Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
Fast Company | Business + Innovation: Imagine a job interview with no interviewer—it’s just you, a computer, and a webcam, getting to know each other. Sound a little too futuristic to be true?
Well, for some companies, the future is here.
21 comments:
tahirah agbamuche
said...
This is another really cool interview related article. It is amazing how fast technology is advancing, and how that is affecting the work place. Personally, I really like the idea of these new interviews. It also allows the interviewee to showcase his or her best self, given multiple attempts. Tech malfunctions aside, I agree that this method will be more effective in reaching wider audiences. What I'm concerned about, is the fact that the interviewee will have no insight into how the company itself functions, or meet a representative. For me, this is a very important element of an interview, because it is the company choosing you, as well as you choosing the company in turn.
Wow, that actually sounds awful. Having a computer judge my performance is not really something I want. After reading this article I really have an understanding where big name corporations are going as far as recruitment, and I can't say I blame them. These companies get thousands of applicants a year and it is simply too difficult to narrow them down with one on one interviews. I wonder if the companies have seen a decrease in interest with this new method of recruitment. I can see a lot of college students being turned away by the fact they are having a discussion with a computer screen. Aside from the fact that this takes out all personal relations between the interviewer and interviewee the idea of getting to “take two” is very nice. I find that there are so many times where I just wish I could have a redo but if you are in discussion with a recruiter they certainly aren't going to look to kindly on completely starting over. A computer, on the other hand, will forget all about your first time and only send the second off to be reviewed. At the end of the day, this method of recruiting is going to become more popular and it is just something we will have to get used to, or better yet I'll already have a job by that point.
I would really hate to do a recorded interview not just because it’s just you recording yourself which means you're going to watch it over and over making sure it is perfect and obsess over every word, which is exhausting and not the point of the interview. The point of an interview is to show the real you, how you talk, act and react under pressure. You're not supposed to be your absolute pristine self because that is never what you are when you actually are in a job. Also, interviews go both ways. It’s never simply just the company getting to know you, it is you getting to know the company- do you like the person you are interviewing with, do you like the company, can you see yourself there as much as you want the interviewer to see you there. It has to be both ways. With simply a video interview, it gives you no way to ask questions back of the employer, showing how much you care and did research and it gives you no way to make a personal connection to the employer which is so critical in making an impression and being remembered.
I actually recently received a video interview screen with Thomson Reuters. I kind of wish I had gone through with it now to experience it. I actually think I disagree with the do-over idea. The point of an interview is that you generally don’t see the questions beforehand and have to adapt on the spot. Thus, the employer gets to see your thought process from a genuine standpoint. Having a second chance takes all of this away since it makes it so the interviewee can look at the question, think a bit, and restructure his or her reply to cater towards a “better” stream of thoughts when, in reality, those thoughts are now fabricated and no longer natural. I also definitely appreciate the intimacy of a phone or an in-person interview. It is easier for me to laugh or make jokes or generally be myself because I have a gauge of the stance of the person I am talking to (based on his or her reactions to my quirks). As “futuristic” as this interview tactic may be, I think it will generally hurt society because it will not be able to draw out cheerful/friendly personalities as well as our current interview systems do.
In the grand scheme of things this sounds like an innovative new technology that will allow companies to reach a wider variety of applicants, for example people who can’t afford to take time off of their current jobs to interview for a better position. But for me personally this sounds like a living nightmare. Interviews are already nerve wracking for me, but having the ability to rewatch my answers, knowing that I will have to send something to the company and choosing whether or not to redo it, or simply having to look at myself as I answer the questions, would make the level of how self conscious and uncomfortable I feel in interviews sky rocket. The one thing that always makes me feel better about interviews is once I’m in the room I have a real person to try and connect with and as long as I do my best and I feel like I’m having some kind of rapport with them, I can walk away knowing I did my best and that I left it on the floor. But even with a phone interview I don’t get the same sense of being able to walk away from the interview and distance myself afterwards, and I think the same would be true for these virtual interviews.
