8/3/2019 Are Job Interviews a Complete Waste of Time

1/1

Are Job Interviews a Complete Waste of Time?A few years ago, a university graduate appealed in the Daily Nation for any employer to try him

out on a job for one month without a salary. He argued that he had attended many interviews and had come

to the conclusion that they are a guessing game and, therefore, a complete waste of time for both employer

and candidate. One hour, he noted, is not enough to find out how well a person can work.

That incident raised a fundamental question: Is the person selected after an interview the best one

for the job? The simple answer is NO. Employers have been observed to choose the same candidate as the

most suitable whether or not they had conducted an interview.

Furthermore, researchers have found that interviews are unreliable and invalid as personnel selection

methods. Lack of reliability means the result is not reproducible. In other words, if a group of candidates

are interviewed by different panels, it is likely that each panel will select a different person as the most

suitable.

This lack of reliability arises from three main reasons. First, the "instrument" of measurement is a human

being (the interviewers), who is bound to have preconceived biases. In addition, humans tend to form first

impressions quickly which, in most cases, persist and overshadow all other concrete evidence.

Secondly, no two interviewers will interpret information in the same way. And thirdly, one interviewer can

make different interpretations from the same information at different times.

The lack of validity means that an interview cannot measure what it is intended to evaluate: that is, it

cannot establish the candidate's ability to perform the job over a period of time, nor his/her potential to take

greater responsibilities in the future.

This invalidity stems from several factors. First, an interview is an artificially distorted and stressful

situation, especially for the candidate. It can be seen as a charade played out by the interviewer andinterviewee: Both pretending to be honest, truthful and willing to help one another, although both know

that it is only the employer who can offer or withhold the job.

In addition, the results produced by the interview are gathered under conditions which are completely

different from those of the job. No matter how relaxed and free the atmosphere, it is not possible to

reproduce the job conditions and therefore one cannot gauge how a candidate is likely to perform on the job

from the reactions recorded.

The only thing an interview can establish is whether the candidate can cope with the unusual conditions it

sets. This leads to another question: why this method is so widely used in employee selections and even in

many cases, exclusively.

There are three main reasons. First, employers and job seekers are accustomed to it. Secondly, it provides a

chance for a face-to-face meeting where a routine checks can be done by both the employer and applicant.

That is, the interview provides an opportunity for two-way communication between selector and candidate

while all other selection methods usually have only one-way. Finally, no other method of accuratelyassessing applicants is available.

Ultimately, there is only one method by which an employer can ascertain that the selected candidate will

fulfil the requirements for a job. This is actually employing the person and making the assessment oversome period of time. Of course this may not be workable. Nevertheless, the common practice of putting

employees on an initial probation period before confirming them is recognition of the fact that interviews

are unreliable and invalid.

I was interviewed for my first job eight (8) months after starting work! The organisation was seriously

understaffed and so I was hired straightaway on account of my certificates only. On the day of theinterview, we only reviewed my performance that far. It would appear that I was given the kind of

opportunity that the young graduate was looking for. Only that I did not have to offer my services for free!