Group Interviews - Survivor Style

I ran into an unemployed friend this weekend and asked how her job search was going. She told me she'd had a group interview last week, but wasn't sure how it went and her tone clearly indicated she did not like the process.

Group interviews are an excellent way to determine which candidate will best fit your team. I encourage my clients to involve other managers and staff people in the interview process and meet as a group with each top candidate. This was not what my friend experienced. Rather, 50 candidates were seated in an auditorium, introduced to the organization and the position and "interviewed" as a group.

Really.

We didn't have long to speak on Sunday, but here is what I know of my friend's experience:

The hiring manager was introduced and discussed the position and the company. I assume the process was described. Candidates were then assured that if they wanted to leave at this point, they could do so "with no hard feelings". (I would suspect also no chance at the job.)

Each candidate was asked to introduce him or her self, give a brief description of experience and job history and why he or she would do well in the job. I'm not sure if anyone was asked specific questions or what transpired then. I do know that the final act was to hand out forms for each candidate to verify their interest and contact information. Then, all candidates were again asked to state their name and each person was instructed to note on the form which person (other than themselves) they would recommend be hired.

This is wrong on so many levels that I don't know where to begin, so I'll just touch on the five most obvious issues.

1. A common ground rule in H. R. and recruiting is that one keeps the candidates' names and information as confidential as possible. Maine is a small state and most people don't want their employers to know they are looking. An "interview" such as the one described here totally breaches that confidentiality. It is conceivable - indeed likely - that a candidate may find he or she is openly competing with a co-worker, boss or subordinate, or business competitor; any of which can certainly create problems on the job or in the market.

2. Who is doing the screening for this company? That is the job of the Human Resources Manager or In-House Recruiter. If there is no internal H. R. staff, hiring managers should be instructed in a process that will work well for all parties and is fair for every position. Weeding through resumes and making choices are important tasks and while it can be daunting, it is not impossible. If you can't handle it, hire a consultant or seek a new career.

3. Can you imagine how much of each candidate's time this took? If all 50 spoke just for a minute each of the two times, you are requiring 50 candidates to attend a two or three hour meeting where they have limited opportunity to participate. Can we please assume that some of these people have jobs? That's a lot of time off work with little opportunity to make an impression.

4. The "Survivor" question that essentially voted candidates off the island has to be one of the most uncomfortable interview situations I can imagine. How can a candidate answer that truthfully?

5. Isn't hiring well the goal? How many of the best candidates will pull out because they do not want to be involved in this flawed process? If they assume that other management and H.R. decisions are also handled or miss-handled in a similar manner, then those candidates who withdraw and choose to leave the island may be those who are more confident, informed, and experienced. If that happens, the company clearly won't be able to hire the best available candidate. Not by a long shot.