Job interviews are (almost) useless

We have all gone through them. For job interviews. However, job interviews seem rather an imposture rather than an efficient way to hire staff. First, the contractor diverts the most negative parts of the contract. On the other, the interviewee extols his virtues and minimizes his defects (there are some CVs that, in fact, seem odes to exaggeration).

However, a job interview is still a common way to hire another person. The first impression (and usually the one with the most weight).

The psychologist Richard Nisbett He calls this psychological bias the "illusion of the interview": our certainty that in an interview we will notice more things than we really notice. But in reality it is something absurd: it is difficult to get an idea of ​​someone, much less their abilities, in half an hour.

As they point out Dan Heath Y Heath chip in his book Make up your mind, regarding the effectiveness of the interviews:

Research has found that interviews predict work performance less than work samples, knowledge tests and peer evaluation of previous work performance. Even a simple intelligence test presides considerably more than an interview.

In a study conducted by the psychologist Robyn Dawes The true value of the interviews was experimentally evaluated when, in 1979, the University of Texas Medical School organization interviewed the 800 brightest applicants and scored them on a scale of one to seven.

After making different screens, they selected the 350 brightest students. Then, unexpectedly, the university assembly asked the Faculty to accept 50 more students. As only the worst candidates were available, then, they had to admit the 50 worst, which had been among the last one hundred applicants.

Fortunately, at the Faculty of Medicine, nobody knew who was in the top hundred or last hundred, so fate had created a perfect horse race between good and bad candidates. Differences in performance? Any. Both groups graduated and took the same percentage of enrollments.