In this lesson, we explore the complex nature of talent using an iceberg metaphor, where visible skills and behaviours are just the tip of the iceberg. Beneath the surface lies essential knowledge and experience that predicts potential performance in a role, crucial for recruitment. We emphasise the difference between 'readiness'—immediate capability to perform specific tasks—and 'potential'—innate abilities that forecast long-term success in roles such as leadership. Alva Labs integrates these concepts through methods like psychometric testing to enhance recruitment processes, making sure candidates not only fit the current role but also hold future growth promise.

This lesson discusses the effectiveness of structured interviews in predicting job performance, contrasting them with less reliable unstructured methods. Structured interviews, when executed correctly, were shown to have good predictive validity, rated between 0.4 and 0.5. These interviews excel in assessing candidates' readiness and job-specific skills but are less effective for evaluating personality or logical abilities. Emphasising the importance of a uniform questioning approach, the video explains how structured interviews can mitigate biases, such as undue influence from a candidate's extroversion, guaranteeing a more objective and relevant evaluation process.

This lesson elaborates on the importance of pre-planning questions for structured interviews to accurately assess candidates. It highlights the effectiveness of situation-behaviour-result questions that probe experiences to predict future behaviour. Such questions are vital for roles requiring customer interaction, asking candidates to detail past situations, their actions, and outcomes. Additionally, situational questions are recommended, especially for less experienced candidates, to gauge how they might handle future scenarios. The consistent use of these structured question formats is key to comparing candidates fairly and effectively.

This lesson focuses on the importance of having a structured approach to evaluating responses in structured interviews. It emphasises the need for a clear, consistent rating scale to assess candidate answers effectively. Establishing specific scoring criteria helps mitigate bias and provides a fair assessment of all candidates. For instance, a structured scale with defined anchors can prevent subjective judgements influenced by a candidate's extroversion or similarity to the interviewer. The section also advises starting with a simple scale and gradually refining it to include detailed examples for each score level, thus enhancing the precision and reliability of the interview process.

This lesson discusses the practicalities of rating candidates during structured interviews, suggesting that assessors focus on the interview itself rather than multitasking between questioning and rating. We recommend noting down responses during the interview and conducting ratings afterward to improve accuracy. Additionally, using a mechanical method to combine interview ratings, as facilitated by systems like Alva, is advised to ensure fair consideration of all candidate evaluations and minimise bias influenced by the interviewer's personality traits. This approach helps maintain objectivity and balance in assessing candidates.

Dive right into the Alva platform in this demo.