I'm not a regular interviewer but I've been on a panel for a few recently. For one job in particular the standout candidate on paper gave the worst interview I have ever seen.
He was arrogant, confrontational, couldn't answer simple questions and was half an hour late - and not apologetic at all. He was just weirdly and inexplicably unpleasant to everyone.
Perhaps he would have been great in some role or would have aced a psychological test .. but I'm glad we did an interview so we could reject him out of hand.
I'm sure there is a place for widespread empirical evaluations .. but ultimately if you are employing someone to work with you there has to be space to say: "Err, No! - I don't care what the computer says".
Disclaimer: I work at a company that provides this type of service.
We are huge believers that this sort of testing is purely a pre-interview step. You get everyone to take it and you save hours and hours of digging through resumes. That's the big money saver.
Why do you think an empirical evaluation wouldn't have picked up on that?
It strikes me you could easily record the interview and run it past a machine looking for the tempo of the conversation, the tone of voice and so on - and see whether that correlated with employment a year later.
This may be a bit off topic but there really needs to be a hard line drawn on what information can be collected. The idea of recording an interview for the sake of empirical analysis is creepy as hell and I'm a bit worried anyone would think that is an appropriate thing to do.
Could you maybe explain your reasoning for that one?
I'd be for much stronger data controls, and that might rule something like that out just as collateral damage. Fair enough, it's not a very strong principle if you violate it the minute something you approve of comes along.
That said, I'm vastly more creeped out by the idea of someone collecting email addresses and looking up linkedin profiles for recruiting, or looking you up on facebook when you apply for a job, than I am with the idea of someone recording an interview. The latter is in a limited context, where you expect to be examined anyway. The former is an intrusion on your private life to one degree or another.
I'm not saying, by the way, that it's an acceptable thing to do behind someone's back - that would be extremely scummy.
I just don't really see the problem with running something past a computer. Would it make a difference to you if there was a typist there and you ran the transcript past the computer? Is it just the emotional ick of it being your voice they have on record?
Edit: Is it the possibility of mass data collection? I can see that being creepy with things like car number-plates because there the difference in speed and ability enables things like continual tracking of individuals day to day lives. But I'm not sure how that would be a concern here.
Sure, there are situations in which I believe there should be a certain expectation of privacy. Personal conversations like interviews are one of those situations. If I put something on facebook or linkedin I understand that there is a certain level of privacy I am giving up, it's a tradeoff many of us make for a service. Also, I have control over what I expose about myself on the internet, a recorded conversation that stays with an interviewer is not data I can control. If I have a one on one conversation with another individual or individual(s), I don't feel I should have to worry that what I'm saying is being recorded for analysis later on.
He was arrogant, confrontational, couldn't answer simple questions and was half an hour late - and not apologetic at all. He was just weirdly and inexplicably unpleasant to everyone.
Perhaps he would have been great in some role or would have aced a psychological test .. but I'm glad we did an interview so we could reject him out of hand.
I'm sure there is a place for widespread empirical evaluations .. but ultimately if you are employing someone to work with you there has to be space to say: "Err, No! - I don't care what the computer says".