by Ian Buchanan

Created on: January 15, 2009   Last Updated: December 28, 2010

Ultimately the purpose is to get the best person to fill the vacancy, and yes, the interview performance might be an indicator. The aim is, however, to select the most likely candidate to do the job, not necessarily the one who spins best for half an hour. Most recruiters understand that the interview process, regardless of how many there are, is only part of the evaluation among the candidates.

Naturally there will be different approaches to selection depending on the level of the job, the technical skill requirements, the environment the company operates in, to name a few of the myriad concerns taken into account, but the fact is that some extremely qualified candidates interview well and others don't. Some amazing people can design Space Stations but can hardly get two words out to describe how they approach major projects whereas other moderately skilled folk can dazzle with words, completely overshadowing their deficiencies. Anyone who's been a serious recruiter will have personal scars for placing too much emphasis on the interview. Of course there are jobs where oral skills are more important, but in the broader span companies need to see the meat through the fluff.

A thorough reference check needs to be done and raise flags when the inevitable discrepancies appear. Were there any reasons that encouraged the candidate to apply, other than that "you are the best company in the world to work for"? Are you interviewing a lone wolf or a team player? Has the candidate been prone to absenteeism or accidents? Are the qualifications presented trustworthy?

Professional recruiters understand that their recommendation might represent a significant investment in both money and resources over a number of years. It is difficult to underestimate the impact of misreading any aspect of a candidate's profile might have on a company.

There is no question that the interviews are important. They represent opportunities to delve closely into important facets of the job and to grasp how the candidate is wired, but they can also be turned into disasters by either side. Executives and functional managers are not paid for their interviewing skills, and often they'd rather go to the dentist than go through a list of candidates: too often they misinterpret what's actually unfolding, and they are very often at least as stressed as the interviewee.

Candidates have been known to say the most outrageous things in the heat of a bad interview and completely distorts what they actually bring to the table.

In some cases candidates may be asked to show examples of their work, or they may be asked to participate in a carefully designed case study. Prior arrangements can be made in some jobs, such as a chef, to prepare and deliver a sample of their craft. It is likely that some of these activities can be more significant than two people sitting in a room talking about theory.

Selecting a candidate based only on interview performance is not the most competent exercise and is not in the company's best interest.

Learn more about this author, Ian Buchanan.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.