From our own experience during the last decade and beyond, we see companies taking polarising views on what they consider as a successful recruitment process and who should be involved in it. Too many companies are in too much of a rush and try to squeeze interviews into an already overcrowded diary and instead prioritising their day to day job requirements.
Recruiting at any level is a significant investment for your organisation and should be considered as you would any capital expenditure. Would you squeeze an hour into your diary to consider and select a £multi-million robot that will transform your business? No, then why would you invest such little time to assess and choose a new employee who could deliver a similar result?
This article provides evidence that recruitment decisions are more likely to be successful when multiple interviewers are involved and I wholeheartedly agree. Not only that but multiple stages including one in an informal environment is always what we recommend to our clients.
When it comes to multiple interviews for a prospective new hire is it a case of 'too many cooks spoil the broth or 'two heads are better than one'? Does an additional interviewer or two (or three) provide valuable insight or just muddy the waters? If you've ever wondered if putting job candidates in front of a wide range of interviewers was essential or just exhausting, a new post on Google's re:Work blog is required reading. It lays out the latest research on the subject and comes to a straightforward conclusion: "with more people, you are more likely to correctly identify the best person. Or, put another way, with more people you're less likely to accidentally pass over your best candidate."