Job interview formats

InsideInsurance

Naf wrote: »

I see the point. But what also happens is the interview also becomes almost completely impersonal; which surely defeats the object?

How does it defeat the purpose?

As someone else says, it is typically used in "production line" type environments even if it is the western modern day equiv like call centres. In these environments consistency is favoured much more highly than individuality and so why would you make the interview any different?

As per the example I gave, it also ensures that more senior management priorities are taken above those of the person that happens to be doing the interview. Likewise ensures the 10 people doing the 100 interviews are selecting on the same criteria otherwise its a matter of luck of which interviewer you happen to get.

Naf

InsideInsurance wrote: »

How does it defeat the purpose?.

An interview is about meeting someone & finding out about them. Reducing it to what would be equally (more?) effective as a written exam paper does neither.

I suppose I can see reasoning for working on a production line, maybe; but none of the jobs I've come across it for have been those kinds of jobs.

ArtoDeeto

Naf wrote: »

J
Surely an interview should draw from what they've seen on your CV/application and actually ask relevant questions about you.

Yes it should. Tell that to an employer, they can ask what they like (legally).

I don't understand what you are asking?

InsideInsurance

Naf wrote: »

An interview is about meeting someone & finding out about them. Reducing it to what would be equally (more?) effective as a written exam paper does neither.

The scorecards that I have seen do mark things beyond the set questions and also allow the interviewer to ask sub questions if the interviewee doesnt give a "complete" answer of their own accord.

Whilst some of this could be done in a written paper most is easier to do face to face. Plus given most business communication is going to be verbal in most cases then a verbal test of skills is more appropriate even if it is a set series of questions.

t0rt0ise

InsideInsurance wrote: »

The scorecards that I have seen do mark things beyond the set questions and also allow the interviewer to ask sub questions if the interviewee doesnt give a "complete" answer of their own accord.

Of course that's what they should do but the problem is that a lot don't. They just ask the question, write down your answer and move on. Oten the interviewer doesn't have the skill to do a proper interview. Sometimes I daresay they realise they are useless but often they think they are doing it the fairest way. There have always been dodgy interviewers but now it seems that the method taught goes against good interviewing and that's a problem.

Andy_L

Coraline wrote: »

The whole point of the interview, full stop, is to sort out IS THIS CANDIDATE SOMEONE WHO WE CAN WORK WITH AND WILL BE HAPPY WORKING WITH US!??!?!?

Isn't "Can this candidate do the job or are they blagging their CV" fairly important as well?

Westie22

Naf wrote: »

I'm still in the mindset of preparing for the "what's your biggest weakness" question, when I don't think I've been asked that in 8 years. Instead I'm having to try & anticipate which scenario they're likely to want to know about so I can "remember a time when..."

I hate those questions too! Even to sit and try and think of answers in advance is hard, some scenarios you just don't have an answer for.

Coraline

Andy_L wrote: »

Isn't "Can this candidate do the job or are they blagging their CV" fairly important as well?

Of course. That's what HR professionals Suss out in the interview, since they've already read the candidate's CV front-words and backwards, the interview is the chance to sort out if what they advertise themselves on paper matches the reality.

Naf

Andy_L wrote: »

Isn't "Can this candidate do the job or are they blagging their CV" fairly important as well?

But if they're blagging on their CV, a series of these set questions like an exam paper is easy to blag & lie through too. A good interview should ask more probing questions of a candidate to ascertain their real experience & skills; and a good interviewer hopefully would. But these set questions (especially when poorly thought out) have a tendency to restrict the questions that a good interviewer can annotate a response to; or allow sub-standard interviewers to carry out the interview, who will just stick to what they're given regardless.