Ken asks:

I'm looking for solid interview questions for screening Business Analysts. I'm specifically looking for ways to ensure they are very analytical and detail oriented. I tired of the questions that only receive your basic cookie cutter answers. Any suggestions are appreciated.

Hi Ken,

There has been a great deal of research on the effectiveness of the interview, and a consistent finding is that structured interview questions are by far the most valid approach to predicting job performance. This approach includes:

• demonstrating a clear link between the questions and the work (i.e., job-relatedness).
• asking the same questions of all candidates.
• developing a rating scale that can be used to determine the relative quality of answers given.

My preference is for using structured behavior-based interview questions, which ask about a candidate’s approach to a job-related situation and require the interviewer to probe for greater detail to ensure that the response is genuine and reflects skill in a certain area.

So, for example, you may want to ask the following to better understand candidates’ analytical skills and approach to problem-solving:

1. Tell me about a time when you were faced with an unusual problem at work, one for which you had little or no relevant experience. Walk me through your approach to solving that problem.
2. Tell me about a time when you had to deal with the following problems… (insert problems typically encountered in this role). Which of these problems do you typically find easiest to solve? Which are more difficult?

Detail-orientation is a little more difficult to assess in an interview, but you can ask about how they've tackled detail-checking tasks, and how they structure and organize their work; this can provide some insight into how conscientious they are when it comes to details.

1. Tell me about a time when you had to manage a complex project. How did you plan and organize the project? How did you ensure that work was being completed on time and to expected standards?
2. Tell me about a time when you reviewed a comprehensive document and noticed errors or flaws that others had overlooked.

Make sure you require that all candidates give you information on the Situation (circumstances surrounding the example), Action (approach that the candidate took), and Result (the outcome of the candidate’s actions).

All that being said, I would strongly advise that you support these interviews with a more objective evaluation method, particularly as performance in these areas is mostly dependent on skill (e.g., a candidate may use a wonderful approach to analyzing problems but lack the intelligence to quickly come up with the right solution, and learn from the experience).

For example, a good test of general cognitive ability will help you evaluate analytical skills, by presenting candidates with a series of problems and allowing you to compare their performance and approach to that of thousands of other professionals. You may then wish to support these results with a more comprehensive evaluation of numerical and verbal reasoning skills; these tests are more involved but provide excellent information on candidate skill in understanding and evaluating written information (verbal), and reviewing and manipulating factual business data (numerical).

There are also a number of well-researched tests of detailed-checking on the market, which require candidates to review material and identify errors and omissions. Again, a good test will have strong research support and allow you to compare scores to those received from an appropriate comparison or “norm” group.

Finally, I would suggest that you assess candidates using a valid behavioral styles questionnaire, which will help you better understand candidates’ typical approach to people and problems at work, and allow you to compare that approach to a professional norm group. For example, last Friday I used such an instrument to assess a candidate for a managerial position and found that, compared to other managers, he:

• preferred to rely on subjective opinion and experience, rather than conduct research and gather “hard data”.
• tended to be more accepting and open-minded, yet less willing to engage in critical analysis to understand problems and drawbacks.
• was very creative, and tended to focus on ideas that had a practical and immediate impact (i.e., more tactical than strategic in nature).
• depended on procedures and guidelines to solve problems, supporting this approach by consulting with experts in the field.

This was very important information to consider in determining job fit. Although his interview responses indicated that he was good at solving problems (at least those that were fairly straightforward and tactical), there was strong evidence that he needed a team around him – people he could use to gather information, help him with detailed data analysis, and identify potential problems in his approach. He would probably not do well in an independent role although seemed to excel when managing a team of experts.

I hope that helps.

All the best,

-Chad

www.hireinsightgroup.com