It is argued that interviews are not always a reliable method of selecting suitable employees and that other methods may be more effective. I completely agree with this view because interviews may not accurately reflect a candidate’s actual abilities and practical assessments can provide a better evaluation of their skills.
One major reason why I agree with this view is that interviews may not accurately reflect a candidate’s actual abilities. This is because some highly skilled applicants may become nervous during an interview and fail to express themselves confidently. As a result, employers may reject qualified candidates who could perform well in the actual workplace.For example, a software engineer may have excellent technical knowledge but struggle to answer questions confidently under pressure. Therefore, interviews alone may not always identify the most suitable candidate for a position.
Another important reason is that practical assessments can provide a more accurate evaluation of a candidate’s skills. In other words, employers can directly observe how well applicants perform tasks related to their future responsibilities. Consequently, companies can make better hiring decisions and select employees who have the required abilities. For instance, applicants for a programming position can be asked to complete a coding task before being offered the job. Thus, practical assessments can help companies select more suitable and capable employees.
In conclusion, considering the factors discussed above, I believe companies should use a combination of interviews and practical assessments in order to evaluate candidates’ abilities more accurately and select suitable employees.