It is widely suggested that interviews are not the best way for recruiters to examine the candidates’ suitability for specific positions. As far as I am concerned, even though it might be effective in numerous cases, it cannot be declared as the best due to several limitations.
To embark on, it is undeniable that interviewing is one emotional way by which recruiters can check the work ethics, attitudes and ideal positions of candidates more realistically, comparing to curriculum vitae rounds. However, it would be insufficient and time-wasting for companies and organizations who receive a massive amount of applicants daily. Especially for well-known international companies such as Meta or Google, it is almost impossible for human resources workers to manage hundreds of talks per day. More importantly, it is not only time-wasting but also poses a difficulty for the interviewers to take minutes of numerous information mentioned.
In addition, interviews are also a less effective way of judging working productivity, one of the most crucial factors in recruiting, comparing to probations. Usually, candidates tend to polish themselves into passionate, determined and hard-working employees in face-to-face talks even though they are unable to achieve such attitudes in the workplace. In lots of situations, capabilities and hard skills are even made up for acceptance. However, these circumstances can be eliminated with the intern weeks, where candidates cannot lie about their skills as in interviews.
In conclusion, despite various advantages of interviews, the way is quite time-consuming and recruiters possibly experience difficulties in taking notes and indicating false information. Therefore, I suggest that companies should combine different methods of examining in order to get the best use of each, resulting in trusted and suitable employees.