Games Interviewers Play - employee recruitment - Statistical Data Included

HR Magazine, Jan, 2001 by Martha Frase-Blunt

Mornell suggests that when discrepancies like these arise, the candidate should be asked about them right then and there. "You're looking for disconnects; we all have them, but an interviewer should pursue them."

But How Legal Is It?

HR professionals who have long argued their right to use subjective criteria in judging job candidates won support in an October 2000 ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chapman v. AI Transport. In finding for the employer in an age discrimination suit, the court stated that, "Employers may use subjective reasons, such as an individual's lack of aggressiveness, to make employment decisions as long as a clear factual foundation is provided when the reason is offered as evidence of non-discrimination.

In other words, says attorney Jordan Cowman of Baker & McKenzie in Dallas, "You have to document the purpose of the exercise, how it relates to the position and what answers are acceptable and unacceptable."

Subjective, open-ended questions can be very useful, Cowman notes, but "Make sure they have been tried and tested, and that every candidate is issued the exact same challenge. As long as this is documented, the courts will be very friendly."

He also cautions that exercises like driving to the dry cleaners or eyeballing a candidate's car will be viewed less charitably in some states than in others. For example, he points out that in California, courts are more protective of a plaintiff's private life, and if an employer is going out to look at a car as part of the employment decision, the candidate could claim a privacy violation. "In Texas, we have pure employment-at-will, so it probably won't be a problem."

Cowman says that employers, when designing interview questions or challenges, also need to thoroughly understand the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations, as well as privacy laws in their own states. "It's a fine line," agrees Putzier. "I remember a manager who would always watch people out of his office window, and made a lot of judgments about them before they even got into the office. He claimed he could tell enough about them by their walk. But biases shouldn't be institutionalized."

Mike Mendenhall, SPHR, employment manager for the City of Omaha and a frequent speaker on ensuring legally defensible selection interviews, is dubious about interview games and puzzles. Warning that "Employers are in danger of becoming amateur psychologists," Mendenhall asks: "Who are the people who are developing the games or brainteasers, and who are those doing the evaluation? Are they trained or qualified in some way? Or are they making a purely gut-level judgment?"

He questions whether games and brainteasers truly measure required job skills, saying, "I believe you can more directly accomplish your objective without using subterfuge."

Sometimes a hiring manager will set up a process that seems to be neutral, he adds, "but underneath may present a barrier to minority groups or other protected classes." Mendenhall also notes that some candidates may be unfairly advantaged if the details of a unique interview question bit the grapevine before said candidates are interviewed.