Are Interviews The Perfect Method Of Selection

Interviews are needed as they mimic many real-world situations in corporate world, giving the assessor a chance to evaluate few critical softer parameters:

Personality

An interview is a good platform to judge a candidate's personality – highlighting whether aspects such as speech, interaction manners and behaviors, are fit for the corporate culture.

Attitude & aptitude

Interviews are a great tool to understand the candidate's attitude and what softer aspects he/she can bring to the table if hired. Also, corporates want to corroborate the performance in other tests in a "live" situation and are indeed by the same person. An interview aims to affirm the candidate's profile.

Performance under pressure

Interviews are a pressure situation. Everyone - from a fresher to CEO aspirants are under pressure in an interview situation. Good interviewers utilize this situation to gauge how well a candidate will stand her ground in a pressure situation and perform.

A seasoned interviewer will gauge in 15-30 minutes of intense interaction the softer aspects – the candidate’s genuineness, the likely performance in the role, team playing and team management skills, and the fit to the broader corporate culture.

But are interviewers the perfect method for hiring? The jury is divided on this one. However, no one denies the fact that personal interviews suffer from the following key drawbacks:

Highly person dependent:

All assessors/interviewers are human and have biases, preconceived notions, and individual style of assessing. The assessment may be clouded by these "human factors” and the unfortunate interviewee may suffer on account.

Group/panel interviews may cancel these shortcomings, but have their own drawbacks. Alternatively, companies use multiple interviews to assess the candidate's qualities.

The Halo Effect:

A confident, fast talking and a presentable candidate’s persona may well be confused for good attitude and aptitude – just as a good talker will beat a poor-spoken (though more logical) opponent. Also, a good background (family, school, extracurricular activities etc.) and a good education might hand an unfair immediate advantage even though these things might not be critical for the position i.e.- software programming, analytics advertising etc.

Time Context:

Interviews are taken at a point in time – a brief snapshot of candidate’s timeline, and unfavorable event -like a fight with a loved one, traffic delay, a sick family member could impact on your mindset and possibly ruin your chances of making a favorable impression. Also, the interviewer's state of mind is equally important. An interviewer in a distracted state of mind, might overlook even a brilliant response to a question.

Written tests, or psychological tests allow a candidate time to concentrate and apply his mind doing things that they have practiced for months and years, or have expertise in.

Recency /Comparison Bias:

Candidate-to-candidate comparisons are inevitable. Coming right after a stellar candidate, a regular candidate’s performance will always pale in comparison- and vice versa. Experienced hiring managers usually manage this bias pretty well, but with a fresh recruiter, it may become a game of chance.

Interviews are not a perfect tool, having many imperfections and biases, reducing the hiring process effectiveness and resulting in candidate selection errors. However, they are the most widespread tool in hiring a candidate for a position, and for the moment without an alternative. They are a necessary obstacle that must be crossed before one lands that dream job!!