This interview format turned out to be much less futuristic than the title suggested. I was expecting it to talk about some interview software that somehow scores interviewers without a person ever seeing the interview, but there is a human on the other side of this interview, just not while you are talking. I understand the logic of having it, and I think if I ever had an interview like this (which I don’t really expect to) I probably just wouldn’t think of it as an interview as much as a recorded cover letter with a prompt. In an interview, I’m paying attention to the person who is interviewing me. I see how they are reacting to what I’m saying, and we can end up discussing something that wouldn’t necessarily come up in every interview. These video interviews aren’t that, but the fact you can start over/ craft your responses before you start recording makes it much more like a recorded written statement than the two way exchange that is an interview. However, aside from the starting over, most of this advice seems like pretty standard video interview advice. Look nice, make sure your room looks nice, make sure the lighting and camera angle is okay, and make sure the technology works. Also, I assume that this is essentially used as a preliminary interview to determine who the company wants to actually interview. I don’t think people would hire someone just based on a video like this.
While I can see how many people would be opposed to the fact that more and more interviews are taking place person to screen, I think that the article brings up some great points about why this change is beneficial and also gives some great advice for interviewing online that can be used in any interview situation. It is great that this method of interviewing skips the hassle of having to schedule and interview. I thought it was interesting how more people actually submitted their responses on weekends and after 5pm. It makes sense that people are using whatever free time they have to respond. The best advantage to this new method of interviewing however is the fact that you can start over if you don't feel your answer was good enough. Yes, its possible to get carried away and try to make each answer perfect, but I think that even that says something to the reviewer on your personality (whether that be good or bad). Overall, I think that this method provides a lot more freedom to both parties and creates a more efficient system .
I was seriously hoping that this was going to be an article talking about people interviewing with an artificial intelligence to get a job. I have done live video conferencing interviews before, but the concept of sending in a recorded interview is novel to me. I do not think that this would be my preferred way of interviewing for any job that I really wanted. Isnt the whole point of having an interview so that you can have a conversation with the people you might be working with, get to know them a little bit and see how you will interact? I suppose it is just my disadvantage that I would feel odd delivering a monologue to a camera as my response to the question, where do you see yourself in five years? I honestly think I would prefer an artificial intelligence deciding if a got a job or not over this system.
Oh man, recorded interviews. I honestly don't know if I would dread that more or less than a standard live interview. I one hand it is kind of cool that you could have multiple takes and take as much time as you need to get over your anxiety (if you have any, like I do). On the other hand, in the interviews I have done, talking with the interviewer and bouncing off them is part of the repertoire of the meeting. I really don't know if I could come off as half as personable and jovial (and I those things regardless?) if I was just talking to a pre-recorded prompt, as opposed to an interviewer. I also wonder if this interviewing technique will really come to entertainment companies, since there are likely less candidates than for companies such as Goldman Sachs. I'm with Chris, I think I would rather have an Artificial Intelligence computer talk to me as opposed to talking to a recording. That is the real "Not with a human interview" of the future!
I am hugely not a fan of this type of interview. while i understand the evolution of technology will have ramifications in the evolution of interviews, it takes many aspects of the interview process and dilutes them. For me personally a large part of the interview process is the human connection, where i can hopefully get a feel of what the company/college/etc. is like. I also feel like i come off as a better, more desirable employee in person. While having multiple tries to be the best you can be is ideally nice, i think it also isn't true to who you are as a person.
