The targeted selection system the Virginian-Pilot uses is a behavior-based hiring system created and marketed by Development Dimensions International, which is based in Pittsburgh. Several other companies sell behavior-based hiring systems. I’m not trying to write the book on behavior-based hiring, or even DDI’s system. I’ll just describe how the copy desk used it.

First, came training. With a dozen or so other newspaper team leaders who were expecting to hire someone soon, I learned about the new "hiring initiative." We reviewed two-inch-thick binders, we watched videos and we learned about "dimensions," "motivational fit," "data evaluation" and "STARs." A trainer answered our "yeah, buts" and "what ifs" and our grumblings about "Dilbert-esque" management — and sent us on our enlightened way.

I then got to describe behavior-based hiring to the copy desk and lead it through the first step in the process: pinning down what it takes to be a successful copy editor at our newspaper.

To hire someone based on behavior, you have to determine what behaviors you need. We were offered detailed descriptions of 40 "dimensions." We picked initiative, judgment, teamwork, tolerance for stress, adaptability, attention to detail and resilience. The manual I received includes questions for each dimension to determine whether the job candidate possesses what the job requires.

The copy desk, in a series of meetings, selected three questions for each dimension, rewriting some of the questions to make them more specific to our jobs. (Of course, we may have rewritten them just because we’re copy editors; we simply couldn’t help ourselves.) I compiled those questions and printed interview guides. Then, I recruited two veteran copy editors to join me for the interviews.

What about headline writing or spelling? We covered that in other ways. Part of targeted selection is to make every minute with a candidate count. Before they could get in the door for the grueling interview, candidates first had to critique a newspaper (everyone did the same edition) and go through a telephone interview in which I used a scripted interview guide and targeted selection-style questions from our dimensions (everyone was asked the same questions).

We structured every visit, which took about eight hours, the same way: a four-part test for editing, news judgment and headline writing; the targeted-selection interview; an interview with our deputy managing editor; dinner with members of the copy desk; and time to talk individually with copy editors, ask questions and just get a feel for the night newsroom.

After a three-on-one interview, I would take the candidate back out to the newsroom for a breather and have them move on to the next step. Meanwhile, I would rejoin the other two interviewers to review the results.

We took great pains during the interview to draw complete stories from a candidate for each question: here’s the situation, here’s what I did, here’s the result. The lingo is Situation/Task, Action, Result, or STAR.

Each interviewer went over his or her notes, deciding whether the person had achieved a STAR for each question denoting each with little stars on paper. We each judged the value of those responses to determine a score for each dimension.

Did a story involve catching a typo in the lead of a story? Little star. Or did the candidate flag a libelous story that had already gone through a couple of senior editors? Big star. We placed our scores for each dimension on a poster-sized sheet of paper on the wall and debated until we agreed on one score for each dimension.

The value of targeted selection became clear during these discussions. We had a ton of information, and it all spoke to how each candidate would perform as a co-worker. After all the candidates had been interviewed, we compared their scores for each part of the process: resume, critique, telephone interview, targeted selection interview, impressions of other copy editors, interview with the deputy managing editor and copy editing test. The structure provides a clean, clear way of judging candidates.

One copy editor on the interviewing team, Erica Smith, had been very skeptical of the system, but became a believer.

"I was amazed at how much information we were able to pull from the job candidates," she said. "And it wasn’t just on the traits we were examining."

Both she and the third interviewer, copy editor Larry Hogue, also said taking a much larger role in the hiring process was satisfying. (Take note, supervisors of copy desks, where people often feel undervalued and ill-used!)

Are there drawbacks? Targeted selection requires harder work than a more free-wheeling system. Other hiring managers at the newspaper said the system can inaccurately portray a person who does not interview well, but who might still be a great reporter. They see a need to modify it to allow room for more traditional interviewing. Also, some employees here have decided not to apply for internal openings for a fear of a targeted selection interview. And, of course, it costs money to begin a behavior-based hiring system.

People who sell such systems, however, would be happy to document just how much a bad hire costs.

Our newest copy editor had some telling comments about the process. She had interviewed at two other papers, and been offered a job, before coming to the Pilot. "It was fair, because everyone gets the same interview," she said.

"It got to information that the other papers didn’t."

Duke is copy desk team leader at The Virginian-Pilot in Norfolk.