The Techniques of Interviewing: I—The Need for Training
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X6804100410 |
| Date | 01 April 1968 |
| Published date | 01 April 1968 |
| Author | Edgar Anstey |
| Subject Matter | Article |
EDGAR
ANSTEY,
M.A.,
Ph.D.
Dr.
Anstey
writes with exceptional authority. A First-Class
Honours graduate in Mathematics and Psychology of the Uni-
versity of Cambridge, and a Doctor of Philosophy (in Psychology)
of the University of London, he joined the Civil Service in 1938
as an Assistant Principal.
After
war service, in which he first
served and was commissioned in the infantry, later becoming
major in charge of
Army
selection tests, he was founder-head
of
the Civil Service Commission Research Unit. He has worked in
the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence and has held his
present appointment as Chief Psychologist, Civil Service Com-
mission since 1964.
His publications include Interviewing for the Selection of Staff
(with Dr. E. O. Mercer, 1956), Staff Reporting and Staff Develop-
ment (1961), Committees, How they work and how to work them
(1962),
aLL
published by Allen and Unwin, and Psychological Tests
(Thomas Nelson, 1966).
THE
TEUHNIQUES OF
INTERVIEWING:
I-The
need
for
training
IMPORTANCE OF THE INTERVIEW
Interviewing is very important.
It
is used in selection for most
jobs, in picking people for promotion, and in many
other
circum-
stances. A person's whole future depends critically on how he is
assessed during a 30 minute interview. Yet curiously enough, it is
often assumed that anybody can conduct interviews and can do it
without training or practice under guidance. One wouldn't expect
someone to be able to tackle accounts or to repair a car without
training and experience, then why should one expect people to be
able to conduct interviews successfully without any training? Pre-
sumably this is because we are all of us judging other people all
the time in everyday life, but we are not necessarily doing it very
well. Similarly with regard to interviewing - there is much ob-
jective evidence that interviewers often don't agree on their assess-
ment of the same people, and follow-up shows that interview
judgments are often very fallible.
Every police officer has been interviewed a number of times,
with his future depending on the impression that he conveyed to
the interviewer or board. How did you feel when you came out of
the interviewing room? Were you saying this to yourself about the
interviewer (Mr. A):
"That
interviewer knew his stuff! He seemed
friendly
but
after a deceptively quiet start he certainly put me
April
1968 177
To continue reading
Request your trial