Okay, no. I had to do three interviews for Universal Studios Hollywood last spring. I had an informational phone interview with HR, then the one-way recorded interview in the format described here, and a Skype interview with the Director of the department and the direct supervisor for my project. I can say with full confidence that the most uncomfortable of these interviews (or any interview ever, really) was the recorded interview. I did everything you are supposed to do in this situation. I propped up my computer on a bunch of textbooks, I made the room behind me look nice, I looked professional (from the waist up), and I tested the lighting beforehand. But no amount of preparation can make speaking to an invisible person more comfortable. I wanted to show my personality and my passion, but my audience was a computer screen. I could only smile like an idiot at myself and answer as clearly and concisely as possible, because unlike the ideal situation the article describes, no you do not get to watch it over again or re-record it. This form of interviewing has all the cons of in-person interviews and none of the pros (having an actual person to speak with, creating a conversational environment, being able to show your personality and deviate from the standard answers, etc.). Obviously this is a great tool for employers since they don't have to schedule so many interviews, and they can simply share the link between departments if others are interested in the candidate, but as an interviewee it was a very nerve-wracking, uncomfortable experience. I have expressed this to the HR team at Universal, so hopefully they will consider discontinuing it, but as it is such an advantage for the employer I highly doubt it.
Moral of the story: beware the recorded video interview. Be prepared. Understand that you will never come across extremely poised or impressive in this format. Let it go. And don't forget to smile.
I can see how having this interviewing method can save the hassle of having to schedule every single interview. Recorded answers can also help recruiters to better analyze applicants qualification and personalities because they don't need to worry about taking notes while missing anything from a sentence to slight facial expressions or gestures. However, personally, I really think interviewing is one of the human connections that technology shouldn't take away. It sounds so sarcastic when the guy said "We want to see enthusiasm in your eyes and a real passion for the work you’re interested in". How can you expect to see people's enthusiasm in their eyes when they are not even seeing a live human and having a real conversation!!? Besides, like one of the previous comments goes, part of the point of having an on-site interview is having real back and forth, and unplanned follow-up questions to not only engage interviewees but also to see how they react on the spot. .
I think this method is awesome for people and companies that need to weed through extremely large amounts of people for very few sought-after positions, but I do think that it isn't necessarily right for all companies, especially smaller ones, and like any new system, will have it's flaws. Being able to easily and efficiently eliminate candidates that are blatantly wrong for a position will be a much-needed and extremely time-saving measure for many, but it is inevitably susceptible to error, both human and machine. Id o think the point that checking for technological issues is a good on in terms on how to deal with this type of interview, but not everything is predictable, and a tech fail could make a candidate look unprepared when in reality their neighbor borrowed something without asking and broke it a little. I think having the humans on the other end of this is good, allowing actual people to interpret responses, and the option to redo answers I think would help a lot of people, especially those who may be a bit nervous, advocate for themselves more effectively.
I think this is a very interesting concept. And specifically as it relates to theatre, we are beginning to see more and more of a transition into the digital age. Some programs are already accepting performance auditions that are pre-recorded or over voice chat programs, such as Skype. Just this last year, several colleges also offered a voice and video interview as opposed to an in-person interview. Moreover, portfolios are now being submitted digitally instead of simply reviewed in person. One thing that this is beginning to show is that as a University, and as a community of artists, the necessity to have technological skills to create a digital portfolio or have experience with video chat communications for interviews is more and more prevalent today.
This is a very intriguing article, as it is highly applicable to my own life. I had never really thought about it, but I am seeing the use of preliminary video interviews more and more. Beyond job interviews, this was present when I was applying to colleges as well. More and more, colleges are asking for video interviews as part of the application process. This makes sense, as the particular points out, so that more applicants can be reached. This is becoming a habit in the process of applying to performance schools. A lot more schools are asking for filmed monologues and songs as a first screening for the college audition process. The difference with that and job interviews seems to be that filmed performances can be edited. The article made it sound as though the filmed job interviews happened on a program that timed the filming and prevented editing. For college auditions, you could just upload an edited film file. I wonder what it would be like for college auditions if they could not be edited. It may give a more candid look into a person's performance.
