Interviews - fit for purpose?

A good friend of mine has just recently been interviewed for a job in the National Health Service. The interview was on a Thursday and she heard on the Friday morning that she had not got the job. She really wanted it and thought she had a good chance of getting it, as her particular skill-set matched exactly the person specification for the job. Needless to say she is very disappointed. She now knows who got the job - a person who has no experience of working in the NHS but had been head hunted for his ability to reduce the work force at his previous post.

My friend's disappointment started me thinking about interviews generally and their suitability as a way of finding the best people for jobs. On reflection, I don't know many people who perform well in interviews and it is a fact that I don't do well in them either.

 Another friend tells me that in his days as a union rep, he sat in on interviews to make sure that everything was carried out fairly. Nevertheless strange outcomes often occurred. Though the procedures were adhered to strictly during the interviews and marks made on paper to register what the interviewee has replied to each of the questions, he was frequently astonished when the results of the interview were known. He even went so far as to say that the candidate who seemed not to get many 'marks on paper' was often offered the post.

Naturally, this information shook my sense of trust in the interview system, momentarily, then it opened my eyes wide and I realised that of course this is what happens. Why had I been so trusting?  And SO foolish. If, as they say, the job is awarded to he/she who performed the best on the day, then why bother with looking at a person's experience and past work record? What nonsense! Were that the case, why  bother with an application form. It's my belief that the decision is made prior to the interview and not always because that particular person is the best one for the job. A host of other matters are at play. Will the person take orders or challenge them? Are they of a certain disposition which will be amenable, calm, or even carry out those duties which their superiors want to fob off onto them?

Interviews then are not always fair, but I'm really struggling to suggest a better way. Short of very time-consuming observations, which would prove very expensive too, I really am stuck. Back in the fifties and sixties, people would be promoted into higher positions as older people retired or were themselves promoted. Of course there are problems with this method. Just because someone has been in a job for a long time does not necessarily mean that they are good at it - I'm sure readers will be thinking of such individuals in their own work place. There seems to be, in all workplaces, everywhere, a ubiquitous manager who really should not be in the job, and we all know it.

 So, to return to such a system would no longer work and besides, people are much more mobile now and don't stay anywhere long enough for the waiting for others to  move up or retire to take place.

  If anyone would like to suggest a way, which would as near as possible, select the best person for the job, in a fair and transparent way, I would be more than happy to listen.