In spite of the obvious relevance of the structured job-related interview, it is not the form of interview most frequently used by organizations. Some managers and other decision makers remain hesitant. Let us examine the most frequent objections to the structured interview to evaluate how justifiable these objections are, and if necessary, determine how to correct them.

1. Disproportion between the comprehensiveness of the interview and the importance of the position to be filled. Conducting structured job-related interviews from beginning to end requires a great deal of time and effort. Managers, mindful of efficiency, have legitimate concerns about whether the structured interview is a wise choice in all circumstances. For example, why invest time and money when a) the position to be filled is not an important one within the organization, b) the job is temporary or part-time, and c) a probation period allows the employment relationship to be freely terminated, so a selection mistake can be corrected.
   
   Before giving quick credence to these considerations, we should not underestimate the cost of a simplified selection process. First of all, a job that is done badly can have repercussions far beyond the job itself. A misplaced file, a mechanical part incorrectly installed, incomplete follow-up or a client badly served can lead to problems with serious consequences. Secondly, the supervision of an incompetent employee usually requires a great deal of time, without any guarantee of success. Thirdly, if employees are not able to do the job adequately, they will have to be dismissed and the selection process will have to begin all over again. Compared to this kind of scenario, the preparation and use of the structured interview seem like a wise investment for the organization, particularly when it is possible to construct the interview with minimum efforts and costs, using on-line facilities such as the Compmetrica Competency Profiler and the Compmetrica Interview Builder.
2. Limited resources for preparing for and conducting interviews. Many organizations do not have the human or financial resources to rigorously carry out all the steps required for structured interviews. In these circumstances, one might conclude that using a less restrictive approach is indicated. However, this strategy, which responds to immediate constraints, risks a number of negative effects. In addition to leading to the problems described above, using a less structured interview provides lower validity and reliability levels, which increases the probability of hiring less qualified staff and lowering productivity. Ultimately, short-term savings in hiring may be cancelled out in the medium term by costs and lost profits.
3. Influence of intuition and the interviewers' experience. Some interviewers object that the structured interview, with its questions prepared in advance and based on the objective collection of information, leaves little room for intuition, something managers hold dear. Fortified by their broad experience in evaluation, they often think that they are intuitive enough to determine which applicant has the qualities required for the job. The structured interview seems somewhat superfluous to them.
   
   However, the research tends to show that experience does not replace advantages of the structured interview¹. The fact that decisions are made by a specialist in evaluation does not necessarily guarantee their quality. Intuition has its place in the interview, though, in that it can suggest prompting or follow-up questions. Furthermore, if intuition persistently leads in the opposite direction from evaluations that are supposedly more objective, this may be the signal that more information needs to be collected, with another interview or by using other evaluation methods. Finally, intuition is absolutely no use with a candidate who must be given detailed feedback, or before a magistrate who must be convinced of the propriety of a selection process when there is a dispute.
4. Preference for an informal process. Some interviewers fear interviewees will have a negative reaction to structured interviews, undermining the organization's recruitment objectives from the outset. There is some basis for that fear, but it has two important counterarguments. First of all, it must be remembered that a structured, job-related process has the advantage of being perceived by the applicants as a more equitable approach. Secondly, the structured interview does not impose a strict and forbidding atmosphere; quite the contrary. The emphasis on facilitating conditions and maintaining the candidate’s self-confidence is an indication of this.
5. Loss of control. Having to ask the same questions of all candidates and use standardized evaluation tools can be seen by supervisors as a loss of control over their choice of staff. But if they are asked to participate in drawing up the questions and the evaluation tools, their concerns are reduced, because they will then be exercising some control over the selection process.
6. Apparent absence of legal constraints. Non-unionized organizations or those that do not have administrative boards to deal with complaints may not see the need for a rigorous selection process. However, even if the legal aspect is less of a concern for them, lawsuits are still possible. Other remedies are available, in particular those available under legislation on discrimination or appealing to the governing body of a professional organization. In addition to the structured interviews relatively low risk of litigation; we must remember that candidates generally react more favourably to it, which has positive consequences for the organization.

In summary, we can understand the hesitancy of some managers to invest time and money in structured interviews. However, the objections raised to justify less standardized interviews are not valid enough to make up for their disadvantages. Furthermore, it would be so much easier to get managers to better structure their interviews if senior administration formally recognized personnel selection as a high-priority task. The time has surely arrived to make managers and other decision makers responsible for the people they hire.

¹ Campion et al. (1997)