Interviews are a waste of time ?

At the end of last year I attended one of Bill Boorman's recruitment unconferences. The basic concept is an open and unstructured forum where recruiters can discuss and debate topics. The very nature of the set-up attracts some interesting characters including a gentleman called Kevin Wheeler who offered a controversial idea that interviewing candidates is a complete waste of time.

My initial reaction was what a load of tosh. Interviewing is at the very heart of what we recruiters do. If you don’t interview a candidate, how can you tell if they are right for the job ? What about the right culture fit? What about the candidate’s motivation?

He went on explain that the results of an interview is worthless in comparison to other recruitment techniques such as profiling, skills testing, psych testing, referencing etc. In his opinion most people who interview don’t do it very well and it allows for personal judgement and opinion to get in the way of more measurable, reliable, consistent and less subjective results. At best, an interview adds no value to the selection process and at worse it leads to the wrong result. He painted a picture of the not too distant future whereby companies would map the background of their most successful employees which would form the basis of a software program into which a candidate’s information could be entered. The individual would be scored against some pre-determined criteria and along with testing and referencing this would be enough to make a hiring decision. No interview– just see them on day 1.

He made some valid points. If you have ever had the perfect candidate rejected because the hiring manager ‘just wasn’t sure about something’ in the interview, then the idea of getting rid of this subjectivity sounds great. It would certainly be a lot easier to punch a bunch of information into a programme and let it churn out the best candidate whist I made a cup of tea. It would also be a much cheaper way to hire. By the end of the discussion Mr Wheeler seemed to have convinced most people in the room, all experienced recruiters, that interviewing was pointless.

On the other hand I was far from convinced. If the interview is done by an experienced professional who knows what they are looking for, has the ability to ask the right questions, and get beyond the fluffy stuff they will come away with justified reasons as to why an individual either is or isn’t suitable. It will likely tell you much more than any test will. A good interview also serves to personally engage with the candidates and build some rapport. I wouldn’t accept a job having not met, or at least spoken to my manager and seen the environment. Without the opportunity to engage the candidate in this manner, they may not be convinced your company is where they want to work. All the test results and algorithms in the world won’t change that.

It was to my surprise that Mr Wheeler convinced nearly everyone in the discussion that interviewing is a waste of time. What do you think? Would you be happy to employ someone having not met or spoken to them ? Does the human element just get in the way of logic and scientific reasoning ?

Comment by Sandra McCartt on January 21, 2012 at 2:11pm: My negative attitude about tests is a result of decades of watching them come and go. People hate them and many times take them as a reason to avoid totally any company who use them. Others will answer them the way think they think they should. I realize that they are set up to ask the same questions over and over in different ways to determine this gaming of tests but it has been my observation that most people are bright enough to make them reflect less than an accurate profile.

One of my clients got all excited about testing several years ago. They worked with a group who developed a test for them based on observation and interviews with their long term successful employees. After months of utilizing the test the hiring managers were frustrated with the disparity between the profiles of candidates from the tests, their impressions of candidates resulting in second guessing or hesitancy to hire in some cases and some hiring managers irritated to the point they didn't want to see the profiles at all. I suggested that they have a group of their best take the profile test so they could perhaps understand how it might be utilized or understand it. They did anonymously then the profiles were given back to them after review and comment by the psychologists who developed and reviewed all test. What they learned was that according to the profile test, all but one of them probably would have been a concern, might be marginal to succeed. The one who reflected in the highest percentile for achievement and leadership potential was struggling in both areas. The CEO reviewed the whole thing and scrapped the test. Was the test flawed, wrongfully developed? Probably but it was done by a group well respected. Who knows why or how it was such a wreck but they won't ever use one again. They do a series of phone interview, interview with hiring manager and final interview with a senior executive. They have very low to no turnover in their supervisor to top management groups.

Another was a high weath investor who owned a chain of banks, mortgage brokerages and extensive investments in ranching and oil and gas. He got all excited about testing all candidates. Decided that it was just wonderful so had everyone who was currently working for any of his companies take the test. After review of the tests of current employees he fired a big number of them. Many who were fired had been doing well, recently promoted etc. the result was of course a bunch of lawsuits and EEC complaints. The biggest cost was probably the fallout of people not interested in working for any of his companies when the word hit the street. A misuse of the tests? Of course.

These are of course anecdotal but the problem I have with tests is that no matter how scientific and how well developed ,they end up being considered to some extent by a person who will have their own subjective bias as to what the results may or may not mean. So no I won't use them and prefer not to work with companies who do unless they are straight forward testing for technical apptitude that are not as open to subjective interpretation.