A structured interview refers to an interview done with thorough follow of questions which have been set. Each respondent has to answer all of these questions. This kind of interview has the advantage of being with high predictive validity and reliability. Their disadvantage is that respondents get acquainted with the questions hence, the interview might not reveal a true behavior of the respondent. Unstructured interviews refer to interviews done with no set out questions. Questions asked are not limited and set. Conversations flow freely between the interviewee and interviewer. Moreover, questions can change depending on the nature of interviewee responses. Questions asked are remarkably open ended. These interviews have an advantage of revealing a wholesome behavior of the respondent. However, they are not reliable and valid since they are not particular. I have been to an employment interview. The interview was unstructured, and I considered it bad. This is because it was not specific and directed to the requirements qualifying me to a certain job. I would use an unstructured interview in case of many interviewees. The risks of using unstructured interviews are that they are not direct and valid. They do not reveal specific skills required on an individual. An appropriate amount of structure for an interview should exemplify certain qualification skills, and should take not more than ten minutes (Posthuma, 2006).Want an expert to write a paper for you Talk to an operator now
Personality tests involve the use of systematically designed tests to extract information concerning a person’s motives, preferences, emotions, interests and interactions. They are not directed to an individual’s competency and skill. Hence, they should not be used in making personnel decisions. Personality tests are predictors of performance in a job and are very disappointing. They are not limited to explore and elicit equitable content from an individual. Moreover, an individual can fake items in these tests. In this case, they will not be realistic. On the other hand, they have high chances of interpretation of items. Before being hired, I underwent through non personality tests. These are tests that explored into my capabilities to do the job. They were directed to my nature of behavior, content and character. They were in the form of structured interview. I believe these tests were valid in rating my likelihood of being able to do the job. This is because they revealed my interaction style, predicted my good behavior, predicted my ability, and revealed infallible results. Moreover, the scores were not subjective. They could not change depending on the mood or feelings of the interviewer. Through them, I was able to show that I have the ability to do my job (Oswald, 2008).
Managements can effectively evaluate individuals working as a team. The general performance of a team is a replica of individual performance. Managements can consider striking levels of team performance with respect to set goals and objectives. Besides this, individual objectives and goals can be used to judge individual performance. These individual objectives and goals should reveal individual achievements at any given time. Team achievement is a summative of the individual development. Therefore, managements should centre on individual evaluation through setting of goals and objectives that specify certain levels to be achieved. Each team member should be pearly evaluated basing on the outcomes of performance. Therefore, facets as individual attainments, group responses, and overall team performance levels can be used to evaluate individuals working as a team. Moreover, tools as performance evaluation forms should be filled individually by the workers. This will portray individual level of performance irrespective of the other team members. Individual compensation is another method of evaluating individuals working as a team. Setting individual compensation targets will reveal certain individual performance levels. As individual members strive to achieve individual set targets, performance of the team subsequently rises. Group supervisors should be the ones rating individual and group performance (Claudia, 2007).