Can We Not Discriminate Against Bad Habits?

A recent Gallup poll of Americans showed that 56% of smokers believe they are at least occasionally discriminated against in public or employment life with 13% of them claiming that they are discriminated against daily.  Smokers report the most common forms of discrimination come in the forms of bans at places such as beaches and parks.  In addition, smokers face higher insurance rates and smokers claim they are discriminated against in the hiring process.

My posts generally revolve around hiring so I will neglect the challenges smokers face at the beach and in Yellowstone and focus on their hiring dilemmas.  Yes, smokers do face discrimination during the hiring process and may be turned down for employment solely because of their habit.  Reasons for this are smokers have higher health care costs and absenteeism from work.  Co-workers are also likely to grow annoyed with the frequent smoke breaks that smokers take.  For instance my son, a non-smoker, frequently complained about having to leave work late because the individual who was assigned to take over his register first wanted to have a cigarette before coming on duty. 

A few states protect smokers from job discrimination but is this reasonable?  If an employee or job applicant is engaged in a habit that is scientifically proven to be detrimental to themselves, to those around them and increases company expenses, why would that individual not expect some sort of negative reaction?  An employee sneaking off for five minutes every hour to look at pornography on their mobile device would expect a rightful reprimand even if their behavior in no way affected their co-workers or cost the company an increase in expenses.  Why then are smokers miffed?

I used to smoke back when smoking wasn’t so out of vogue.  I sympathize with the cravings smokers have but I also worked and never smoked until I departed work.  Not smoking is possible for long stretches of time.   A smoker cannot expect their fellow co-workers not to grow perturbed by their frequent cigarette breaks especially if the non-smokers must pick up the slack in their co-worker’s absence.

Wikipedia defines addiction as “a brain disorder characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli, despite adverse consequences.”  If an individual is not truly addicted to smoking then their best course of action is to quit or at the very least, refrain from stepping outside every hour.  However, if they claim to be addicted, then by definition they must expect adverse consequences.  These adverse consequences may manifest as discrimination in the hiring process.  I take issue with using the word “discrimination” though.  Not hiring an employee engaged in a bad habit that causes them to work less and costs the company more in healthcare costs sounds more like plain common sense than prejudice.

Do you agree or disagree?

Opioids Are Ravaging the Workplace!

Opioids such as Fentanyl, Percocet and Hydrocodone, are prescription pain relievers presently prescribed at an alarming rate.  These drugs aren’t injected through a dirty syringe or snorted from a glass coffee table next to an overflowing ashtray, these are pills popped out of a common orange bottle filled at your local pharmacy and prescribed by your friendly neighborhood doctor.  As innocent as they appear, opioids, according to the CDC, killed 33,000 Americans in 2015.  Those dying are not careless, sallow eyed teens.  Many are everyday working class joes who became addicted to opioids while trying to deal with the pain of an injury.  Quite a few of your co-workers are likely addicted and you may not even know it.

Here are a few startling statistics that capture the seriousness of this epidemic:

·         Thirty-five percent of Americans were prescribed opioid painkillers in 2015 – Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

·         23% of the U.S. workforce have used prescription drugs non-medically – National Safety Council

·         According to the federal Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration, roughly 10 to 12 percent of workers are under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs while at work.

·         A 2017 survey of more than 500 HR professionals by the Center For Disease Control revealed that 39% reported that employees missed work due to opioid use, 15% that opioid use caused or nearly caused a workplace injury and 10% have had workers overdose from opioids on or off the job.

·         Injured workers who are prescribed even one opioid have average total claim costs four times greater than similar claims from workers who were not prescribed opioids – National Safety Council

·         A 2016 CDC study estimates that nonfatal overdoses cost $20 billion in lost productivity.

·         Fifty-seven percent of companies drug test all their employees, but 41% of those tests don’t screen for opioid pain relievers – National Safety Council

·         According to a NSC employer survey, only 13% of respondents are confident their workers could identify opioid abuse among their colleagues.

Managers must be cognizant of potential abuse in their workplace.  Here are a few signs to look for when detecting opioid abuse:

·         Mood swings

·         Changes in energy level – They nod off on the job

·         Signs of withdrawal – Flu, nausea, diarrhea, sweating, shaking, aches, runny nose

·         Pill bottles in trash can

·         Financial problems – Borrowing money

What steps can you as an employer take to create a drug free workplace?

·         Enact a clear drug policy.

·         Train employees on the dangers of illegal and prescription drugs and how to seek help.

·         Train supervisors on how to spot potential drug abuse and what steps they should follow.

