This article is absolutely correct that interviews should not be seen as a test for candidates. Any recruitment process today should be full of information, be very engaging and should prepare both the candidate and the employer for success. As a minimum, it should be so open and transparent that all relevant information is offered by both parties for them to make an informed decision.
Despite all the data and information available on the power of a great candidate experience and the critical importance of an exceptional employer brand, I still hear far too many stories of poor recruitment practices. Recruitment is still viewed as a distraction and not enough time or effort is invested in making it a stimulating and enjoyable experience that truly assesses whether it is the right opportunity for both parties to take forward.
There is still far too much "gut feel" at play. Unplanned and very slow recruitment processes only serve to convince outstanding candidates to dis-engage and join your main competitor instead.
Why has the interview experience been set up to be like a pop quiz for the candidate with no real idea of how or why certain questions are important? We complain that we are frustrated with new hire turnover, productivity, or engagement and yet we haven’t looked critically at the root cause: the interview and selection process. In today’s candidate-driven market where employer branding and employee experience are the new norm, there is an opportunity to re-vamp your interview and selection process to improve retention, engagement, and time to productivity.