| To be honest, this is arrogance on the employers part to the absolute extreme. Interviews are two-way streets. When I interview, I am as much interviewing the company, if not more than they are interviewing me. With the shoe on the other foot, how about candidates vet employers for suitable work environments, measuring them on things such as provision of ergonomic workspaces, quality of perks promised, finesse and speed of HR practices (do they pay on time, is just the tip of the iceberg there), acumen of core founders (it sucks when you start a job and realize the founders are actually utterly incompetent), etc. This isn't a workable practise in either direction. Also, if you cannot ascertain if the candidate is able to perform the job function through a simple conversation then either A) the employee representing the company isn't qualified to make the assessment, or B) the role specification isn't clear to the company. I'll accept that mis-hires happen, again, in both directions, but this is age-old and won't be solved by this one-sided approach. We're talking about human beings, who need to work for food. When we cut away all the stuff about 'roles' and 'careers' and 'value', what we're really talking about is a human paying another human to do a job. And that's fine, as long as we don't pretend it's something it isn't. |