slow and careful thinkers, who may not excel at behavioural questions, as well as the quick thinking smooth talking charmers, who would be better at it. Above all else an organisation needs skills and knowledge.

I can see that there would be some jobs where the behavioural questions would be of higher importance.  For example, for someone working on the front reception desk of a large office. They have to know how to deal with difficult people. They would be dealing with them if not daily then on a weekly basis. In the case of this job, managing behaviour is the skill set they required for their job and it is right and appropriate that they be tested on this skill. Another area where the people would be dealing with behavioural issues on a daily basis is in human resources, the people that control how job interviews are conducted. Given this it is understandable that they would see behavioural skills as the prime skill to be sourced for everywhere else in the organisation.

Developing this thought a bit more it is apparent to me that there is a continuum of jobs, from jobs where behavioural skills are highly important, such as front desk reception, to jobs where behavioural skills are a lot less important, say such as an engineer – where it is technical skills and knowledge are of prime importance and in term behavioural skills you just need to be sure they are not a sociopath – well probably a bit more than that. So different weighting between behavioural and skills should apply depending on the type of job.

How many good knowledgeable people are being rejected in favour of less knowledgeable people who happen to be able to give better responses to behavioural questions?

As much as I disagree with the approach there is nothing that a normal individual can do about it. We just have to do the best we can in a flawed system.

Some suggestions for candidates:

Firstly I don’t suggest that any of this critique be brought up in an interview. One sure way to fail in a job interview is to criticize the interviewer and their methods. It tends to get them offside. They are just doing what they have been told to do. So suck it up and do the best you can. One day a human resources guru will come along, write a book about how the behavioural interview questions have lead to all types of problems in appointing the right person for various types of jobs and espousing the benefits of asking technical and skills based questions instead (undoubtedly with a twist). They will make a fortune and be hailed as the next HR saviour.

In the meantime, unless you are one of those quick thinking, smooth talking charmers, you need to do a lot of prep work before a job interview.  You need to try to anticipate the type of behavioural questions that will be asked. There are many websites around that list multiple generic sample questions but also try to think of behavioural questions that may be more specific to the actual job.  Then you have to come up with appropriate example of when you have dealt with the issue raise in the past. It can’t just be generality, it must be an actual example.

Many of the websites that provide the questions unfortunately do not provide sample responses, and if they do they will not be appropriate for your position. So it may be useful to Google for information on how the situation might be dealt with. I am not suggesting that you provide an untruthful answer – just that you frame your response in terms that the human resources person on the panel may be looking for. Remember that all other candidates will also be trying to put the best spin they can on what they have done in the past. It’s a game and you are playing by the interviewer’s rules and on their ground. Take the example of dealing with a difficult person mentioned earlier. You probably sat down and had a discussion with them about the issues. Instead of just saying that you could frame it by saying that you sat down and listened to the person, you stayed calm and tried to determine what their primary issue was. Etcetera. Also try to weave into the story aspects that will show your technical skill and knowledge. While they might not be fully acknowledging it with their interview approach, skill and knowledge is what they are really after. It might impress the technical expert on the panel, if not the human resources person. Hopefully the technical expert still has some say in who is appointed.

Write down the questions and also the answers. Work on developing the answers. And then try to memorise them or preferably memorise the approach. Even though you may have done a large amount of work developing the response you don’t want it to sound like that. It needs to sound spontaneous, like you just regurgitated it out of your memory, like those smooth talking charmers that you are competing against.

Also if you are currently in a job it may be worth starting to keep a record of how you have dealt with issues as they have come up, so you don’t have to rely on your memory of an incident that may have happened years before. Then if you did want to go for a new job you will have a store of behavioural stories that you can provide to a new potential employer covering many aspects of work. If your current employer is offering training course on behavioural issues consider doing them rather than dismissing them as secondary to your technical and skills based job. It seems like behavioural issues are what you will be primarily assessed on for your next job.

Some suggestions for employers:

Don’t discount the value skills and knowledge. Consider the job and determine what proportion of the job required behavioural skills and the proportion of technical skill and knowledge. The front desk receptionist job it might be assessed as 80:20. For a design engineer it might be assessed as 20:80. And other jobs will be in between. Question types asked should be proportionate.

Any behavioural questions (as with skills based questions) should be relevant to the position. They should be skills based behavioural questions –  examples of how they applied their skills. Generic questions have no place. Also consider how frequently the issue that you are asking about is likely to have come up in the candidates’ last jobs and in the current advertised job. If it is likely to have been once every five years then don’t ask the question. If it is four times per year it is probably reasonable to ask the question.

Consider providing the behavioural questions to the candidate say half an hour before the interview. Provide them a quite room and pen and paper where they can think about their experience and how it fits in with the question. This will go some way to removing the element of luck and also even the playing field between the quick thinking smooth talking charmers and the slower more considered thinkers. Interviews are not about gotcha moments but exploring the candidate’s skills as fully as possible and selecting the best candidate.  You might also consider this approach for technical skills and knowledge based questions – though smart phones would have to be removed to prevent Googling. Perhaps even consider, in a half hour time slot just before the interview, a skills based mini exam or provide a short typical problem that they might encounter in the new position and see how they would tackle it, which would then be discussed in the interview.

Contents Page.

Top of Page
| Site Information | (C) |