Structured interview
A structured interview uses job-related questions in a predetermined order and common rating criteria, so an employer can examine candidates against the same planned method.
A planned basis for comparison
Structure is a property of the method, not of a candidate’s answer. The US Office of Personnel Management’s description identifies job-related questions, a predetermined order, and common rating criteria as its core elements. That gives interviewers a record of what they sought and how they assessed it.
The questions can ask for a past example or for a response to a hypothetical situation. Either approach can be structured when the team prepares the question and the criteria before meeting candidates.
Structured vs unstructured interviews
OPM’s Structured Interviews: A Practical Guide sets the two formats side by side. On the structured side, the questions, the rating scale and the acceptable answers are all settled before the first candidate arrives.
| Element | Structured interview | Unstructured interview |
|---|---|---|
| Questions | The same questions, in the same order, for every candidate | Candidates may be asked different questions |
| Rating | One common rating scale for all candidates | No standardised scale required |
| Acceptable answers | Interviewers agree on what counts as acceptable | Interviewers need not agree |
The guide is blunt about the loose format: it reports that research consistently finds unstructured interviews of little value in predicting job performance, and that their lack of standardisation invites legal challenge. It was written for US federal hiring, so the legal warning is American. The practical point travels to any employer.
In practice, prepare the questions, the probes each interviewer may use and the rating scale before the first interview. OPM suggests at least three proficiency levels, ideally five to seven, with an example answer for each level so two interviewers read the same response the same way.
Where consistency has room to breathe
Structure does not require ignoring an unclear answer. The same guide, published in September 2008, permits clarifying probes while recommending comparable opportunities and consistent meaning for those probes. A useful follow-up establishes what the person means; it should not quietly introduce a new test for one candidate.
Nor does a shared scale make a decision automatic. Interviewers still need to note the evidence they heard, identify material differences in their observations, and make a reasoned hiring decision.
Decide what to standardise
Start with the work the role requires, then choose the questions and rating criteria that can reveal relevant evidence. Keep the core questions and assessment basis consistent across the role. Use recurring requests for clarification to improve the questions before the next hiring round.
The value is not a more formal conversation. It is a comparable basis for discussing what each candidate showed.