Interviews are widely used as the primary method for selecting candidates in large companies. While some argue that this method is unreliable, I believe interviews remain an effective way to assess key skills and compatibility, although they should ideally be combined with other evaluation methods.
One reason interviews are valuable is that they allow employers to assess communication skills, confidence, and personality traits that are difficult to judge on paper. These qualities are often crucial for client-facing or team-based roles. For example, during a sales position interview at a multinational company like IBM, candidates are judged not only on their answers but also on their ability to build rapport, which directly reflects their potential job performance. Such interactions can reveal a great deal about a person’s interpersonal effectiveness, something no resume or written test can fully capture.
However, interviews alone may not always identify the best candidate, especially for roles requiring technical or creative expertise. A person might perform well in an interview due to charm or confidence but lack the necessary hard skills. For instance, a software developer might impress in conversation but fail to complete a real-world coding task when tested, as seen in many hiring processes at companies like Google, which now combine interviews with technical assessments. This highlights the limitations of relying solely on interviews for selection.
In conclusion, while interviews provide valuable insights into a candidate’s soft skills and personality, they are not foolproof. To improve reliability, large companies should integrate interviews with other selection tools such as work samples, aptitude tests, or trial tasks. A more balanced approach ensures that both personal attributes and job-specific competencies are thoroughly evaluated.