One school of thought holds that interviews are not an optimal approach to find out the worthiness of the potential staff. While acknowledging the efficiency of job interviews, I am of the opinion that other methods should be considered in recruiting employees.
Admittedly, it is understandable why some advocate for interviewing. The key rationale is that question and answer sessions are fast, convenient, and feasible for almost every individual. This is because by conducting interviews, interviewers are given opportunities to test the depth of applicants’ knowledge and alertness, which is pertinent to their actual ability and behaviors, before accepting them. A prominent example can be seen in Google, where candidates are examined with given situations to show their problem-solving skills besides job-related questions. Still, this prominent corporation leads in technology with proficient workers.
However, this line of reasoning is flawed, since it is imperative to merely assess applicants by oral answers. This is exemplified by the well-preparation and worse still, dishonesty of them to bring about an optimistic first impression of employers, in turn increasing the acceptance rate. This would have an adverse impact on either comprehensive evaluation or the overall productivity of the corporations if they are employed, breeding resentment among qualified individuals.
Given the aforementioned points, it is my firm conviction that other ways of assessment would be more significant in the process of employing. Chief among these is to give job seekers a period of probation. Upon undergoing an interview, interviewees should be granted a practical working environment to demonstrate what they had said before when answering questions. Subsequently, employers can thoroughly evaluate the applicants’ professional competence as well as the interaction of them with other colleagues, which is also a prerequisite in the morale of establishments. This would yield all-round evaluation and hands-on experiences, contributing to the development of companies and applicants, respectively.
In conclusion, while there are justifications for the effectiveness of interviews, I would assert that other methods, such as probation, seem to bring about more significant outcomes.