Competency-based interviews and strength-based interviews are two distinct approaches used in recruitment and selection to assess candidates and enable a more informed decision by the recruiting force. Although competency based processes are more common you may find elements of strength based interviews being incorporated into processes as well.
What are the differences and advantages of each?
Competency-Based Interviews focus on assessing specific skills, abilities, and behaviours required for the job, with questions designed to gauge how candidates have demonstrated these competencies in the past. The premise of past behaviour predicting future behaviour is key here. Strength-Based Interviews focus on identifying what candidates are naturally good at and enjoy doing, with questions aiming to uncover the candidate’s strengths, passions, and motivations.
In a Competency-Based Interview questions are often situational or behavioral, starting with phrases like “Give me an example of a time when…” or “Describe a situation where you…”, and candidates are asked to provide specific examples of past experiences that demonstrate particular competencies. In a Strength-Based Interview, questions are more open-ended, such as “What do you enjoy doing?” or “What activities energise you?”. The interviewer may also explore various aspects of the candidate’s personality and preferences to identify their strengths.
The candidate’s answers are assessed against predefined competencies relevant to the role in Competency-Based Interviews. Scoring is typically based on how well the candidate’s responses match the required competencies. While in a Strength-Based Interview the assessment is based on how well the candidate’s strengths align with the role and the organisation’s culture – the focus is on finding a natural fit rather than matching specific competencies.
So what’s the purpose of the two different approaches?
Competency-Based Interviews are used to ensure candidates possess the necessary skills and experience to perform the job effectively. They are particularly useful for roles requiring specific technical or behavioural competencies. Strength-Based Interviews however aims to identify candidates whose strengths will thrive in the role and contribute positively to the organisation. They are often used to find candidates who will be more engaged, productive, and satisfied in their work.
Candidates might Competency-Based Interview more formal and challenging, as they require recalling specific past experiences. They can sometimes feel like a test of past achievements. Strength-Based Interviews can feel more personal and conversational, allowing candidates to speak about what they enjoy and are naturally good at. It often results in a more positive and engaging experience for candidates.
What is the best method for recruitment and selection?
Both types of interviews are valuable, but they serve different purposes. Competency-based interviews are more focused on verifying past performance and skills, while strength-based interviews aim to identify candidates whose natural talents and interests align with the job and the organisation.
Competency Based Interviews
Competency-Based Interviews are generally considered more evidence-based than strength-based interviews. This is because competency-based interviews have been extensively researched and are often linked to job performance through well-established psychological principles. They have a high predictive validity i.e. they have a strong track record in predicting job performance. Studies have shown that when interview questions are directly related to key job competencies, the likelihood of selecting candidates who perform well on the job increases. These interviews are based on the premise that past behavior is the best predictor of future performance, a principle supported by a large body of research in industrial-organisational psychology.
Competency-based interviews are structured, meaning that all candidates are asked the same set of questions, which reduces interviewer bias and increases reliability. The structured nature of these interviews ensures consistency and allows for more objective assessment, making the results more reliable and valid.
The development of competency-based interview questions often involves a thorough job analysis to identify the specific skills, knowledge, and abilities required for the role. This alignment with the actual job requirements makes the interview process more relevant and evidence-based.
Because competency-based interviews are based on job-related criteria and are standardized, they are often more legally defensible in cases of discrimination claims. This is an important factor in why many organisations adopt competency-based interviews, particularly in regulated industries.
Strength-Based Interviews
Strength-based interviews are a relatively newer approach with limited evidence, and while they are gaining popularity, especially in organisations that prioritise employee engagement and well-being, the empirical evidence supporting their predictive validity is not as robust as that for competency-based interviews. Some studies suggest that when employees work in roles that align with their strengths, they are more engaged and productive, but these findings are less established in the context of selection processes.
Strength-based interviews focus more on finding a fit between the candidate’s strengths and the role, rather than directly predicting job performance based on past behaviour. This approach can be beneficial in creating a motivated and satisfied workforce, but it may not be as precise in predicting job performance as competency-based interviews.
Conclusion
While strength-based interviews offer valuable insights into a candidate’s fit and potential job satisfaction, competency-based interviews are more evidence-based when it comes to predicting job performance and ensuring a structured, fair, and legally defensible selection process. The robustness of the evidence supporting competency-based interviews makes them the more reliable choice for organisations where accurate selection is critical.
Comments are closed.