I've spent many years interviewing people, most recently for very senior roles in Digital & IT. Often it's been very successful ... but occasionally outcomes have surprised and disappointed.

I've been reflecting on that problem this week, and web-trawling to find tips. My findings fell into three categories:

1. Obvious, but sometimes neglected (e.g. co-ordinate tightly with co-interviewers before and after, ask more probing questions, keep score, ensure an anchor in panels, don't risk getting personal just to build rapport, ...)
2. Enlightening (e.g. accept you may need to drop a role instead of hiring a poor candidate, use pre-interview questionnaires, make STAR questions the centrepiece, note the non-verbals and never overlook intangible reservations, give real-world test tasks to take home, ...)

And finally:

3. Use risk-based interviewing

It probably falls into the "obvious" category really, but I hadn't thought of it this way before: Interviewing is just an exercise in de-risking.

When we scan CVs and profiles ahead of interviews, we're looking for positive matches to defined skills, competencies etc. We're seeking opportunity in what we read, but we're also picking-up risks with each candidate, which threaten the value (as illustrated here).

So we reach the high point of the curves and move into assessment, perhaps planning to major on interviews. Here the task is to reduce the risks associated with the opportunity ... if we can.

I'm suggesting treating candidate assessment as a straight exercise in risk management, creating an actual risk register at this point in the process, and sharing it across the hiring team. The risks we collectively identify then inform the methods and questions we use, how much time we take, who else gets involved, etc.

Some examples, using very broad risks:

• To explore the risk that a candidate can't do the job, we might choose to run numeracy or IQ tests, ask validation questions about previous experience, or use probing questions to check we buy the stories;
• to explore the risk that a candidate won't want to stick around, we can offer briefings on the role, ask about similar experiences, and dig-into career aspirations and motivators; and
• to explore the risk that a candidate won't fit in, we might make introductions to potential colleagues, use social settings, ask about outside interests, and run psychometrics.

More specific risks will suggest more specific questions than these. And some will bubble-up during interviews. Be ready to identify and explore them in the moment, leaving sufficient slack time to do so.

When the first phase of assessment is complete, look carefully at the risk register, examining the residual risks for each candidate. If they're acceptable, move to hire. If they're moderate, continue assessing. If they still feels way too high, go back to the drawing board to rethink the recruitment process or even the role.

Anyone else tried this out? As usual, any supporting points or counter-points very welcome!