We have focused on the relationship between procedural justice and issues like trust, strategic empathy, and effective listening. Not steering far from this, if we are implementing the tenets of procedural justice can we keep doing interviews in a way that are legacy based and not science-based? We must consider where we are at as individuals and where or organizations

Today’s blog builds off the last two weeks as we examine these interconnected issues.  The first article in this series examined the issue of trust and procedural justice.  Last week we looked at strategic empathy and its interrelationship with trust and procedural justice.  And this week, by extension, we are factoring in the importance of effective listening to accomplishing the

Last week I posted about the issue of trust and procedural justice.  As I researched that topic it became clear of the inextricable connection between empathy and the procedural justice model.  If you examine empathy, we again return to trust and credibility.  So many of these concepts are imperative to be competent and ethical in our interviewing pursuits. As in

In my last blog I addressed false evidence and lying during interviews.  There is no greater trust breaker than you getting caught lying during an interview.  I often ask classes if when they catch someone lying to them, how much information do you share with that person in the future.  Undoubtedly, they say very little, so why do we wonder

It is an interesting phenomenon as you age that you learn some of things you learned and have practiced for years have very little support in scientific literature or research.  They are in fact based on historical folklore that worked at least once. Not only that, but the evidence-based research has existed for 20 years, and I continued to do