Structured Interview

A structured interview uses consistent methods to assess candidates for the same job. Google’s guide combines relevant prepared questions, detailed response records, shared scoring criteria, and interviewer training and calibration. This makes the evidence behind a decision available for comparison and review, reducing reliance on an interviewer’s initial impression.

Google summarizes research supporting better prediction of job performance and smaller demographic-group differences with structured interviewing. Its internal studies also reported better prediction than unstructured interviews, an average saving of 40 minutes per interview with prepared materials, and a 35% higher satisfaction result among rejected candidates who received structured interviews. These are reported Google outcomes, not a promised improvement for every employer. A local process needs its own evidence about assessment quality and candidate experience.

Attributes, questions, and scoring

Define the requirements for the job before interviews begin. Google suggests role-related knowledge, problem solving, and leadership as useful categories, with expectations suited to the role. For individual contributors, leadership can include initiative and collaboration without formal managerial authority. A career framework is one input to this work. It must be translated into job-specific criteria; an employer without one can still define criteria through job analysis.

Behavioral questions ask about past actions and outcomes. Hypothetical questions ask candidates to reason through a job-related situation. Prepare follow-up prompts to explore the evidence needed for the chosen attributes. For each question, describe what responses at different scoring levels would demonstrate, and keep detailed notes so another reviewer can examine the basis for a score.

A rubric aims to improve consistency, but two interviewers may still interpret an answer differently. Have them score independently before comparing evidence and discussing disagreements. A difference can expose a missing detail, an unclear criterion, or a training need. Record the reasons for the resulting assessment rather than require apparent agreement without resolving the evidence.

Google notes that questions and rubrics take work to write, test, maintain, and use consistently. An initial calibration session does not complete that work. As an additional local rule, a hiring team can require written reasons when a decision departs from rubric scores; such a departure may be justified by relevant evidence, but should remain reviewable.

In the fictional settlement case, the company replaced an informal conversation with job requirements informed by its framework, prepared questions, recorded answers, and practiced scoring. Later interviews would inform further revisions. Rated Alone, Delivered Together explains how that hiring process connects with assessment, development, and succession.

References

• Google re:Work — A guide to structured interviewing for better hiring practices