Hmmmmm...... I like this idea a lot, but it comes along with some skepticism on my part. I think that this is a really wonderful idea and will give people the opportunity to interview regardless of where they live-- the accessibility part of this idea is wonderful. However, if you have a really mediocre camera and no understanding of what good lighting means (but still have amazing things to say), I really doubt that factor wouldn't impact the employers decision. Presentation is a big part of first impressions and I feel like a really good webcam or camera would give you bonus points. But in this day and age, I wonder how much of an issue that would pose anyway, with most people having smart phones and laptops with built in cameras. All in all, I think that this is generally a really effective idea but I can see where there may be problems present.
Yeah, this seems like a real cop out by the company to me. Hiring people is extraordinarily difficult especially on the scale of 2500+ a summer. The problem is, an interview isn’t just about seeing how people respond to questions, it’s about finding out what makes them stand out. A video interview can’t sense when a candidate wants to talk about a particular side of themselves that might massively benefit the company because it has to stick to the script. It also provides no way for the interviewee to actually get to know the company at all. When you take time out of your day to interview me it shows that you respect my work and believe I may fit the bill for the company. To expect every applicant to show enthusiasm for the job without actually taking the time to arrange even a skype interview just seems hypocritical.
It's interesting to me that this article came up now. My mom was actually looking for a new job a few months ago and one of her applications required one of these online video interviews. She didn't really like the idea at first. She feels that her biggest strength in interviews is her ability to make a personal connection with here interviewer and show her communication skills. She thought that this electronic interview process stripped her of the ability to show this effectively. She actually ended up getting hired by that company though, and by the end of the entire application process she realized that she actually liked this process. The electronic interview was just a preliminary step and she realized that it gave the company a better idea of what kind of person she is even before a face to face interview, rather than just seeing her as another piece of paper.
I'm not really sure how much I personally like this idea, especially in the theatre world where the ability to communicate with people is essential to the work. It's one of those things I'll need to experience before I can have a thorough opinion about it. Luckily I have these tips to refer to if that time ever comes!
I think this technique of interviewing takes away some integral parts of what makes an interview stand out. The interviewee has no chance to have casual conversation that leads the interviewer to dig into their real personality. It's just a bunch of canned questions. I also think that getting to know a person well enough to make a judgment to hire them is probably hard when all the applicants are answering the same 5 basic questions to a camera. The one bit of good I think this does is move the process faster and utilize technology to free up some time for a company. Application programs like common app have done and continue to do a lot of good in the college application process, so maybe this will have similar effects.
I am really sad to read about the interview process becoming computerized. Though I understand technology is becoming the way of the future and is basically infiltrating all parts of our lives, I feel the interview process is somewhere where human interaction is extremely important. Science and technology is seriously cool and incredible but will a machine ever be able to truly judge a human being? I think not. The article offers some good advice for interviews in general, especially for the skype or video style interview. Knowing what you and your surroundings look like on camera is something to consider. Though it is unfortunate most people cannot help but to pass judgement on your from the moment they lay eyes on you. Looking your best and being in a "good looking" area is important and is something everyone should take seriously. I also appreciate the article touching on "starting over." So often we don't always get out what we wanted to put across the first time. I think there is comfort in being confident enough to clear up your thoughts. But I also think it's important, as mentioned in the article, to keep your answers short and sweet. Most likely, you're not the only candidate being interviewed. Get what you need to get across, be bold and move on. People like people who are sharp. Overall, I understand why a company would like to go computerized, but I think its important to remember that people aren't computers and eventually you'll have to deal with them face to face.
Maybe it is just me being old school, but I do not understand why you would ever have a job interview with anything but a human. I feel like recording an interview can be staged, edited, and become very fake really fast. How would the employer know if the person that they are looking to hire is being honest and genuine? During a “real” interview the candidate is able to have an open candid conversation with the employer about the position they are applying for. This would all go away if the job interview was not done by another living human. However there is one major aspect of the interview that I think will be lost in this. This is that during the interview the employer gets a very clear sense of what it would be like to work with the person if they were hired, and that I do not thin will come across in this “new format”.
