Lively and in-depth discussions of city news, politics, science, entertainment, the arts, and more.
Hosted by Larry Mantle
Airs Weekdays 10 a.m.-12 p.m.

Are job interviews worse than useless?




A job applicant (L) speaks with recruiter Renee Chandler (R) during an interview May 7, 2003 at the offices of Metro Support Group in New York City.
A job applicant (L) speaks with recruiter Renee Chandler (R) during an interview May 7, 2003 at the offices of Metro Support Group in New York City.
Chris Hondros/Getty Images

Listen to story

13:01
Download this story 6.0MB

Either this is your worst fear, or something you’ve suspected all along: job interviews are worse than useless, they’re harmful.

At least, that’s the conclusion of a recent behavioral study co-authored by Jason Dana, a Professor at Yale, who concluded that unstructured, get-to-know-you job interviews distract interviewers from what’s valuable about a candidate. That’s partially because people can turn any information, even irrelevant information, into a cogent narrative that’s not necessarily representative of a candidate’s capabilities.

We want to hear from you. What are your interview horror stories, either as an interviewer or an interviewee? Do you agree with Dana’s conclusion? And is there value in an unstructured interview?

Guest:

Jason Dana, assistant professor of management and marketing at Yale; his research focuses on how people make decisions in managerial and consumer contexts