Video interviewing’s popularity has grown dramatically over the past year as many organizations looking to maximize their recruiting efforts have turned to video interviewing to hire more efficiently and at less cost. A recent survey of over 500 managers by OfficeTeam, a division of Robert Half, revealed that 63% of managers have used video interviewing in their hiring process compared to only 14% from a year ago. This dramatic increase is attributed to increased awareness about the benefits and features of video interviewing as well as increased acceptance.This was Hire-Intelligence’s second year exhibiting at the show and a great deal has changed in terms of people’s awareness of video interviewing as the survey results above suggested.
Whitney Guest Sisler, Hire-Intelligence’s Business Development Director and Mike Summers, the VP of Recruiting and Business Development for Hire-Intelligence’s technology partner, The HR Group, spoke to numerous executives and hiring professionals during the two day event. “The awareness of engagement in video interviewing has sky rocketed in just this last year. The people we spoke with not only knew exactly what video interviewing was but they were keenly aware of the benefits,” remarked Whitney.
Mike Summers agreed. “Most visitors were fairly knowledgeable about video interviewing. They were less knowledgeable about the various functions available in the system.”
Interview4’s newest differentiator is aimed at improving not only the experience for executive search individuals but also for candidates. Interview4 now offers an optional function to allow candidates to answer the questions posed to them on screen more than once. This enables them to put their best foot forward by answering each question until they nail it thus not only putting the candidate at ease but also allowing recruiters to better showcase their prospects. Of course with Interview4 companies can allow candidates to answer each question only once so a traditional interview is simulated.
Most video interviewing solutions however offer the same basic technology, the ability to conduct a live or automated video interview over the web and the majority provides the ability to record. This is where the real time savings come into play as managers can review the video over and over at their convenience and share with other colleagues.
“Most visitors asked about the differences between our technology and those of our competitors,” commented Mike Summers. “The two things we referenced most were ‘flexibility’ as we are a small company compared to our competitors and our ‘price.’ Being smaller we can react and adjust whereas our competitors will not or cannot without significant cost.”
Though many competitors share similar features a definite theme is emerging in the video interviewing space as it is in others and that is the ability to go mobile. Many video interviewing providers are trying to leverage their solution by offering it on mobile devices such as tablets and smart phones. “Although we didn’t hear it from attendees at the show, the show consensus is that the real winners will be the companies that are not only in the mobile market but “all in” mobile,” explained Whitney.
Mobile is a hot topic but the debate about allowing job candidates to conduct a job interview over such an unstable device as one’s iPhone continues.
So what are the main concerns about adopting video interviewing? “The “how and “when” to implement was one,” commented Mike Summers.
“Not surprisingly the conversation always comes back to pricing and workflow integration,” added Whitney. “Will we really see a drastic reduction in costs? Can you deliver the customization that fits my workflow and my brands’ needs?”
And their answer to that last question? A resounding “yes”!
*Congratulations to Tara Shadden of Walgreens who won this year’s Hire-Intelligence raffle. Hire-Intelligence is looking forward to giving out many more prizes at next year’s HR Tech Conference in Las Vegas.
Many of you have heard of video interviewing, some of you have tried it and others have stuck their nose up at it as a passing fad. Whether video interviewing is the next lava lamp or the next TV time will tell but surveys show that right now video interviewing usage is on the rise and is more than a passing fancy. For those still not convinced here are your 5 most common objections to why you aren’t using video interviewing and reasons why you should.
We would never use it to replace the face-to-face interview: We agree. Video interviewing should not replace the face-to-face interview. However, we believe you should get the most out of your significant investment of time and money in face-to-face interviews by maximizing the odds of bringing in candidates you know are a good fit for your organization, not those you decide within the first 5 minutes aren’t right for the job. Seeing candidates on video is an underappreciated but proven way to gain real understanding of a candidate’s potential.
Video interviewing is discriminatory: Actually video interviews don’t discriminate, people watching the video interviews discriminate. And that’s the EEOC’s opinion, not just mine. If you or your people are discriminating against job candidates after watching their video interview then you will also discriminate against them when you meet them face to face. Recorded video interviews not only provide proof of your non-discriminatory practices but in some cases they actually screen in candidates you might otherwise have rejected based on criteria you noticed in their resume. For example, perhaps you require someone who speaks perfect English but after noticing a candidate’s ethnic sounding name you move to remove them from the process only to find their video interview reveals they speak perfect English.
Video interviewing is just a passing fad: That may be. Just like phone screens may be replaced by video interviews, so too in 5-10 years might video interviews be replaced by something better that comes along but that doesn’t mean right now they are not useful in the hiring process. Facebook has been around for ten years, one billion people use it but despite this 46% of Americans believe Facebook will become extinct to make room for a new social platform. This of course does not stop them from presently enjoying this so called passing fad. Recent surveys show that 53% of hiring managers now often use video interviewing in their hiring process. Sometimes “the next big thing” only lasts 10 years before the next big thing comes along. Just because video interviewing may be gone in 10 years does not mean you should not profit from it today. You can either be an early adopter, a late adopter or a “too cool” laggard left out in the cold.
We are reluctant to change our process:
Step 1: Filter resumes and choose candidates to screen with video
Step 2: Video Interview candidates.
Step 3: Review the video and choose ones you like.
