Is the traditional interview outdated?
The concept of a formal job interview originated in 1920s America – another of Thomas Edison's bright ideas. Legend has it, Edison would get hundreds of applicants whenever he was looking to add to his workforce. However, he became increasingly frustrated that the people he met lacked knowledge comparable to his own.
To separate the wheat from the chaff, he created a test to evaluate candidates’ intelligence. Some questions related directly to the position, while others were more esoteric and related to topics such as world geography or literature.
It’s believed the test was so difficult, only 7% of applicants passed.
On hearing of Edison’s innovative recruitment method, other employers started devising tests of their own.
Over time, the winnowing process of applicants evolved into the recruitment process we have today.
Is the traditional job interview still relevant?
It could be argued that what worked in the 1920s is no longer relevant. After all, the five-day work week also began in 1920s America, but many organisations are re-evaluating this, (as evidenced by the success of the world’s largest four day working week trial). The in-office situ has also been given a makeover, with 84% of UK businesses considering some form of flexible working.
Isn’t it time we subjected the traditional job interview to the same scrutiny?
In this post, we’re going to do just that.
Let’s dive in.
The traditional interview typically involves an interviewer (or panel of interviewers), an interviewee, and a series of questions and answers.
The method is popular as it’s straightforward, gives you a chance to build rapport, and in most cases, it gets the job done in terms of figuring out whether a candidate knows their stuff.
However, the process is not without its flaws:
It’s prone to bias
Research has shown that we form opinions of people in just 7 seconds. This is due to a phenomenon known as unconscious bias.
Unconscious biases are learned stereotypes that are automatic, unintentional, and deeply ingrained. We all have them. They’re influenced by our background, personal experiences, societal stereotypes, and cultural context.
In an interview scenario, a hiring manager may fall into the trap of affinity bias and unintentionally favour candidates who are similar to their existing team members or themselves; or intuition bias, where they’ll rely on their “gut feeling” rather than the interviewee’s qualifications or experience.
These biases can skew judgement and lead to ineffective hiring decisions.
They questions are predictable
Type "common interview questions" into a search engine and you'll get a plethora of articles with suggested answers. This is because interviewers tend to ask the same questions, which turns the interview into an unenlightening exchange of tired questions and rehearsed responses.
They don’t assess candidate’s ability to do the job
Interviews reward charisma, confidence, and the ability to perform under pressure. While these aren’t bad qualities, they don’t represent the skills and aptitudes that will determine success in the role – people management for example, or strategic problem solving. Yes, there will be questions that address these competencies, but you want evidence that goes beyond their ability to tell a story about how good they are.
What’s the alternative?
Award-winning psychologist Ron Friedman argues that we should replace live, in-person interviews with job auditions.
It makes sense. Musicians have to audition. Actors have to audition. The people employing them don't sit down and dart scripted questions their way. They want to see them play, sing, perform. Doesn't it make sense to assess candidates in the same way?
Job auditions can take various forms. Some organisations supply candidates with case studies, which they’re required to present. Others will hold an event and trial multiple candidates in one location.
The most common auditions require candidates to spend anything from a few hours to a full day in the workplace, carrying out duties associated with the role.
Note: If you’re asking candidates to contribute to live projects alongside your team, you need to pay them for their time. No one should be expected to act as an unpaid consultant during the recruitment process.
The benefits of job auditions
They test job-related skills rather than interview skills.
As you’re assessing candidates on their ability to complete a task rather than their experience, education credentials or former employers – thus reducing bias.
A candidate might say they’re a team player, but are they a fit for your team? A job audition allows you to put candidates in the mix with their would-be colleagues and see the dynamic.
They give candidates the opportunity to find out if they like the type of work they’ll be doing and the people they’ll be working with.
Final word
While traditional interviews aren’t going away anytime soon, job auditions are becoming increasingly popular. According to LinkedIn research, 54% of recruiters see auditions as one of the “most useful interviewing innovations”.
Why not give them a go and see if they work for you? If you want some help, give us a call for an informal chat on 020 3750 3111.