Many people believe that interviews are the most effective way to select suitable job candidates. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
Yes
This method can help assess the overall personality of the candidate due to its spontaneous nature
Inexpensive but effective method since help assess soft, as well as hard skills
No
It is not easy to evaluate the overall picture in a shot window and candidates might mislead
Some people despite having talent and skills, have a tendency to become nervous
Engaging in practical assessment, team work
As per a common belief interviewing job aspirants enjoy supremacy over other ways of assessing the eligibility of prospective candidates, but some challenge this notion and suggest that other techniques must be used to enhance the effectiveness of this system.
Inviting prospective personnel for a face-to-face, or online, meeting to screen their suitability has had a proven track record. This system has been used for long to shortlist appropriate workers at all organizational levels- from semi-skilled workshop helpers to highly accomplished CEOs- by virtue of it being spontaneous that renders it an ability to gauge soft and hard skills of the interviewees. For instance, as per the Linkedin report of 2025, ninety percent of employers in all industries and segments believe in conducting interviews since these can quickly provide requisite information about academic and professional qualifications, something even detailed resumes tend to miss out.
Similarly, this procedure enjoys popularity among organizations; it offers economy, in terms of time and money. Employment givers can circumvent lengthy exercise of examining applicants through costly cumbersome written tests. To exemplify, almost every airline across the world uses this method to even hire pilots because it helps make the required skills available at a short notice.
However, some eminent HR experts propose that despite being efficient, this technique many times tends to fails to delve deeper into the personal and professional persona of probable employee, and thus, it must be supplemented by psychometric tests, and technical assessments, to help ascertaining that applicants are worthy of being a part of the company.
To encapsulate, interviews have endured the test of time owing to their reliability in testing acumen instantly, economically, and speedily, nonetheless some more modern techniques should be integrated with these to augment/ boost veracity/accuracy to discover the required talent.
A majority deems interviews as the best method to evaluate job aspirants, while others cite various shortcomings in this procedure and prescribe additional measures. This essay shall delve deeper into both the perspectives and and share a justified conclusion.
Sapna:
There is an ongoing debate about whether interviews are the best way to select candidates, while some accept this, others believe that employers should also add other necessary filtration to this process. This essay will discuss both the perspectives and draw a justified conclusion.
Introduction 1:
Interviewing job aspirants is the traditional method of evaluating whether they perfectly fit into the designated job profile or not. I feel that even though this process has a great utility, its accuracy in shortlisting the right candidate can be enhanced by making it more versatile.
Introduction 2:
Traditionally, interviewing job aspirants has acted as an essential way of selecting them, but does it enjoy supremacy over other methods, is a matter that needs a critical analysis. In my view, although it is quite a dependable/ reliable process, its effectiveness can be enhanced by adding more evaluative techniques to it.
