Do interviews really measure candidates� ability?

[Saliya Jinadasa]

I know a Java developer who managed to get a break through as an Architect in the investment banking without having any experience as an Architect. When I asked the person about how he managed to get it, his answer was, that he did some smooth talking and bluffed in the interview. So I was wondering how credible interviews are assessing the candidates.

Saliya

[Jason Cox]

Really depends on the interviewer and what kind of questions they ask.

I can actually buy something like this happening, especially if the interviewer had a non-technical background.

I doubt this would happen if they had interviewed someone who actually knew something about technology. It's awful hard to bluff your way past someone who actually understands the questions they're asking.

[Abhijit Kumar]

I agree with Jason.

Interview is a tool to evaluate a person whether s/he is suitable for the job or not. Now it depends upon the interviewer how well he uses the tool.

AK

[Rohit Nath]

Important thing is what happens after you get selected!??
Getting selected is just start of the story!
One can fool the interviewer but real challenge is to prove yourself at the job!? You just can't fool up and end up in the position of an architect...!
If so then God help this guy on his job...

[Deepak Bala]

The learning curve in such a case would be quite steep if the person in question can digest it. When you have a new architect like that it can be quite a risk to the company.

[Manish Hatwalne]

To the OP : good interviews should give good insight about candidate's ability!

[Jason Cox]

I pondered some more on this last night.

Too many places use interviews as the end-all, be-all of the selection process. Once the candidate gets in the door at some businesses they're in for good.

I personally favor businesses that use an iterative process for new hires. Most good employers I've worked at give six month reviews for new hires, most everyone else is only reviewed annually. Even for employers who don't want to go through the pain of firing an employee can still start giving disincentives to bad hires. Don't give raises, don't move them beyond junior, withhold some kind of reward they were supposed to receive if they perform well. Make it clear that they need to improve their performance. If they don't, then go ahead and release them after a year.

You can attempt to do contract-to-hire, unfortunately I think this shrinks your candidate pool. Anyone really competent is not going to want to do contract-to-hire. You might occassionally get that odd desperate person who is actually good and can't pass up the job, but for the most part your limiting your search. I am not bashing people who do contract-to-hire, they are not inherently bad. I will say that I have refused to talk to recruiters or consider jobs that were contract-to-hire. I don't need that position, so why would I enter into circumstances where if things go wrong (company is downsizing, poor management, etc.) I might be out of a job? Why would I give up benefits and security to go do the same thing?

Employers need to realize that a good interview does not mean you have a good candidate. Their resume might look good and they might interview well, and you might still have a real dog. Performance is key. I think in some cases employers don't want to admit they've hired a bad employee because it makes them look like they can't conduct an interview. The problem is that perspective assumes that an interview should be a perfect process.

[Jason Cox]

I pondered some more on this last night.

Too many places use interviews as the end-all, be-all of the selection process. Once the candidate gets in the door at some businesses they're in for good.

I personally favor businesses that use an iterative process for new hires. Most good employers I've worked at give six month reviews for new hires, most everyone else is only reviewed annually. Even for employers who don't want to go through the pain of firing an employee can still start giving disincentives to bad hires. Don't give raises, don't move them beyond junior, withhold some kind of reward they were supposed to receive if they perform well. Make it clear that they need to improve their performance. If they don't, then go ahead and release them after a year.

You can attempt to do contract-to-hire, unfortunately I think this shrinks your candidate pool. Anyone really competent is not going to want to do contract-to-hire. You might occassionally get that odd desperate person who is actually good and can't pass up the job, but for the most part your limiting your search. I am not bashing people who do contract-to-hire, they are not inherently bad. I will say that I have refused to talk to recruiters or consider jobs that were contract-to-hire. I don't need that position, so why would I enter into circumstances where if things go wrong (company is downsizing, poor management, etc.) I might be out of a job? Why would I give up benefits and security to go do the same thing?

Employers need to realize that a good interview does not mean you have a good candidate. Their resume might look good and they might interview well, and you might still have a real dog. Performance is key. I think in some cases employers don't want to admit they've hired a bad employee because it makes them look like they can't conduct an interview. The problem is that perspective assumes that an interview should be a perfect process.