·         Create an employee assistance program which enables employees to access services for personal concerns privately.

·         Expand your drug testing beyond the commonly used five-panel test to one that detects commonly used opioids such as oxycodone.

To get employees the help they really need, HR professionals must take care to remove the stigma of addiction and not shame their employees.  This is perhaps the first step to providing real help.

7 Deadly Sins of Video Interviewing

Are you ready for your video interview?  If you have not been invited to take one, chances are you soon will be.  More and more companies are integrating the technology into their hiring process at a rapid pace.  As with a phone interview or in-person interview, there are dos and don’ts but because many video interviews are automated, you the interviewee likely won’t be speaking directly to anyone therefore not all the same rules of etiquette apply.

Below are 7 hiccups that may derail your video interviewing success.

1.       Dressing inappropriately – While you may get away with wearing sweats during your phone screen, you must take better care to look your best during a video interview whether it is a live interview or one-way automated interview.  The person reviewing your interview will see you from at least the chest up so dressing professionally is important.  Please consider too that your interview may be shared with several other individuals thus increasing your exposure.

2.       Sitting in an untidy area – Be aware that the camera will be recording the room where you choose to complete the interview. Backgrounds are often overlooked during video interviews because they generally don’t come into play during a phone screen or in-person interview.  An unkempt background provides a good opportunity to leave a bad first impression. 

3.       Knowing nothing about the opportunity – Video interviews are employed to filter out unknowledgeable, dispassionate candidates prior to a face-to-face interview.  Don’t be surprised if during your video interview you are asked how you heard about the opportunity, what you know about the company or why you want the job?  Your fumbled answer may be shared with several decision makers not to mention viewed repeatedly.

4.       Cheating – Generally questions are not presented to candidates in advance.  Avoid trying to skip ahead through the interview process to get a glance at all the questions.  The technology likely won’t allow you to go back to the beginning, the interviewing platform will submit your empty responses, and the hiring manager will know what you tried to do.

5.       Skipping the instructions – Many candidates skim through the instructions and then appear lost once the interview begins, not fully understanding what is expected of them.  They appear unaware the application has begun recording and blankly stare into the camera.  They usually catch on around question three but by then the damage is done.  Others do not properly test out their camera and microphone and proceed through without one or both devices not working.  This results in an interview without audio, video or both!

6.       Rambling – Candidates may be provided 90 seconds or more to provide their response but often continue speaking even after they have provided a brief but sufficient answer.  Why?  Because they feel it behooves them to fill the remainder of their time.  Be succinct and to the point!

7.       Waiting until the last minute – You’ve been given five days to complete the video interview but wait until 11:30 p.m. on the last day to begin.   Unfortunately if your webcam isn’t responding, your computer has crashed or your internet is down you may miss your chance.  And can you believe it, tech support isn’t answering the phone at mid-night?  Don’t procrastinate!  Get it done!

Granted, these seven deadly sins have nothing on Kevin Spacey’s and if violated you won’t lose your head, but you may lose the job!

Workplace Incivility Is At An All Time High

According to Christine Porath, Associate Professor at Georgetown’s McDonough School of Business, 25% of employees surveyed in 1998 reported being treated rudely at work at least once a week.  That number rose to 55% in 2011 and increased further to 62% in 2016.  A second poll by Weber Shandwick, Powell Tate, and KRC Research showed that 70% of Americans think that political incivility has reached “crisis” levels. 

Catherine Mattice, president of Civility Partners LLC, describes incivility as, “…any sort of rudeness, any sort of micro-aggression, anything you do that causes the other person to feel uncomfortable or unhappy.”

At the watercooler the talk is no longer about Game of Thrones’ episodes but rather discussions about the President’s latest policy decisions, immigration and a border wall.  All of these topics have a chance of alienating/infuriating particular races, religions and nationalities.  Not all incivility however originates with political disagreements.  A survey Porath took two years ago showed that over half of workers behaved uncivilly because of work overload and, oddly, forty percent claimed they had no time to be nice, while a quarter behaved rudely because their bosses also behaved as such.  Other factors contributing to the rise of rudeness are cultural clashes and an increase in narcissism among younger adults.

What is the price of workplace unrest?  According to a study by Porath and Amir Erez, professor of management at the University of Florida, an individual’s cognitive skills dropped thirty percent after rude treatment.  Harmful treatment may cause physical or mental health problems as well.  The American Psychological Association estimates that workplace stress costs companies billions every year in employee turnover, absenteeism and lower productivity.  A poll of 800 managers and employees conducted by Porath revealed that those treated disrespectfully at work intentionally decreased the quality of their work and the amount of time invested in it.  In addition, workplace harassment may lead to expensive lawsuits. 

