Fairness and structure of the interview
Other studies take into account the applicant’s perceptions of the interview process and how they affect job acceptance offers. A field study by Kuo and Chang (2011) conducted in the manufacturing industry in Taiwan set out to examine applicant reactions to the structure of the interview they had participated in. The study implemented organizational justice theory and examined the applicants’ reactions (organizational attraction, intention to accept the job, self-efficacy, self-perceived performance) to the interview structure (job-relatedness, standardization) and investigated the bases for these reactions in terms of the perceived procedural justice. The researchers found that the interview structure had a significant predictability for perceived procedural justice. Compared to job-relatedness, the effects of standardization on perceived procedural justice were larger. It suggests that standardization has more influence on the applicants’ perception of procedural justice than the influence of job-relatedness. In addition, perceived procedural justice had significant predictability for the applicants’ post-interview reactions, such as organizational attraction, intention to accept the job, self-efficacy and self-perceived performance under the condition of controlling the applicants’ demographic variables and pre-interview perception of the organization, intention to accept the job and self-efficacy. It shows that applicants rely on the interview structure to gain information and make evaluations about the recruiting firms and jobs. Therefore, in order to enhance the applicants’ positive perception and reactions in organizational settings, practitioners should provide as much information as possible about the employment interview during the selection process. Ultimately, the researchers found that perceived procedural justice mediates the relationship between standardization and applicant reactions. The researchers believe that the quality of the interview as an assessment tool depends on taking into consideration both the interviewer’s and the applicant’s perspectives.
In the same vein, a study conducted by Campion, Palmer and Campion (1997) in the US identified elements of the interview structure and made predictions of how applicants and interviewers might react to these elements. The interview structure was described by four dimensions: questioning consistency; evaluation standardization; question sophistication; and rapport building. It was found that interviewers with formal training and those with a selection rather than recruiting focus employed higher levels of interview structure. In addition, reactions to increased structure were mixed. Both higher structure (question sophistication) and lower structure (rapport building) were positively related to interviewer reactions. It was found that applicants reacted negatively to the increased perceived difficulty of structured interviews, but perceptions of procedural justice were not affected by the interview structure. These results point to the importance of the interview structure, as it can directly affect applicants’ perceptions and ultimately their decision whether or not to accept a job offer.