Mass group interviews for retail jobs

[Toastytoad]

Can anyone help me understand the current lean towards mass group interviews? DD is 19, has had one retail job that she stayed in for 2 years. She left when she moved to uni but is now looking for another PT job as she’s realised the difference between the life style she wants and the life style she can afford. We thought this would be easy as she has experience, reputable high street store, worked there for a good chunk of time and good references, but every interview is 30-60 interviewees. What is this about? How do you navigate these interviews? I recruit fairly frequently at work (not retail so maybe that’s the difference) and can’t imagine how you spot someone in that situation? I appreciate the job market is rubbish for most young people looking for jobs just now but any advice?

I don’t care if it isn’t new. It is not a good way to recruit people.
If an organisation gets too many applicants the job criteria are often too scant or not thought through very well.
I suspect it enables employers to hide discrimination.
It is an expensive way to recruit for both company and applicant.
It absolves any manager from the responsibility of choosing.

I'm not sure I follow your logic - why does it absolve any manager from responsibility and how is it more expensive than doing 1-1 interviews?

You don't get hired directly from the group process - you turn up to the "mass" interview and from there, a group of managers will decide who goes through to the stage of 1-1 interviews.

It's just a way of filtering out applicants, in the same way online questionnaires filter out applicants - it's just this way, everyone gets the chance to show their skills in person.

Group decisions would have to be very well recorded to show how decisions were made against what criteria, which I wonder if the applicants ever see, for selection. I doubt that happens or not properly enough.
Given they might get selected for posts not even in existence but the company likes the look of them, then no in those cases.
The larger the group of managers the less responsibility on each for decisions taken.
And a group of managers are unlikely to always be peers and entirely equals in terms of seniority and favour within the firm. So one or two peoples views will hold more sway than others.
The expense comes in taking out a group of managers for a series of group tasks. Before any interview. And expense for the applicants too.
I find the whole thing distasteful and demeaning. I also find it lazy on part of the company. Who cannot bother to fashion vacancies adequately to reflect precisely what skills they want. Just a general call out.

Do yo really need to ask?

• First of all that employer did not inform me that this would be a group interview. That was disrespectful because I was not given the chance to decline and avoid wasting my time attending their group nonsense
• I spent time and energy filling in their application form and preparing for a one to one interview and it was disrespectful of them not to play their part.

It is a just really silly process all around and a sure way to put off decent candidates who have other options.

I am a manager and if you can't assess CVs correctly, draw a manageable shortlist and conduct proper interviews then you should not be involved in recruitment.

'Quickest' and 'easiest' is just laziness and won't result in you hiring the best possible candidates.

I recal going to an interview just like this is in 1999 when I was student, it was at the Disney store and it was the first and last time I attended an interview like that. Like you said it's hard to get noticed in that sort of setting and I'm actually quite assertive and confident. My DD is a student and applying for jobs left right and centre and isn't even getting any interviews which is awful, I have no idea how young people are meant to get along on the job market when there seems to be so few positions available

I used to work for a company about ten years ago that did a version of this for retail/customer service roles.

The logic was that judging by CVs, applications and interviews was good at identifying who was good at writing an application out telling an interview panel what we wanted to hear, but it wasn’t a very good indicator of how they would be working as part of a team and thinking on their feet in the way you need to be good at when interacting with the public.

It also cut down on a lot of recurring admin, as we’d essentially invite the majority of people who met the agreed standard, instead of the best 6 applications.

The interview basically started when you arrived, as people were observing how you interacted with people, whether you took the initiative on group activities, whether you talked over everyone else or whether you contributed very little. We paired a group logic activity with a one on one interview and smaller group activity where they had to sell us something. Sometimes the interview took place after the other activities so if your daughter is sitting in a corner quietly she wouldn’t make it to that part.

I still cringe when I remember one middle aged man who, when presented with a logic activity, announced to the whole group there was no answer, crossed his arms, smiled smugly at me and sat back in his chair.

I’m sure she can do better than that guy…

How much is it costing companies to run these time consuming assessments needing many members of staff to facilitate? I just don’t believe they get the best candidates this way. A good interviewer can gauge a person’s suitability for a job in a normal interview setting.