Step 4: Interview candidates face-to-face and hire the one you like.
Pretty easy, huh?
We have no budget: Is wasting your valuable time interviewing, face-to-face, candidates you don’t like within your budget? Can you afford to fly in a candidate you decide within the first five minutes is not a fit? Are you saying you don’t spend any money on candidate screening now? C’mon, you get the point!
I’d love to hear your thoughts on video interviewing and why you or your organization is reluctant to change.
You’re hiring and you need to screen for the best possible candidates to bring in for those critical face-to-face interviews. But for every week you add to your screening process you’ll see more good candidates snatched away by other employers.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that in the current weak hiring environment, heavily impacted by the Great Recession with a large number of workers looking for work, finding a job is taking candidates an average of at least 10 weeks. In this environment, our models show that you may see almost 30% of candidates slip through your fingers if you spend even 4 weeks screening. During your 4-week screening process they’ll take other offers. Of course, if you take even longer screening, you’ll lose even more candidates.
The news gets worse. As the economy improves and hiring picks up the median number of weeks required for a job seeker to find employment will edge back towards the historical norm of 5 weeks. If you take 4 weeks to screen under this rate of candidate absorption, more than 50% of available candidates will take a job while you’re screening. (This includes candidates who were available when you started your process as well as those who started their job search after you started your search.)
The importance of running a timely screening process is even more imperative when you realize that the candidates that slip away fastest are likely to be the most qualified, the most attractive. And of course the problem is exacerbated if you’re looking for hard to fill positions, like sales or engineering jobs.
We’ve been working on a “speed screening” process, sort of like speed dating. The final steps in the process can vary to fit the employer, the marketplace and the level of candidates. But the bottom line is that days required to screen and the days required to fill a position are critical metrics that can have a bottom line impact on your organization.
We started investigating the need for fast screening after working with a company whose managers were simply too busy to review candidates in a timely manner. With a difficult to fill set of job reqs, the key hiring manager just couldn’t find time for 3 weeks to review a candidate screening video. We can’t force anyone to prioritize their hiring process, but we can work on ways to speed up the process. Negotiating an agreement as to when a manager will make time available to review candidates is a good start.
Looking for a job? Your super-duper resume, your academic pedigree, your pristine video interview, your years of experience and your vast list of gratuitous references count for little against the hiring manager’s bias.
What bias you say? Have you ever heard the expression, “It’s nothing personal, it’s just good business.” Yeah that usually happens in a movie right before someone is double crossed or screwed over. If there is something wrong with you that the hiring manager believes is either not going to make them money or will cost them money, your fancy portfolio accounts for little.
Here are a few reasons why you might not be getting the job.
You are obese! – According to studies conducted by the National Journal for obesity, men were discriminated against twice as often for their weight as for their race, and for women this number was four times as often.. Why are companies doing this? They believe the health status of their employees either reflects positively or negatively on them. Google “VictoriaHospital inTexas” for an example! Additionally organizations understand that obese people cost more to insure and often have higher rates of absenteeism. In short they are worried about their bottom line.
You stutter! – Sorry Porky Pig but a survey by the National Stuttering Association shows that 40% of stutterers have been denied a job or a promotion. The reason is basic. If you stutter the feeling is you just can’t handle jobs as well as non-stutterers.
You are bald! – I will be bald in a few years and if it isn’t all gone by then I might just shave it off. Discrimination is easing up on this front but most people prefer lustrous hair to barren, misshapen heads. So sorry about your 4.0 GPA you bald loser! Sven, the golden maned Nordic model with the 820 SAT score just took your job.
You have red hair! – Honestly I never understood this one but evidently “Gingers” as they are called, are discriminated against especially in theUK. Does being Ginger somehow affect the company’s bottom line? I can’t say that it does, so chalk this up to good old fashioned bigotry. After all when is the last time you heard someone say, “like a ‘blond’ headed step child”?
You talk like a redneck – Ever heard of “linguicism”? This term, coined in the 1980’s, describes the judgments people make about you based on your language skills. To put it another way, if you speak with a country bumpkin accent, people may assume you’re either poor, uneducated, or of low social status. I mean c’mon, does anyone think Larry the Cable Guy is smarter than Anthony Hopkins? Look who they got to host “Are you smarter than a fifth grader?” Nuff said.
You’re ugly/You’re pretty – Yep if you’re ugly you are screwed both socially and often in the workplace because let’s face it, people like to date and buy things from pretty people. However when attractiveness wasn’t necessary for the job, attractive women were often passed over according to a study by the Journal of Social Psychology. Additionally, women, especially in HR, often grant fewer interviews to attractive women mainly for reasons of jealousy. Meow!
You’re short! – A University of Pittsburgh study showed that graduates over 6’2” made an average salary 12% higher than those under six feet. A survey of 140 recruiters showed that three-fourths of them would choose a candidate who was 6’1” over a candidate who was 5’5” even if they were equally qualified. That’s right, hit the road Napoleon and take your Under Roos and MBA with you! Sven not only has hair but he’s tall too!
The good news: Most of the job candidates you’re going up against are likely to have one of these attributes which essentially washes out your shortcomings. The bad news: You might also be old, pregnant, a minority, unemployed, or smoke. But hey, when you get discouraged think of George Jefferson. He was short, black and bald, yet he finally got his piece of the pie!