Verified by 
It is nearly impossible to obtain a job without going through an interview or succession of interviews. Very few employers would feel comfortable hiring without an interview, even for lower level positions. There is an unshakable belief that the interview tells us something important about the suitability of the candidate for any job. That is simply not true. Interviews only work if they are done right, and even then, they tell us little about a candidate's employability.
Former CEO of Sensormatic Electronics, Bob Vanourek, recently said, "the one-on-one job interview is the most expensive of hiring practices." What he was referring to was that the inaccuracy of judgments often made in the interview and the potential costs of a bad hire. Stephen Covey, who spoke to a group of leadership scholars in Claremont last year, said that it was critical for leaders to "get the hiring right."
As we emerge out of the recession and begin hiring in full force again, it is important to use best hiring practices, and that may mean tossing away the interview, or at least minimizing its importance in the hiring process.
Why are hiring interviews a problem? First and foremost, most interviews are done poorly. They are often unstructured, rambling conversations, when they should be serious attempts to gather information about the applicant's knowledge, skills, abilities, and other qualifications for the job. They should focus in more depth on the information already available in the applicant's resume, and explore other relevant areas.
Interviews and the questions asked should be structured and systematic. Think of the interview as a test, and you will realize the importance of asking the same questions of each applicant (for comparison purposes) and knowing beforehand what constitutes the "right" answer. AND, they should be appropriate questions that yield useful information (I'm often told by my students about the stupid questions interviewers ask them - "If you were a car, what kind of car would you be?" Give me a break! Why not just show them an inkblot?).
Even when you use best interviewing practices, there is the issue of flawed human judgment. We are simply not very good at judging other people, despite what we may believe (I've yet to encounter anyone who will admit that they aren't very good at interviewing and hiring people - most believe they are well above average). We are simply prone to systematic biases. For instance, making "snap judgments" - research shows that most interviewers have already made up their mind in the first few minutes of the interview (talk about the waste of time that those other 57 minutes represent!). We give far more weight to negative than positive information. We often value style over substance. And the list goes on.
So what to do? Interview if you must, but do it well. Put time into constructing the interview. Treat it like a good final exam. Know what information you are "testing" for beforehand. Consider panel interviews. Any one judgment is potentially flawed, more interviewers leads to greater reliability (but, of course, now we are seeing the costs rise!).
If a good interview is a test, why not then use appropriate employment tests? Explore simulations such as assessment centers, costly upfront, but when taking into account the time required to do interviewing right, and the costs of a bad hire, these may be relatively inexpensive and more accurate.
