Why are 1 on 1 job interviews no more?

[Drakescoffeecake]

I am in the process of switching jobs and have 4 upcoming interviews, all being conducted by a panel ranging from 2 to 6 people. Funnily enough my current employer has recently completed a whole review of their interview/induction structures and have decided to bring in a minimum of 3 staff members when conducting interviews - I am actually sitting in on three myself today. Why are one on one interviews being weeded out? I've found they're much more productive, especially when with panel intreviews there's usually just one person doing the talking, while the others just sit there and try to look intimidating. I mean 6 people!! Wtf?! Is there a need for that many??? And yes I am shitting myself

 

[Brown Bottle]

I suspect there are a couple of reasons. Businesses empowering their employees by exposing them to recruitment processes and making stakeholders feel as though their opinions matter would be my first (and perhaps a bit cynical) reason. The 2nd would be to ensure that there can never be an allegation of unfair process or "casting couch" approach from the interviewee. You don't want to be treated like a piece of meat do you?

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

There may be any numver of reasons. Only having one person in the decision process may lead to undesirable outcomes I guess. If a solo interviewer particularly likes or dislikes a particular interviewee they may be hired or not based on one particular personality trait or skill rather than a wider view of the best fit for the organisation. After all, in very few jobs wil you be dealing solely with the one task or one person the whole time.

And, yes, some deliberately do seem to do it to see how an interviewee responds to particular situations.
The worst I had was a long time ago, where a panel of five were behind a desk and slightly elevated, with the interviewee in a small chair in the middle of the room. That was deliberately done to intimidate, at an organisation which does get plenty of fired up, downright angry, clients.
I had another where there were two, and one guy was basically just staring out the window flipping his pen in the air periodically. That seemed to be a deliberate ploy as well, though for what reason I don't know.

It may even be a litigation prevention thing in some cases, in theory it should easier to claim you didn't get a job based on some individual prejudice than on a group of people all sharing that prejudice.

 

[calyam]

I suspect there are a couple of reasons. Businesses empowering their employees by exposing them to recruitment processes and making stakeholders feel as though their opinions matter would be my first (and perhaps a bit cynical) reason. The 2nd would be to ensure that there can never be an allegation of unfair process or "casting couch" approach from the interviewee. You don't want to be treated like a piece of meat do you?

Your second reason is almost certainly the actual reason why it is done, litigation prevention is a pretty big deal. I'm sure some do it for actual recruitment reasons but I suspect that it's mostly about avoiding trouble.

 

[Brown Bottle]

Your second reason is almost certainly the actual reason why it is done, litigation prevention is a pretty big deal. I'm sure some do it for actual recruitment reasons but I suspect that it's mostly about avoiding trouble.

Yep. I think #2 gives business the opportunity to "sell" #1 to its staff ("it's part of your development...")

 

[00Stinger]

In my experiance there are always 3-4 people in interviews when it comes to large organisations. Normally the panel is made up of one person from HR (they need to justify there salarioes somehow), a manager, a team leader and often the person whose role you are taking over from.

The idea is that with a bigger panel there is a minimal chance of prejudice or nepatism when it comes to the selection process. Just wait until you move up the ranks a bit and they start giving you pschicometric tests (excuse the spelling). They are a ball breaker and in most cases if you have smashed the interview becomes totally irrelevant if you don't do well on the test. I was speaking to a person who works at the company that produces the tests, he assures me that they estimate that 95% of the time the test picks out the best applicant. It also catches out the interviewee who can talk shit, but not back it up.

 

[LouisCK]

The other 5% of the time, a psychopath has taken the test. They' are meant to be exceptionally good at manipulating psychological testing. Which is why so many absolute nutcases end up in senior positions within society.

 

[vealesy]

Ive only ever had 1on1 interviews.

Maybe try for a smaller company?

 

[Partridge]

Ive only ever had 1on1 interviews.

Maybe try for a smaller company?

Yeah depends on the field you work in. My last job change didn't involve an interview, or invitation, or recruiters, or a resume. Just a couple of phone calls and it was all sorted out. Nice and seamless.