The Washington Post recently published a blog that suggests there is no evidence that interviewing job applicants prompt better hiring decisions.
My own 143 years of experience in the recruitment industry (that's dog years by the way) has brought me to a place where I find myself agreeing with this premise.
I’ve seen too many candidates who have almost totally matched the brief I’ve been working to, not get the job. Sometime I’ve even squirmed with embarrassment for the Line Manager when listening to their attempted rationale for hiring someone, when all they really wanted to say was “I've just got a hunch about this candidate".
So what do we do about recruitment selection to make it fairer for everybody concerned?
This is a tough one and I’m sure it’s a question that the Recruitment Futurologists (the planets true “failed recruiters”) will dissect to death over the coming months.
So, putting on my borrowed recruitment futurology hat, I pondered this same question for what felt like a lifetime, but was in fact only 7½ minutes.
You put all of the shortlisted candidate’s names into a hat (or a big drum if it's a big shortlist) and basically do a prize draw. First name drawn gets the job, second name gets the job in case of a counter offer and the 3rd name gets an M&S voucher for 25 quid.
You could turn it into a bit of an event, get a few beers and nuts in and maybe Youtube it as the theme for a new employer branding video.
OK but seriously, what difference would it make to British industry if companies selected candidates this way? Would work performance really suffer some seismic shift downwards?
Think of all the management time could be saved not having to interview people to fill jobs, not to mention the reduction in stress.
No doubt some Big Data nerd will come along soon and tell me that this is the future. No wait, that’s what the Futurologists guys do, right?
Seriously, run with the Tombola idea for a while.