Interviews form the basic selection criteria for most large companies. However, some people think that interview is not a reliable method of choosing whom to employ. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Interviews form the basic selection criteria for most large companies. However, some people think that interview is not a reliable method of choosing whom to employ. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
A school of thought holds that interviews are no longer reliable to assess applicants. However, in this essay, I will challenge this assertion.
One might argue that interviews cannot reflect one’s ability at work. This can be explained by the fact that interviewees can make up about credentials and exaggerate their achievements. This can give employers a false perception of the potential employee’s ability, which could lead to a poor decision in hiring new staff. However, this line of reasoning is not sound as before getting in talking stages, employers will have to examine candidates CV in order to verify their qualifications and achievements beforehand. Therefore, applicants would not be even accepted to be interviewed if they lied in their CV, let alone doing so during the interviews.
Another valid argument supporting my stance is that by having face-to-face interactions with candidates, employers can evaluate them more comprehensively by the way they talk, introduce, articulate, and market themselves to the companies, which might only be achievable by interviewing. Furthermore, interviews can also enable organizations to check the professionalism and seriousness of interviewees before becoming official members. This is because these attributes can be seen in their attires and punctuality when they arrive in person, which might not be effective to check via CV alone.
In conclusion, I agree with the notion that interview is credible in finding eligible individuals due to the fact that hirers can evaluate people more holistically, as well as can see the level of dedication to jobs.
