One way video interview

Road-Hog

Has anyone out there ever done one of these......ie you are given competencies to talk about into a camera for a set time period and are recorded and shortlisting is based on how well you perform in the video recording....?

The public appointments service have recently started to use this technique recently as a way of weeding out the ‘dorks/geeks/nerds’, if you successfully navigate the video/acting phase next up is the psychometric test, then your application form is used to shortlist and finally you get to the traditional interview of which there is a preliminary one followed by a second.....so in all it’s a 5 stage process.....

Richard571

I’ve used this as a hiring manager - I found it very useful as you get a better insight than just a CV to shortlist people.

As you stated this was great to identify candidates who were a good match on paper but could not articulate themselves well or had other issues. Typically we would shortlist only 3-5 for an actual f2f interview.

It’s amazing how people react - those who came across best were natural and honest not just had the best technical answer.

Batgurl

I’m sure it’s a great way for employers to automate the hiring process but the ironic thing is that it will ostracise and prevent many of the best candidates from continuing their application.

If a company isn’t willing to invest in meeting and selecting the right candidates face to face, then where else are they cutting back?

I know a number of highly qualified candidates who ended an application process when this method was suggested.

AlphabetCards

These video interviews are awful. It is almost like hirinf managers want some sort of non-personable automaton, who can practice and recite clearly a pre-set series of answers. I hate them, and I will continue to avoid going for jobs that employ these systems.

skallywag

Batgurl wrote: »

I know a number of highly qualified candidates who ended an application process when this method was suggested.

Strongly agree.

BMHOPE

They are being used a lot now, they were used for recent Revenue Assistant Principal Comp, the turnaround time was only a few days, very difficult alright but definitely gets an impression of how people respond to pressure..... Because the perspiring was serious... You can practice before hand but only one go at the live performance... A colleague gave me the advice of taping myself on the video app a few times the weekend before so that you are not talking too fast, looking at the camera and taking a breath when needed to. .. And also that you had enough and not too much to say in the time limit. A lot of pressure and I did look a bit cross eyed but that could not be helped as you are looking at no one only a camera.

BrokenArrows

I like the idea to an extent, but it totally depends on the type of job that is being advertised.

If you are looking for the type of person who needs to be able to give presentations, articulate their thoughts to an audience etc then its a good idea.

If you are hiring software engineer to do some grunt work coding then its probably a terrible idea.

NiallArmstrong

I did one of these recently for a civil service position and I really didn't like doing it. I rehearsed the answers to my questions aloud over and over again until I was as comfortable as I could possibly have been under the circumstances.

Then when the video actually started, I was extremely nervous and I'd say the opening 20-30 seconds of my first answer was horrendous. I never ever want to see it played back.

But then I got into it, and the fact that I'd rehearsed my answers so much meant I was able to rely on memory to get me through.

I was invited to the next stage so I must have done Ok. I suppose it's because I got to the next round that I'm relatively positive about the process now. It'd be a different story if I hadn't got through!

So I totally understand the reservations about it. It's really not pleasant. But it probably does give an insight into the person...insofar as any recruitment screening technique does.

dreamers75

its just lazy HR tbh

Pablo_Flox

It would be a hard pass for me (and I suspect a lot more!). It shows a lack of respect towards a candidate and their time.

Not to mention it doesn't save any time for the company, someone still needs to sit down and watch through all the video interviews!

Mrs OBumble

Pablo_Flox wrote: »

It would be a hard pass for me (and I suspect a lot more!). It shows a lack of respect towards a candidate and their time.

Not to mention it doesn't save any time for the company, someone still needs to sit down and watch through all the video interviews!

Can save candidates a lot of wasted travel time though: only ones with a real chance at the job get called to a real interview.

Batgurl

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Can save candidates a lot of wasted travel time though: only ones with a real chance at the job get called to a real interview.

Employers can do a video call. This at least shows a respect for the candidate while respecting potential travel issues.

Pablo_Flox

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Can save candidates a lot of wasted travel time though: only ones with a real chance at the job get called to a real interview.

Not when they are firing them out to every applicant.

Augme

I think they are a good idea. I think they will work better at filtering people then doing a strict shortlisting by application process.

LirW

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Can save candidates a lot of wasted travel time though: only ones with a real chance at the job get called to a real interview.

Disagree. I had an automated video interview in summer at a big multinational retailer. I was surprised I even passed the first round. I also passed the video interview and was called for a face 2 face and this was a disaster because the hiring manager told me an hour straight on why I'm not suited for this job. I wasn't given a single normal interview question. During this he mentioned he didn't see my video interview.
It really is just lazy HR, it would have been fine not inviting me, saving me travel, the hassle of preparing for it and the humiliation of sitting through this.

beauf

Its a great idea. It allows you to filter out companies with dire HR.

G-Man

Even for coder jobs, I can see this being relevant.. A lot of tech work is meetings, mostly one way presentations over skype.. There can be, 1, 10 or 50 of your peers listening in.. It can be more daunting as there as no audience feedback... Everyone on mute, then a savaging out of the black and a 100 ears listening to your idea being torn to shreds,..

Also two way video interviews can have voice and video glitches, such bad quality, whereas one way recorded less likely..

I suspect they are throwing this video at some sort of facial analysis too, god only knows what biases are built into that, which will be the subject of some employment tribunal down the road.. Ironically they may be doing this thinking they are eliminating human bias, to begin with, only to replace it with algorithmic bias.

Hiring methods is a fad fest too, everyone will be doing this in a short time and then it will be crapped on and we will be onto magic tricks or recorded following ikea instructions or whatever damn thing the hr boffints think up.. And all the time companies will be hiring the same amount of good and poor candidates that fail or surprise them in equal measure..

Once you you reach min. requirements, it should nearly be randomized..Particularly for civil service positions.

beauf

Saying you need to software to analyse candidates is another way of saying you're a terrible judge of people.

Maybe they should hire better people in HR.

If they say they find it hard to get good people, and they are relying on these sort of technologies. Perhaps it's the technology that the problem and not the people.

they are not using any type of facial analysis software for gods sake will ye have a word with yerselves.

its just pas being pas, doing whatever some 22 year old arts grad working as a consultant for one of the big 4 read in cosmo.