21 comments:
This is another really cool interview related article. It is amazing how fast technology is advancing, and how that is affecting the work place. Personally, I really like the idea of these new interviews. It also allows the interviewee to showcase his or her best self, given multiple attempts. Tech malfunctions aside, I agree that this method will be more effective in reaching wider audiences. What I'm concerned about, is the fact that the interviewee will have no insight into how the company itself functions, or meet a representative. For me, this is a very important element of an interview, because it is the company choosing you, as well as you choosing the company in turn.
Wow, that actually sounds awful. Having a computer judge my performance is not really something I want. After reading this article I really have an understanding where big name corporations are going as far as recruitment, and I can't say I blame them. These companies get thousands of applicants a year and it is simply too difficult to narrow them down with one on one interviews. I wonder if the companies have seen a decrease in interest with this new method of recruitment. I can see a lot of college students being turned away by the fact they are having a discussion with a computer screen. Aside from the fact that this takes out all personal relations between the interviewer and interviewee the idea of getting to “take two” is very nice. I find that there are so many times where I just wish I could have a redo but if you are in discussion with a recruiter they certainly aren't going to look to kindly on completely starting over. A computer, on the other hand, will forget all about your first time and only send the second off to be reviewed. At the end of the day, this method of recruiting is going to become more popular and it is just something we will have to get used to, or better yet I'll already have a job by that point.
I would really hate to do a recorded interview not just because it’s just you recording yourself which means you're going to watch it over and over making sure it is perfect and obsess over every word, which is exhausting and not the point of the interview. The point of an interview is to show the real you, how you talk, act and react under pressure. You're not supposed to be your absolute pristine self because that is never what you are when you actually are in a job. Also, interviews go both ways. It’s never simply just the company getting to know you, it is you getting to know the company- do you like the person you are interviewing with, do you like the company, can you see yourself there as much as you want the interviewer to see you there. It has to be both ways. With simply a video interview, it gives you no way to ask questions back of the employer, showing how much you care and did research and it gives you no way to make a personal connection to the employer which is so critical in making an impression and being remembered.
I actually recently received a video interview screen with Thomson Reuters. I kind of wish I had gone through with it now to experience it. I actually think I disagree with the do-over idea. The point of an interview is that you generally don’t see the questions beforehand and have to adapt on the spot. Thus, the employer gets to see your thought process from a genuine standpoint. Having a second chance takes all of this away since it makes it so the interviewee can look at the question, think a bit, and restructure his or her reply to cater towards a “better” stream of thoughts when, in reality, those thoughts are now fabricated and no longer natural. I also definitely appreciate the intimacy of a phone or an in-person interview. It is easier for me to laugh or make jokes or generally be myself because I have a gauge of the stance of the person I am talking to (based on his or her reactions to my quirks). As “futuristic” as this interview tactic may be, I think it will generally hurt society because it will not be able to draw out cheerful/friendly personalities as well as our current interview systems do.
In the grand scheme of things this sounds like an innovative new technology that will allow companies to reach a wider variety of applicants, for example people who can’t afford to take time off of their current jobs to interview for a better position. But for me personally this sounds like a living nightmare. Interviews are already nerve wracking for me, but having the ability to rewatch my answers, knowing that I will have to send something to the company and choosing whether or not to redo it, or simply having to look at myself as I answer the questions, would make the level of how self conscious and uncomfortable I feel in interviews sky rocket. The one thing that always makes me feel better about interviews is once I’m in the room I have a real person to try and connect with and as long as I do my best and I feel like I’m having some kind of rapport with them, I can walk away knowing I did my best and that I left it on the floor. But even with a phone interview I don’t get the same sense of being able to walk away from the interview and distance myself afterwards, and I think the same would be true for these virtual interviews.
