It is undeniable that most companies rely on interviews for hiring new employees, but some people believe that this dependence on interviews is wrong and other alternatives should be preferred as they are better. I believe that interviews are a reliable method, and the other methods cannot be considered more effective.
There are many reasons why interviews are suitable for hiring new employees. Firstly, by the interview the recruiters can get an idea about the personality and social skills of the potential employees. In interviews, there is face-to-face interaction, and the candidates have to answer impromptu questions, from which personality traits can be judged. Also, by asking some case study type questions, employees can judge traits like ability to handle pressure, confidence and ability to think outside the box.
In addition, although there are many other methods for hiring, none of them could be considered superior to interviews. One of other common methods is the written test, which is good to judge the theoretical knowledge of the person. However, this method cannot give a good idea about the personality of the candidate. By contrast, through interviews, employers can judge both the knowledge and temperament of the potential employee. Moreover, the written test is fallible to cheating as sometimes candidates can take outsidé help.
Another selection process is group discussion, which is good where a major job requirement is conversational and persuasion skills, such as in sales jobs. They are really not suited for technical jobs because these are not customer oriented. On the other hand, interviews hold good for any type of job as the interviewer can frame questions to test the particular skills they require.
To conclude, I would like to reiterate that preference for interview for hiring among employers is justified as interviews have advantages over other commonly adopted methods.