To think interviews aren’t great at assessing suitability for a lot of jobs

[AllyCatTown]

Firstly, I recently started a new job so this isn’t someone annoyed at not finding work.

To get this job I had an interview and it just made me think how useless they are. Most of the skills I used to do well in the interview aren’t needed in the job. Also, I can’t be the only one who makes up complete fictional examples when asked to describe a time I did X. The other alternative would be to say “No sorry I can’t think of a time when I did that”, which isn’t going to pass so I make up an example to make myself look good.

Of course I prepared for the interview but there’s always a chance you’ll be asked something you weren’t expecting. I’m sure thinking on your feet and making up fictional examples is a useful skill in some jobs but not for a lot.

I don’t have an alternative proposal to replace interviews but AIBU to think interviews aren’t great at assessing suitability for a lot of roles?

Yes, totally agree, possibly because I'm shit at them 😄

But they really seem to bear little relation to the job you actually do in the end - all it really tells them is you have good interview skills.

It's generally most difficult for introverts, who might be excellent workers and a good fit for the workplace, but find it difficult to show that in the situation.

Totally agree

Yes agreed - we hired a load of new graduates a few months ago and while they are all pretty good it’s very clear that you get completely the wrong idea about their relative strengths or weaknesses from an interview!

From my experience, someone who arrives about the right time, leaves about the right time and does what is expected of them in the time between is a valuable asset.
I've lost count of the number of times that it's been suggested that a loyal employee with ten years experience can't hold a candle to a person who's just blagged their way through a half-hour interview. Sadly, can't see it changing any time soon.

Absolutely!! I am really good at interviews and come across so well but am actually crap at my job.

YABU as I never BS at interviews or make stuff up.

I guess it must depend on your industry.

I agree that interviews aren't the best way of recruiting though as I've known many employers that have taken on complete numpties who can't actually do the job.

I agree, but it is probably a bigger problem: people aren’t great at assessing suitability for jobs.

The best recruitment tool I ever used, in the nicest possible way, is my secretary when I had one. I'd get her to liaise with each candidate and go through the booking and pre-amble and let me know what she thought of everyone as she went through it all.

She had 100% accuracy, even down to the person she told me not to hire who was good on paper who was the biggest arse ever.

I still think 'what would she do' in various situations. Love her.

What do you suggest as an alternative?

I think the 'situation' interviews that require the STAR or whatever approach are crap and you can rehearse and still be crap at your job.
The best interviews and longest jobs I had were the places where there was a friendly conversation to see if I'd fit in the team.

When I was last recruiting, I had no interest in the competency based questions or "tell me a time when" type questions. They're too easy to blag and, quite frankly, irrelevant. I wasn't interviewing for a job they'd already done.

I gave them real scenarios from the job and asked how they'd handle it. I weeded out a lot of rubbish that way. And if you can blag an answer to those questions, then you could probably handle the situation too.

I agree !

We do Warner interviewing try and make it more meaningful It's in 5 parts.

1. Group interview
2. Emotional intelligence / history interview
3. Written Interview
4. Normal questions type interview
5. Teenagers hold small interviews

I’m terrible at interviews but get shit done when employed. Thankfully my last one was a skim through my resume and when can you start. Got the lead through an ex colleague.

The previous two were “tell us a time…” interviews and I had to answer even though I hadn’t work in 5yrs. The first one I didn’t get, manager was very sorry for me and could see I was extremely nervous. Second one I performed better and did get. (Both interviews with same company) I’d worked with them before and it was normal to have your manager ring another manager and say I have someone at the end of a project, hire them. And they would. Much more my style

This. If you know what you are looking for, its possible to frame the interview process accordingly.

Yes, and that is the academic view too as I learnt in my management degree 27 years ago. Now I’ve got real life experience of interviewing people - terrible predictors of performance. Best way to assess suitability is through trial/simulation/workshop to see their interaction with others and work output.

The last two rounds of recruitment I have been involved with, we gave them the questions in advance. It really did level out those who were nervous and those those who interviewed well and I think we made the right choice both times.

Totally agree, as a means of assessing external candidates they are unfortunatly neccesary, but supplementing them with other assessments would be a massive improvement. However, for internal recruitment they repeatedly let down the organisation I work for and the staff who either don't get promoted when they should or have to work with/ under the useless bullshitter who gets the job that should have gone to someone else.

My struggle with severe interview anxiety (verging on paranoia) has massively delayed my career progression much to the suprise of my colleagues.

They're pretty useless mainly because you cant ask certain questions and you cant ring up their employer and start asking questions about the candidate. Thats the only way to know really how someone is and even then their employer might give misinformation

The scoring system in our place is a joke. The guy who had the highest ever score couldn’t put a nut in a monkeys mouth. He struggles with the task that are just button pushing with no thought and god if he has something he needs to think about it becomes a huge drama.

I've worked in HR for decades and totally agree. Interviews are only good at telling you how good people are at interviews. I've taken part in huge, multi day, senior level recruitments and the complex panel structure came to exactly the same conclusions as the admin staff who met the candidates for 5 mins.

If I were Queen of the world I'd rigorously assess candidates through tasks as closely related to the actual job as possible, then just have a nice unstructured chat with the candidates who did well at that stage.

This is the key question. Work sample exercises are better than interviews but need to be well designed. Best of all would be putting people on trial. But that would be expensive and time consuming and infeasible for most candidates who already had a job.

Well designed interviews are better than badly designed interviews.

No assessment is perfect.

For most jobs their cv/application form should be enough to know whether someone can actually do the job. The interview is "is this person right for the culture of our workplace?"

STAR questions are totally easy to blag, but it does give you the opportunity to see how they communicate. Pre interview chat and post interview "anything to ask" should be enough to know if someone would suit the team.

Sadly, this approach also puts many at a disadvantage. It’s basically to check if your face fits kind of thing.

I agree with you completely, OP. I’m generally quite good at interviews.

A section of the company I work for have started sending actual work tasks across to interviewees and they bring their completed work to the panel and tell them what they considered, etc.

In the interviews I have been involved in, it’s basically testing your memory and whether you can think in your feet.

A colleague at work had to interview 3 times for the job she took over when her line manager left. She was appointment into the role on an ‘acting basis’.

Luckily staff turnover was pretty high. She’s actually one of the best at that level, if not the best.

im afraid that ‘team fit’ is a recipe for hiring someone like the people you already employ. Not very diverse or inclusive.

Candidates lie / exaggerate in their CVs all the time. You could probably weed out some of that by going through the CV and probing more deeply.

Perhaps they were looking for someone with creativity, who can think on their feet. And has the confidence to do so. 😊