This interview format turned out to be much less futuristic than the title suggested. I was expecting it to talk about some interview software that somehow scores interviewers without a person ever seeing the interview, but there is a human on the other side of this interview, just not while you are talking. I understand the logic of having it, and I think if I ever had an interview like this (which I don’t really expect to) I probably just wouldn’t think of it as an interview as much as a recorded cover letter with a prompt. In an interview, I’m paying attention to the person who is interviewing me. I see how they are reacting to what I’m saying, and we can end up discussing something that wouldn’t necessarily come up in every interview. These video interviews aren’t that, but the fact you can start over/ craft your responses before you start recording makes it much more like a recorded written statement than the two way exchange that is an interview. However, aside from the starting over, most of this advice seems like pretty standard video interview advice. Look nice, make sure your room looks nice, make sure the lighting and camera angle is okay, and make sure the technology works. Also, I assume that this is essentially used as a preliminary interview to determine who the company wants to actually interview. I don’t think people would hire someone just based on a video like this.
While I can see how many people would be opposed to the fact that more and more interviews are taking place person to screen, I think that the article brings up some great points about why this change is beneficial and also gives some great advice for interviewing online that can be used in any interview situation. It is great that this method of interviewing skips the hassle of having to schedule and interview. I thought it was interesting how more people actually submitted their responses on weekends and after 5pm. It makes sense that people are using whatever free time they have to respond. The best advantage to this new method of interviewing however is the fact that you can start over if you don't feel your answer was good enough. Yes, its possible to get carried away and try to make each answer perfect, but I think that even that says something to the reviewer on your personality (whether that be good or bad). Overall, I think that this method provides a lot more freedom to both parties and creates a more efficient system .
I was seriously hoping that this was going to be an article talking about people interviewing with an artificial intelligence to get a job. I have done live video conferencing interviews before, but the concept of sending in a recorded interview is novel to me. I do not think that this would be my preferred way of interviewing for any job that I really wanted. Isnt the whole point of having an interview so that you can have a conversation with the people you might be working with, get to know them a little bit and see how you will interact? I suppose it is just my disadvantage that I would feel odd delivering a monologue to a camera as my response to the question, where do you see yourself in five years? I honestly think I would prefer an artificial intelligence deciding if a got a job or not over this system.
Oh man, recorded interviews. I honestly don't know if I would dread that more or less than a standard live interview. I one hand it is kind of cool that you could have multiple takes and take as much time as you need to get over your anxiety (if you have any, like I do). On the other hand, in the interviews I have done, talking with the interviewer and bouncing off them is part of the repertoire of the meeting. I really don't know if I could come off as half as personable and jovial (and I those things regardless?) if I was just talking to a pre-recorded prompt, as opposed to an interviewer. I also wonder if this interviewing technique will really come to entertainment companies, since there are likely less candidates than for companies such as Goldman Sachs. I'm with Chris, I think I would rather have an Artificial Intelligence computer talk to me as opposed to talking to a recording. That is the real "Not with a human interview" of the future!
I am hugely not a fan of this type of interview. while i understand the evolution of technology will have ramifications in the evolution of interviews, it takes many aspects of the interview process and dilutes them. For me personally a large part of the interview process is the human connection, where i can hopefully get a feel of what the company/college/etc. is like. I also feel like i come off as a better, more desirable employee in person. While having multiple tries to be the best you can be is ideally nice, i think it also isn't true to who you are as a person.
