|
back to the index page
Who Should Interview
Who?
This question would seem to have a simple answer. Employers with a need should
interview! That's who. imple enough! We are continually amazed at how complicated
and down right wasteful of time and energy interviewing can be. Interviewing
candidates should be a simple process of an employer in need of an employee,
recruiting, interviewing and hiring a qualified candidate. The process often
becomes more important than the result of hiring the best candidate for the job.
The Progress Gets Complicated
So often the interviewing process becomes a marathon of meetings for the
candidate. He meets with distant, rather disinterested people who end up
having a vote or say in who gets the chance to perform in a job function
that has nothing to do with them. The interviewing process becomes a popularity
contest rather than an endeavor to hire the most qualified person. The more
people involved in the process, the more likely a safe candidate will be hired.
These successful candidates most often are hired on their ability to survive the
interviewing process rather than on their ability to function and contribute to
the work endeavor. The major reason for this is that most people have a tendency
to be "nay" sayers anyhow. Most people don't like to risk being held accountable
for voting for a candidate who, after becoming an employee fails. There is no risk
in saying no. There is a risk in hiring a candidate. People who will not directly
participate in the reward of the risk, i.e., performance of the candidate, should
not be involved in the interviewing process. It is just too easy for those distant
parties to say "no." The result of marathon interviewing is usually a safe
relatively neutral employee who has a tendency to be more average than anything
else. As a result you may end up with a good politician who offends no one but
accomplishes very little in his work function.
Now there is nothing wrong with more than just the hiring manager
interviewing candidates. But the problem comes when too many people
get involved in the process. The idea is that if lots of people within
the company interview the candidate they will less likely make a mistake.
This is simply not true. Statistics show that complicated interviewing
processes does not improve the success pattern or retention rate of
qualified candidates. In fact, an interviewing process of more than two
interviews above the hiring level will most likely eliminate
qualified candidates... "too many chefs..."
The higher the position within a firm, the more people have a tendency
to be involved. We have seen companies do everything from teams of consulting
psychologists to hiring committees who vote on a group of finalists. The
absurdities defy logical and good business sense.
The Rule of Thumb
The rule of thumb should be that managers who have the need should be doing
the interviewing, even the initial interviewing. We know you would like someone
else, especially the personnel office to do this, but it just doesn't work well
that way. The personnel office is often just too far away from the hurt and need
of the hiring manager to be effective. The reason is simply that in most
companies, the personnel office has the responsibility of screening people
out. Unless internal recruiters or personnel offices are constantly interviewing
for certain positions, they normally will tend to find the "safest" candidates
rather than the best ones.
Keep It Simple
Keeping the interviewing simple is the key to the process. Involving people
from other departments in a hiring decision is not only a waste of time, but
will hinder the process of finding the best candidate.
The level of the job and the type of position will dictate who should be
involved in the process. Controllers or personnel professionals shouldn't be
interviewing sales people, etc.
Who should interview? The people in a company that have the need. Short, simple
fact. Keep it simple. What works best is limiting those involved to those that
have the direct need.
back to the index page
|