Clearly incivility is a destructive force but how important is showing respect? According to Porath, respect shown by a leader is the most important key to producing commitment and engagement from employees.  It outweighs showing recognition and appreciation, feedback and even opportunities for growth.

So listen, forget about President Trump for a moment!  Game of Thrones will return in July.  Once again we can talk about the war in Westeros rather than the war in the workplace.

Are There “Men’s” Jobs and “Women’s Jobs”?

The US Department of Labor recently criticized Google suggesting that the tech giant was routinely underpaying its female employees.  Eileen Naughton, Google’s VP of people operations, refuted this claim, pointing out that Google conducts an annual gender blind pay equality analysis which reveals any pay discrepancies, and if any exist among any demographic group, their pay is adjusted accordingly.

Glassdoor, the job board and company review site, reviewed thousands of salaries as reported voluntarily by Google employees and found that women and men working similar jobs generally are paid the same.  Why then all the hub bub?  Because at Google women are paid 16% less than men overall.  This data doesn’t make sense if Glassdoor’s data suggests that men and women are paid equally for the same work.  This is where the confusion exists.  Men are not being paid more than women within the same roles, they are paid more on average because they occupy more senior roles that command higher salaries.  At Google for example, 52% of males worked as software engineers while only half as many women occupied that highly paid role.

Dr. Andrew Chamberlain, Glassdoor’s chief economist, said that men and women, for several reasons, are sorted into different jobs with different pay structures within the same company.  This separation is what economists refer to as occupational segregation and is responsible for about 54% of the gender pay gap in the U.S.

Google is not paying women less than men for equal work but it does appear to be favoring men for more senior positions.  Is this discrimination or is there a shortage of women from which to choose for the high paying roles such as software developer?  Going further, are men better equipped to fill certain roles than women and vice versa?  I have scoured the web and according to women, here are a few roles that men will never be better at than women and roles women will not be better at than men.

10 Jobs Men Will Never Be Able to Do Better Than Women

·         Marketing and advertising

·         Manager and supervisor

·         Waiting tables

·         Yoga/Fitness instructor

·         Dietician/Nutritionist

·         Information clerk and customer care professional

·         Gynecologist and obstetrician

·         Nurse and professional caregiver

·         Kindergarten and preschool teacher

·         Secretary

10 Jobs Women Will Never Be Able to Do Better than Men

·         PIlot

·         Comedian

·         Pro sports coach

·         Electrician

·         Chef

·         Plastic surgeon

·         Police officer

·         Firefighter

·         Mechanic

·         Construction worker

Clearly there are some roles such as mechanic, construction worker and firefighter that men seem more adept or at least more interested in doing while on the flip side more women are adept/interested in being teachers and caregivers.  The physical design of men and women allows our genders to be better suited for some roles over others.  Furthermore our upbringing often persuades men and women to pursue careers that might seem more masculine or feminine such as a male journalist covering business/finance while a female journalist might cover lifestyle/fashion. 

The real question isn’t whether men and women are paid equally for doing the same job but whether women, by way of occupational segregation, find themselves in jobs that typically pay less?  Even more troubling is a study out of Cornell University that found the pay for a particular occupation decreases as women take a more dominant role in it, suggesting that women’s efforts are not valued as highly as men’s.  Once women take over, the occupation’s pay is seemingly downgraded.

In the end, no organization with half a brain is overtly paying a woman significantly less for doing the same work as a man.  That is just asking for the type of scrutiny under which Google presently sweats.  Organizations are simply sorting men into blue job baskets and women into pink job baskets and declaring all the work done by the blue basket workers to be more valuable and as such deserving of more pay.  That is until women take it over.

International Women’s Day: How Far Do Women Have to Go In the Workplace?

The world celebrated International Women’s Day on March 8th.  In addition to celebrating all the various achievements of women, this day serves to raise awareness regarding the lack of gender equality.  The day is intended to celebrate the need for equality and yet ironically the day itself perhaps does not receive the equal treatment it deserves.  I must admit I had never heard of Women’s Day until after the day had passed.  The first Women’s Day occurred in 1911 in Austria and since then it has popped up here and there around the world as spikes of renewed interest in advancing gender parity took the form of rallies and women’s marches. 

