3 ms·
Can't really call it an "interview", though, when there is only one participant. For what it's worth, I find that approach humiliating to the interviewee. It's
by haasted 8y ago
Can't really call it an "interview", though, when there is only one participant.
For what it's worth, I find that approach humiliating to the interviewee. It's a subtle way to tell him that they do not value his time as highly as their own.
- tomp 8y agoHuh? Do you also think that the bank "doesn't value your time as highly as their employees'" if they let you use banking services over a phone app? How about online courses, are teachers to be blamed for "not valuing students' time as much as their own"? Personally, I find this attitude against automation (where possible, reasonable and useful) to be almost Luddite-like. In addition, if you can automate the process, you might even be able to extend your candidate pool (i.e. interview a lot more people, and not rely on weakly-correlated-but-almost-arbitrary signals such as premium university name on the candidates' CVs, but instead select the actually good people).
- pmiller2 8y agoYour bank app example is a convenience for the customer. The video interview is just dehumanizing.
- throwawayaway12 8y agoI think it is more that candidates (especially well qualified ones) view the interview process as a two way street. The company is probing you for competence/fit for the position and the candidate is probing the company for things like culture fit.
- tomp 8y agoFair enough, but in general the candidate has a lot more information about the company (e.g. through the website, news, etc.) than the company about the candidate. But, yeah, it definitely depends on the supply/demand ratio; a company that's getting more applications than they need should take steps to optimize/automate the process. At least the initial steps - later rounds should definitely involve humans, in-person interviews, culture fit etc.