Omer Yilmaz was tiring. Having sat on Columbia Cardlnk's interview panel conducting graduate 'milk-round' interviews over the past five days at the company's London offices, he had become so accustomed to the str tured format that he could totally recite the standardised questions asked of all candidates in reverse order if: required. More to the point, his two line-management colleagues on the interview panel had needed strict che ing throughout the interviewing process, as both had pronounced tendencies to stray away from the structure format. One in particular, Bill Parker, the Director of Production, could not on occasions resist the temptation of asking candidates questions about their personal and family circumstances. This was especially unfortunat given that the department of human resource management at the company had spent a considerable amount time introducing a highly structured interview format. Still, he mused to himself, only one more candidate to st today and they would be finished. He glanced at the clock - 5.00 p.m. - settled back into his chair, composec himself, and enquired of his fellow panel members whether they were ready for the last interviewee, Mrs Yi-W Li from Kent.

Questions

1 If structure is a 'good thing' in terms of improving interview validity and reliability, can there be situations where structure is disadvantageous?

2 How should the chair of an interview panel deal with maverick interviewers who either

(a) deviate from the standardised format or

(b) ask personal or intrusive questions?