Okay, no. I had to do three interviews for Universal Studios Hollywood last spring. I had an informational phone interview with HR, then the one-way recorded interview in the format described here, and a Skype interview with the Director of the department and the direct supervisor for my project. I can say with full confidence that the most uncomfortable of these interviews (or any interview ever, really) was the recorded interview. I did everything you are supposed to do in this situation. I propped up my computer on a bunch of textbooks, I made the room behind me look nice, I looked professional (from the waist up), and I tested the lighting beforehand. But no amount of preparation can make speaking to an invisible person more comfortable. I wanted to show my personality and my passion, but my audience was a computer screen. I could only smile like an idiot at myself and answer as clearly and concisely as possible, because unlike the ideal situation the article describes, no you do not get to watch it over again or re-record it. This form of interviewing has all the cons of in-person interviews and none of the pros (having an actual person to speak with, creating a conversational environment, being able to show your personality and deviate from the standard answers, etc.). Obviously this is a great tool for employers since they don't have to schedule so many interviews, and they can simply share the link between departments if others are interested in the candidate, but as an interviewee it was a very nerve-wracking, uncomfortable experience. I have expressed this to the HR team at Universal, so hopefully they will consider discontinuing it, but as it is such an advantage for the employer I highly doubt it.
Moral of the story: beware the recorded video interview. Be prepared. Understand that you will never come across extremely poised or impressive in this format. Let it go. And don't forget to smile.
I can see how having this interviewing method can save the hassle of having to schedule every single interview. Recorded answers can also help recruiters to better analyze applicants qualification and personalities because they don't need to worry about taking notes while missing anything from a sentence to slight facial expressions or gestures. However, personally, I really think interviewing is one of the human connections that technology shouldn't take away. It sounds so sarcastic when the guy said "We want to see enthusiasm in your eyes and a real passion for the work you’re interested in". How can you expect to see people's enthusiasm in their eyes when they are not even seeing a live human and having a real conversation!!? Besides, like one of the previous comments goes, part of the point of having an on-site interview is having real back and forth, and unplanned follow-up questions to not only engage interviewees but also to see how they react on the spot. .
I think this method is awesome for people and companies that need to weed through extremely large amounts of people for very few sought-after positions, but I do think that it isn't necessarily right for all companies, especially smaller ones, and like any new system, will have it's flaws. Being able to easily and efficiently eliminate candidates that are blatantly wrong for a position will be a much-needed and extremely time-saving measure for many, but it is inevitably susceptible to error, both human and machine. Id o think the point that checking for technological issues is a good on in terms on how to deal with this type of interview, but not everything is predictable, and a tech fail could make a candidate look unprepared when in reality their neighbor borrowed something without asking and broke it a little. I think having the humans on the other end of this is good, allowing actual people to interpret responses, and the option to redo answers I think would help a lot of people, especially those who may be a bit nervous, advocate for themselves more effectively.
I think this is a very interesting concept. And specifically as it relates to theatre, we are beginning to see more and more of a transition into the digital age. Some programs are already accepting performance auditions that are pre-recorded or over voice chat programs, such as Skype. Just this last year, several colleges also offered a voice and video interview as opposed to an in-person interview. Moreover, portfolios are now being submitted digitally instead of simply reviewed in person. One thing that this is beginning to show is that as a University, and as a community of artists, the necessity to have technological skills to create a digital portfolio or have experience with video chat communications for interviews is more and more prevalent today.
This is a very intriguing article, as it is highly applicable to my own life. I had never really thought about it, but I am seeing the use of preliminary video interviews more and more. Beyond job interviews, this was present when I was applying to colleges as well. More and more, colleges are asking for video interviews as part of the application process. This makes sense, as the particular points out, so that more applicants can be reached. This is becoming a habit in the process of applying to performance schools. A lot more schools are asking for filmed monologues and songs as a first screening for the college audition process. The difference with that and job interviews seems to be that filmed performances can be edited. The article made it sound as though the filmed job interviews happened on a program that timed the filming and prevented editing. For college auditions, you could just upload an edited film file. I wonder what it would be like for college auditions if they could not be edited. It may give a more candid look into a person's performance.