How far have women come in recent years to achieving workplace equality, particularly in the US? Is a push still warranted?  Grant Thornton, a global tax, auditing and advisory firm has been tracking the progress women have made into senior leadership roles since 2004.   Globally, in 2004, women held 19% of the senior executive leadership roles while in the US, for that same year, women represented 20% of those roles.  In 2017 women’s global representation has gained ground and stands at 25% while the pace in the US has slowed a bit and now stands slightly below the global average at 23%.  Despite the increase, gains have been very modest in the last thirteen years. Perhaps more startling is that in 2012, 30% of companies in the U.S. had no female senior leaders while in 2017 that number has not decreased but increased slightly to thirty-one percent.  Advances are slow or even non-existent in areas.  Furthermore, women have not broken through in many other areas of business and government.

Following are 15 jobs women have yet to hold in the U.S.:

·         President of the US

·         Vice President of the US

·         Head coach of a major big 4 sports team

·         Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

·         FBI or CIA director

·         Senate Majority Leader

·         Member of the Joint Chiefs

·         Secretary of Defense, Treasury and Veterans affairs

·         Governor in 23 US states

·         CEO of a top 5 Fortune 500 company

·         Secretary General of the UN

Presently women on average earn only 80 cents for every dollar that men earn, however women do out-earn men in some professions.  The top five are:

·         Physician advisor

·         Purchasing specialist

·         Research assistant

·         Merchandiser

·         Social worker

These are however not the occupations in which women earn the most.  The top 5 and their median pay are as follows:

·         Corporate counsel – $115,000

·         Pharmacist – $119,000

·         VP of Marketing – $123,000

·         General pediatrician – $152,000

·         General practice physician – $173,000

Women are obviously successful and though one hasn’t piloted a top five Fortune 500 Company, Mary Barra currently helms #8 GM.  Yet the gains women have made are barely measurable from year to year.  A woman’s desire to manage both work and family is a frequently offered explanation.   Catherine Hill, The American Association of University Women remarks, “Yes, the choices we make are a big part of it, but it’s also the choices people assume we’re going to make.”  Meaning that yes, many women’s careers suffer when they take time off to care for children or family members but those who have no such aspirations are still penalized.

Mark your calendars for next March.  Women’s day will be coming back around and we all have the opportunity to celebrate women’s gains or lack thereof with a blog post or at the very least, a shout out on Twitter. 

Video Interviewing…An Abomination or Enabler?

I read recently an article on Forbes.com entitled, “A New Recruiting Abomination: One-Way Video Interviews” by Liz Ryan, founder of Human Workplace.  Obviously as the title suggests, she is not impressed by this growing recruiting technology.  Here are a few quotes.

“It is disheartening to me as a long-time HR person to see how badly some HR and Staffing folks damage and degrade the recruiting function by building in talent-repelling processes like one-way video interviewing.”

“The emergence of one-way video job interviews in recruiting speaks to incompetence at a high level…”

“Great candidates will not stick around to be treated like dirt — nor should they!”

“Making your job applicants sit in front of their laptops smiling at the camera and answering questions asked by a machine is the loudest possible sign that your company does not value talent in the least.”

“There is no better way to signal to talented candidates ‘You mean nothing to us’ than by assigning them to sit through an oral exam led by a piece of code…”

I’m going out on a limb to suggest that Ms. Ryan sees little if any value in one-way video interviews.  Before I begin my defense I want to make known that I work for a video interviewing vendor and as a former search consultant have used with great success one-way video interviews in the past. Here are a few experiences I would like to share where video interviews have helped candidates.

An individual applied to a position and he was rejected by the employer because his resume indicated he was in a particular age bracket. The search consultant had the candidate complete a recorded one-way interview which he then sent to the hiring manager. The candidate was brought in for an interview after the hiring manager saw the candidate’s charisma and energy level.

An unemployed college student completed a mock interview and emailed it to employers. She received an offer without even going in for a face to face interview.

A candidate working on an oil rig in the North Sea was able to get an interview with a company operating in Romania after I (sitting in Virginia) forwarded a link of the candidate’s recorded interview to the VP of HR in Romania. This happened because the video interview allowed everyone to work on their own schedule when convenient for them.

I sat in a board room with a company President and VP of HR.  On their monitor we were reviewing the video interviews of five candidates.  The fifth candidate, who had conducted his interview at 1 a.m, the only time convenient for him, so dazzled the president that the president called him on the spot and offered him a job!

