I have seen many times where a job interview was a waste of time for the applicant, but I haven’t seen many where it was a waste of time for the interviewing company.
And that is not even remotely fair so I try to avoid it as much as possible. Job applicants either have a job already and have to take time off of work to go to an interview or they are unemployed and have to pay to be there. I do not force people to do dog and pony shows for my own amusement and I look down severely on companies that do. An interview should always be bilateral - you see if they are a good fit and the job seekers should do the same.
I am a senior consultant for one of the longest lasting and most successful companies in the world. We do not abuse any interviewees in the least. Anyone, even at the highest levels, could get reprimanded if they did that. Not all of them get a job of course but they are treated with the utmost respect while they are there because they are invited guests by definition. They were picked and asked to be there to check out a fit. Whether we pick them or not, we always make sure that everyone is taken care of as a guest and a potential future coworker.
That is the way all companies should view the situation. Interviewing is a two-way street. I have politely walked out of more than one when it became clear that the salary and benefits wouldn’t meet my needs. The skilled job market is not the same as the Boston slave markets circa 1800. Everyone claims to know that but must don’t fully internalize it. Once you get some skills, you everything becomes more about what you can negotiate much more than any specific degrees you have.
One should never forget the basic 4 of what a interviewer is looking for:
- What experience do you bring?
- Will you get along and fit in at this workplace?
- How much will you cost them?
- How long will you stay?
Really except for #1 all of these are determined in the interview.
Unless you are interviewing for civil servant positions. The hiring panel will ask you #1, and–rightly or wrongly–infer the answers to the other questions based on your demeanor and how many times you blink. Government interviews tend to be highly scripted affairs, intended to be as objective as possible. Of course, they are never that way in practice.
It depends on the job. For entry level jobs hiring people from the outside, it’s essential. You can’t tell from the resume who really knows shit from shinola, nor can you spot abrasive personalities.
For promotional opportunities, they are indeed a waste of time. Management knows who they want to move up and who they don’t, and before the interviews begin they know who’s getting the job. The interview could just consist of one question: “What is your name?” If it matches the name they’ve already chosen, you win. If not, you might as well walk away.
You must think hiring managers have nothing to do all day but conduct interviews. Interviewing candidates takes a great deal of time and costs the hiring manager a great deal if he makes the wrong choice.
I’ve always believed that the primary purpose of the interview is to justify the position of the Human Resources representative.
Please don’t take offense at this, but how are you at fitting in at social situations? Based on your field and that you don’t see the benefit of interviews, I’m getting the sense you may have some overlap with Aspergers. With that, people may not have as much of an emotional connection to the world. You may see the focus on non-work related skills as useless, but in actuality they are very important.
You may think that because the job needs skills A, B, and C and you have skills A, B, and C, you are qualified for the job. But a successful employee is much more than just knowing a set of skills. They have to fit in with all the rest of the employees. If everyone at the company is a karaoke-loving extrovert and you’re an introvert, it won’t be a good fit. And likewise, if everyone at the company is a quiet introvert and you’re a hard-partying extrovert, it won’t be a good fit.
I’ve worked with brilliant programmers who were total jerks to work with. Sure, they could produce great code, but it was only when they felt like it, and they were dismissive if anyone were to ask a question they felt was beneath them. I’d rather work with an average programmer who was a great team member than a genius prima donna who gets pissed off if people don’t bow down to him. The interview gives you an opportunity to see what sort of team member they will be.
So. You are interested in finding a place that will pay you reasonable amounts of money and where you will spend half your waking hours for the next umpteen years, but you don’t want to do anything to find it but load your resume?
I hope you don’t object to hiring by keyword searches, because your system would multiply our reliance on such a thousand-fold. You want me to look through resumes of people who would ask where the “Any” key is? No thanks.
When you were applying to colleges, did you want to load your transcript and SAT scores and some generic essay to a central site and wait for someone to admit you?
I work in a job where we have to solve problems, all the time. I wouldn’t be interesting in hiring someone to whom the problem of finding a good company to apply to was too much work.
I care about skills more than anything else, and I wouldn’t hire such a person, since even people with great skills don’t work in a vacuum. Someone who isn’t great salesman material is fine with me, but no sociopaths, please!
Our HR people get the candidate to our door, and do the paperwork, and nothing else. There is nothing that they do that I think I could do better or would want to do. The interviews, and deciding who interviews, we do.
Interviews may help in weeding out the complete lunatics and obvious creeps but for choosing between reasonable candidates you might as well use chance.
And another thing. “Company Culture” is bullshit. You cant find wisdom in an echo chamber.
The way I described it working is how Texas medical school admissions work. Saves everyone a huge amount of time.
Are you hiring someone because you need a friend or hiring because you need something done? No wonder the US economy is doing so bad if this is the attitude of managers nowadays. We don’t care what they can do, I just want someone to chat with over lunch and go to company outings with.
When I was in high school admission to the City University of New York worked the same way. You had a one page form, checked off the ones you were interested, and attached your transcript and SAT scores. That was a joke also.
Is saving time the most important thing in looking for a job? Or is it getting a good job? Your system would cost me lots of time, because now even if I get loser resumes they are at least slightly self-selected.
Does your wish to save time going to extend to work? Are you going to take short cuts that reduce the quality of what you do? Big black mark. Are you going to settle for the first answer, not the best? Another black mark.
Job boards are about the worst way possible to get a job, and your method would be even worse. The guy who researches companies, networks, and who finds real people to talk to is always going to beat out someone who posts a resume on a job board and sits back and waits for the offers to roll in. If that is what you want, I’m fine with it. Less competition for my kids.
You think engineers who are disrespectful jerks are effective engineers?
A jerk employee can make everyone else’s productivity go down.
Which is #2 I mentioned above.
I agree. This is why when answering one has to be very careful how you answer a question because even a smile or frown at the wrong time could be taken say as an admission you plan to only work there for 6 months or you dont want to work with certain people.
I think a good interviewer should have a camera in the front of the building because you can judge alot about a person by things like how they park their car. how they walk, if they hold a door for someone, etc…
They can be. I’ve known a software developer who would moan and groan all day in rather colorful language about how the end customers of our software were deserving of the worst derision. He got a lot done and was respected for that. He wasn’t exactly the guy you were itching to grab for lunch, but then many people aren’t.