Hmmmmm...... I like this idea a lot, but it comes along with some skepticism on my part. I think that this is a really wonderful idea and will give people the opportunity to interview regardless of where they live-- the accessibility part of this idea is wonderful. However, if you have a really mediocre camera and no understanding of what good lighting means (but still have amazing things to say), I really doubt that factor wouldn't impact the employers decision. Presentation is a big part of first impressions and I feel like a really good webcam or camera would give you bonus points. But in this day and age, I wonder how much of an issue that would pose anyway, with most people having smart phones and laptops with built in cameras. All in all, I think that this is generally a really effective idea but I can see where there may be problems present.
Yeah, this seems like a real cop out by the company to me. Hiring people is extraordinarily difficult especially on the scale of 2500+ a summer. The problem is, an interview isn’t just about seeing how people respond to questions, it’s about finding out what makes them stand out. A video interview can’t sense when a candidate wants to talk about a particular side of themselves that might massively benefit the company because it has to stick to the script. It also provides no way for the interviewee to actually get to know the company at all. When you take time out of your day to interview me it shows that you respect my work and believe I may fit the bill for the company. To expect every applicant to show enthusiasm for the job without actually taking the time to arrange even a skype interview just seems hypocritical.
It's interesting to me that this article came up now. My mom was actually looking for a new job a few months ago and one of her applications required one of these online video interviews. She didn't really like the idea at first. She feels that her biggest strength in interviews is her ability to make a personal connection with here interviewer and show her communication skills. She thought that this electronic interview process stripped her of the ability to show this effectively. She actually ended up getting hired by that company though, and by the end of the entire application process she realized that she actually liked this process. The electronic interview was just a preliminary step and she realized that it gave the company a better idea of what kind of person she is even before a face to face interview, rather than just seeing her as another piece of paper.
I'm not really sure how much I personally like this idea, especially in the theatre world where the ability to communicate with people is essential to the work. It's one of those things I'll need to experience before I can have a thorough opinion about it. Luckily I have these tips to refer to if that time ever comes!
I think this technique of interviewing takes away some integral parts of what makes an interview stand out. The interviewee has no chance to have casual conversation that leads the interviewer to dig into their real personality. It's just a bunch of canned questions. I also think that getting to know a person well enough to make a judgment to hire them is probably hard when all the applicants are answering the same 5 basic questions to a camera. The one bit of good I think this does is move the process faster and utilize technology to free up some time for a company. Application programs like common app have done and continue to do a lot of good in the college application process, so maybe this will have similar effects.
I am really sad to read about the interview process becoming computerized. Though I understand technology is becoming the way of the future and is basically infiltrating all parts of our lives, I feel the interview process is somewhere where human interaction is extremely important. Science and technology is seriously cool and incredible but will a machine ever be able to truly judge a human being? I think not.
The article offers some good advice for interviews in general, especially for the skype or video style interview. Knowing what you and your surroundings look like on camera is something to consider. Though it is unfortunate most people cannot help but to pass judgement on your from the moment they lay eyes on you. Looking your best and being in a "good looking" area is important and is something everyone should take seriously. I also appreciate the article touching on "starting over." So often we don't always get out what we wanted to put across the first time. I think there is comfort in being confident enough to clear up your thoughts. But I also think it's important, as mentioned in the article, to keep your answers short and sweet. Most likely, you're not the only candidate being interviewed. Get what you need to get across, be bold and move on. People like people who are sharp. Overall, I understand why a company would like to go computerized, but I think its important to remember that people aren't computers and eventually you'll have to deal with them face to face.
Maybe it is just me being old school, but I do not understand why you would ever have a job interview with anything but a human. I feel like recording an interview can be staged, edited, and become very fake really fast. How would the employer know if the person that they are looking to hire is being honest and genuine? During a “real” interview the candidate is able to have an open candid conversation with the employer about the position they are applying for. This would all go away if the job interview was not done by another living human. However there is one major aspect of the interview that I think will be lost in this. This is that during the interview the employer gets a very clear sense of what it would be like to work with the person if they were hired, and that I do not thin will come across in this “new format”.
Post a Comment