Structured interviews: a practical guide

Start with the work

Interview structure begins with the role, not a list of popular questions. Identify the responsibilities and competencies that matter for successful performance, then decide which of them can be evaluated meaningfully in an interview.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management recommends linking assessment content to a current job analysis. This connection helps make the purpose of each question clear and keeps evaluation focused on job-related evidence.

Design questions around evidence

Behavioral questions ask for examples from past experience. Situational questions ask how a candidate would respond to a job-relevant scenario. Both formats work best when the expected evidence is defined before interviews begin.

Follow-up questions can clarify an answer without abandoning structure. The important constraint is that follow-ups remain relevant to the same role criteria and do not introduce a different standard for each candidate.

• Ask one clear question at a time
• Tie every question to a defined competency or requirement
• Document acceptable follow-up areas
• Avoid questions that do not inform a job-related decision

Create rating guidance before interviewing

A score is useful only when reviewers share an understanding of what the scale means. Define observable evidence for stronger, mixed, and weaker responses rather than relying on labels such as good or poor.

Where criteria are weighted differently, document the reason. OPM notes that equal weighting is generally the more defensible default when there is no clear rationale for assigning different weights.

Calibrate and improve

Before using a new interview, test whether questions are clear and whether they produce evidence that can be rated consistently. After interviews begin, review disagreements between evaluators and refine the guidance when ambiguity appears.

Calibration should improve the process, not force reviewers into artificial agreement. Significant differences can reveal unclear criteria, missing evidence, or a legitimate need for further discussion.