Here we have listed some common decision making errors people make when interviewing applicants. Rigorous training programs, along with added structure, are important ways of minimizing decision making errors, but understanding the different types of error and recognising when they occur is important.
Stereotyping – This error involves making judgments about a candidate based on broad generalisations, rather than information specific to the candidate. These generalisations typically refer (accurately or inaccurately) to attributes of a larger group to which the candidate belongs, such as gender, age, or racial/ethnic status.
Similar to Me – In some cases, interviewers will display a tendency to attribute some of their own characteristics to candidates. There may be something about a candidate that reminds the interviewer of himself or herself, and this superficial similarity can lead the interviewer to overlook or discount distinguishing details specific to a candidate.
First Impression – This one is pretty self-explanatory. It is very unfortunate, but many poorly or inadequately trained interviewers tend to judge a candidate within minutes of beginning the interview. It can be difficult to design an interviewing process with validity matching that of other selection tools. Drawing conclusions based on first impressions makes this task nearly impossible.
Halo – When interviewers commit halo error, they are allowing their evaluation of one characteristic to influence their overall evaluation of the candidate. For example, an interviewer who is very impressed with a candidate’s decision-making skills may perceive other skills, such as communication or persuasiveness, to be at a similar level of proficiency. This can work in the negative direction too.
Leniency/Severity – Some interviewers tend to be excessively lenient across the board when evaluating candidates, while others may be unfairly critical. These are similar kinds of error, and can be detected readily.
Restriction of Range – Lastly, interviewers may hesitate to use the extreme ends of a rating scale when evaluating candidates. Instead, all evaluations tend to be “middle of the road.” This can occur even if you are not using numerical ratings.
