| Course | HR400 Talent Acquisition and Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Structured interview guide |
| Length | About 920 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration (Human Resources) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HR400 Unit 6
Six Questions Scored Against Real Incidents: A Unit 6 Structured Interview Guide for a Warehouse Supervisor
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HR400: Talent Acquisition and Management
Unit 6 Structured Interview Guide
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Calloway Building Supply, the incidents and every anchor are composite and illustrative; criteria and weights come from the Unit 5 matrix, and the sources cited are real.
Front Sheet
The Unit 5 matrix assigns 38 points to the interview across three criteria.
Criterion 2, correcting unsafe practice on the spot, 16 points, three questions.
Criterion 3, developing associates through feedback and coaching, 14 points, two questions.
Criterion 8, building working relationships across the shift, 8 points, one question.
Questions are divided in proportion to weight: 16, 14 and 8 of 38 points come to roughly three, two and one of six questions. Four questions ask about past behavior and two pose situations drawn from real shift disruptions. Campion et al. (1997) identify the components that make an interview structured, and the guide applies those it can: questions drawn from the job analysis, identical wording for all candidates, a fixed set of prompts and an anchored rating for every answer.
How Each Question Page Works
Each page gives the criterion, the question as it will be read, two permitted follow-up prompts and a five-level behaviorally anchored scale. Interviewers may use only the listed prompts.
Question 1, Past Behavior, Criterion 2
"Tell me about a time you saw someone working unsafely while the operation was under pressure. What did you do, and what happened?"
Prompts. "What did you say to the person?" "What happened afterward?"
Anchors. 5: stopped the work immediately, explained the risk, had the task redone safely and followed up later. 3: addressed it the same shift but after the work was finished. 1: noticed it and did not act, or acted only after an incident.
Question 2, Situational, Criterion 2
"It is seven on a busy evening. Two trucks are waiting. You see an associate lifting a pallet of shingles with the forks raised well above safe travel height. What do you do?"
Prompts. "What would you say?" "What about the trucks?"
Anchors. 5: stops the associate at once, has the load lowered, explains why, accepts the short delay and checks the associate's next lift. This paraphrases an effective incident a senior supervisor reported in the job analysis. 4: stops the lift and explains, without follow-up. 3: tells the associate to be careful but lets the lift continue. 2: plans to raise it at the end of the shift. 1: says nothing during the rush and deals with it the next day, which paraphrases the ineffective incident in which the load later fell.
An anchor written from what a real supervisor did on a real night gives two interviewers the same picture of a strong answer before either hears the candidate.
Question 3, Past Behavior, Criterion 2
"Describe a time a correction you gave about safety was resisted. How did you handle it?"
Anchors. 5: held the standard, explained it, involved the right person if needed and kept the working relationship. 3: held the standard but the relationship suffered without repair. 1: backed down.
Question 4, Past Behavior, Criterion 3
"Tell me about someone you helped improve at their job. What did you do, and how did you know it worked?"
Anchors. 5: specific feedback, a plan, follow-up and evidence of improvement. 3: gave feedback without follow-up. 1: describes no specific action.
Question 5, Situational, Criterion 3
"A new associate in her second week is picking accurately but too slowly to keep up. Her trainer says she is not going to make it. What do you do?"
Anchors. 5: watches her work, identifies the cause, sets a target and a date and checks in. 3: gives general encouragement and extra time. 1: accepts the trainer's view without looking.
Question 6, Past Behavior, Criterion 8
"Tell me about a time you took over a crew you had not worked with. How did you earn their cooperation?"
Anchors. 5: learned the crew's work, asked for their input and kept commitments. 3: relied on authority, with cooperation following slowly. 1: describes conflict without resolution.
Scoring Instructions
Two interviewers, the operations manager and a supervisor from another warehouse, score each answer independently on the anchors before any discussion. If their ratings differ by two levels or more, they discuss the answer against the anchors, using their notes, and record the agreed rating and the reason. The instructions page also lists topics that stay out of the conversation because they have nothing to do with the job, such as family plans, age, health, religion and national origin. In their review, Levashina et al. (2014) report gains in reliability and validity when answers are rated on anchored scales and interviewers keep notes, which is why both are required here.
The Weighted Interview Total
Each criterion's score is the mean rating of its questions divided by five and multiplied by its weight. A candidate averaging 4 on criterion 2 earns 12.8 of 16 points. The three criterion scores add to the interview total out of 38, which carries into the Unit 5 matrix beside the work sample, application and reference scores.
Where the Anchors Came From
The fourteen critical incidents from the Unit 2 analysis were collected using the method Flanagan (1954) described. Eight effective incidents supplied the top anchors and six ineffective incidents supplied the bottom anchors. Middle anchors were written by the incumbent supervisors to describe answers between the two.
