Some people believe that interviews might not be a reliable way in the recruitment process on the grounds that other better methods exist. While other approaches like examinations may indicate the academic merits of applicants, I largely agree that the interview remains one of the most effective ways due to its flexibility.
One major reason for this is the chance to test applicants’ practical intelligence. Interview questions can be designed for various purposes, allowing employers to tap into applicants’ social skills. Companies that offer client-based services, such as consulting and law firms, therefore often rely on interviews to assess applicants’ emotional intelligence and attitude. Consequently, alongside CVs, interviewers can holistically evaluate the competence of candidates, promoting fair and effective assessment.
Another significant benefit of the interview is its flexibility. Unlike other methods like exams, the interview is not constrained to a rigid structure, enabling applicants to express their opinions freely. As a result, employers can notice the unique personality or views of candidates, which may not be assessed from a CV, while the latter can compensate for their disadvantages like low grades or graduation from non-reputable universities.
Admittedly, other approaches like examinations can express the academic merit of applicants. However, this aspect can be noticed from academic transcripts issued by educational institutions or by previous employers and might not offer the same level of opportunity to assess candidates fully. Compared to the long-term advantages of an interview, the effectiveness of other methods is relatively minor.
In conclusion, while other methods may offer better results in the recruiting process, the interview remains one of the most reliable approaches to evaluate candidates’ eligibility and competence.