References
Campion, M. A., Palmer, D. K., & Campion, J. E. (1997). A review of structure in the selection interview. Personnel Psychology, 50(3), 655-702. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00709.x
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327-358. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061470
Levashina, J., Hartwell, C. J., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2014). The structured employment interview: Narrative and quantitative review of the research literature. Personnel Psychology, 67(1), 241-293. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12052
What the HR400 Unit 6 assignment asks for
The sixth HR400 assignment asks you to build a structured interview guide for the interview criteria in your selection matrix. Open with a front sheet listing the criteria and weights and showing how questions divide among them in proportion. Explain which components of interview structure the guide applies, citing research. For each question, give the criterion, the exact wording, permitted follow-up prompts and a behaviorally anchored rating scale. Mix past-behavior and situational questions. Write anchors from real incidents where you have them, and say where they came from. Give scoring instructions, including independent rating, how disagreements are resolved and topics to avoid. Show how ratings convert into the weighted interview total. Cite interview research. About seven pages, mostly one question to a page, is a common format for this guide.
Inside the HR400 Unit 6 example
The sample's front sheet divides six questions by weight and cites Campion and colleagues on the components of structure, with a margin note on proportion. Each question page gives wording, two prompts and anchors. The shingles question's top anchor paraphrases an effective incident and its bottom anchor the ineffective one, which the highlighted sentence explains. Five more questions follow on safety correction, coaching and crew relationships, with a margin note on job-specific anchors. Scoring instructions require independent ratings, discussion of splits of two levels and a list of topics to avoid, citing Levashina and colleagues. A formula converts ratings into the 38-point total, and a section traces anchors to Flanagan's incidents.
Reading the HR400 Unit 6 grading rubric
The HR400 interview guide is graded on structure, job relevance and scoring. Questions should map to matrix criteria in proportion to weight. Each question should have fixed wording, limited prompts and anchors. Anchors that describe job-specific behavior, drawn from real incidents, earn substantial credit. A mix of past-behavior and situational questions is expected. Scoring instructions should require independent rating and a recorded process for disagreements. A conversion from ratings to the weighted total connects the guide to the matrix. Topics to avoid should be listed. Research on interview structure should be cited in APA 7, and the guide should be usable by interviewers without further explanation.
HR400 Unit 6 help from the desk
Many HR400 interview guides list good questions with a generic one-to-five scale that each interviewer reads differently. Others write anchors as qualities, such as excellent communication, rather than behaviors. Students often let interviewers improvise follow-ups. Scoring is discussed before ratings are made. The guide never connects ratings to the matrix weights. Map questions to criteria by weight, fix the wording and prompts, write behavioral anchors from incidents, mix question types, require independent ratings, record how disagreements are settled and convert ratings to the weighted total. Share your matrix, and our team can help write the questions and anchors.
Get an HR400 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Criteria, a matrix or just the role: whatever the Unit 6 materials provide is enough to start, sent with the rubric. Questions and anchored scales tied to it are ready in 24-48h, at no cost for a first sample. Where no incident data exists, anchors are marked illustrative so they can be swapped out. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More HR400 papers and BS in Business Administration (Human Resources) samples
- HR400 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- HR400 Unit 2: Job Analysis
- HR400 Unit 3: Job Description Draft
- HR400 Unit 4: Recruitment Sourcing Plan
- HR400 Unit 5: Selection Criteria Matrix
- HR400 Unit 7: Candidate Evaluation Memo
- HR400 Unit 8: Seminar Reflection
- HR400 Unit 9: Onboarding Plan
- HR400 Unit 10: Talent Acquisition Strategy
HR400 Unit 6 questions, answered
What does behaviorally anchored mean here?
Each point on the rating scale describes an actual behavior rather than a quality. In the example, a top rating on the safety question describes a supervisor stopping the forklift, explaining the risk and checking later that the practice changed. A low rating describes noticing and saying nothing. Interviewers compare an answer to those descriptions instead of to their own standard.
Why only six questions?
Because the interview measures three of the nine criteria and runs about forty-five minutes, leaving time for follow-up prompts and candidate questions. The example divides the six in proportion to the weights. Adding questions for criteria the work sample already measures would repeat evidence and lengthen the interview without improving the decision.
Does the guide cover questions an interviewer should avoid?
Briefly, on the instructions page, which lists topics unrelated to the job that stay out of the conversation and notes that the scripted questions already avoid them. The example keeps this short because the course material usually covers it elsewhere. The guide's weight sits on the anchors, since those decide how answers are scored.
Where can I find a free HR400 Unit 6 sample paper?
A complete HR400 Unit 6 structured interview guide is on this page, with six questions for a warehouse supervisor and anchors drawn from real critical incidents.
Why should interviewers rate before discussing?
Independent ratings keep one interviewer's view from shaping the other's. Discussing only after rating, against the anchors, makes disagreements visible and resolvable.