As a video interviewing provider we in no way advocate using automated interviews to replace the face-to-face interview.  Rather we suggest using video interviewing as a screening measure, superior to phone screening, which allows recruiters to better evaluate candidates with a structured interviewing process that better eliminates subconscious biases which creep into unstructured live interviews.  The candidate is better served, not only because they may complete the interview at their convenience, but also their recorded interview can be evaluated repeatedly and shared with decision makers so a more informed evaluation can be given.  Candidates, especially top talent, are severely inconvenienced by a phone screening process that relies upon note taking and which provides an inadequate device to make a true apples to apples comparison between subjects.

Not too surprisingly the Aberdeen Group’s research into video interviewing shows that among best-in-class companies which employ such technology, hiring manager satisfaction has improved while time to hire and cost to fill has decreased.

In short, video interviewing was not designed to be abominable to candidates but rather to free them from inconvenience and discrimination.

Why Empathy Needs to Make a Comeback!

A recent study of 15,000 leaders from 300+ organizations across eighteen countries by Development Dimensions International revealed that the conversational skill that has the highest impact on overall performance was empathy.  Empathy however is in decline according to Richard Wellins, one of the authors of DDI’s report.  He pointed to a University of Michigan study of college students which showed a 34-48% decline in empathy over an eight year period.

One reason proposed for this decline is our mobile world.  People are increasingly engaging with people in such brief moments of time that the empathic skill is seldom practiced.  In her book, “Unselfie: Why Empathetic Kids Succeed in Our All-About-Me World”, child psychologist, Michele Borba concurs.  She suggests that as a result of technology, “Self-promotion, personal branding, and self-interest at the exclusion of others’ feelings, needs and concerns is permeating our culture and slowly eroding our children’s character.”

The DDI report also points out that managers spend more time managing than interacting thus limiting their ability to maintain and hone their empathic skills.  According to their study, only 40% of frontline leaders tested either proficient or strong on empathy.

Why is empathy such a valued trait? For starters customers want to be heard and empathizing with your customers’ needs will help sellers determine what they want.  Additionally empathy helps businesses understand cultural differences when operating in diverse global markets.  In many companies collaboration is essential for success and empathy helps to not only foster relationships but also influences our power of persuasion.

The importance of empathy is further confirmed in a study out of USC’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.  A three year study of business leaders in the U.S. and other countries identified five attributes that executives must have to succeed in today’s global economy.  Of the five, adaptability, cultural competence, 360-degree thinking, intellectual curiosity and empathy, empathy rated highest.

DDI’s study showed that in terms of relation to job performance, empathy had the greatest impact on engaging with employees, coaching them and their overall performance.  Ray Krznaric, the author of Empathy: Why It Matters and How to Get It explains, “Empathy in the modern workplace is not just about being able to see things from another perspective. It’s the cornerstone of teamwork, good innovative design, and smart leadership. It’s about helping others feel heard and understood.”

So if you are reading this post right now on your phone and ignoring the person speaking with you, set it down, look into the eyes of your friend/colleague and show them they matter!

Why Are Women Leaving the Workforce?

The labor force participation rate for women grew greatly between 1975 and 2000 to a point where 59.9% of women 16 and older were participating.  During the ten years that followed, the rate fell by 1.3% to 58.6% in 2010.  Not a substantial drop but in the five years that followed, the rate had dropped an additional 1.9% to 56.7% in 2015.  Why are U.S. women leaving the workforce?

One obvious reason participation rates are declining is the increasing amount of baby boomers leaving the workforce.  Their departure however does not explain the whole decline.  Many women are leaving due to an inability to balance their work life with their home life.  A 2014 poll of nonworking adults showed that 61% of women aged 25 to 54 were not working due to family responsibilities while only 37% of men provided the same answer.  For many women in the U.S., 12 weeks of maternity leave is not long enough and the rising costs of child care increase the attractiveness of quitting work life and transitioning to home life. 

While numbers continue to decline in the U.S., they continue to increase in most European countries including Japan and Canada.  One reason is that  family policies in the U.S. are not as friendly as in some European countries.  Yes, twelve weeks of maternity leave may sound lengthy but England, for example, provides maternity leave for up to one year and in many cases it is fully paid.  They also offer protection for part-time workers.  According to a study by Francine Blau and Lawrence Kuhn of Cornell, if the United States had the same policies in place for mothers provided by European countries, the labor force participation rate would have been seven percentage points higher by 2010.  Though the European policies have their pros they have their cons as well.  These policies which support working mothers also burden their economies.  Between 20 to 40 percent of jobs in the Eurozone held by women are part time and a study by Blau and Kuhn found that women in Europe were half as likely as men to be managers while in the U.S. men and women were equally likely.

Many women who wish to return to the workforce are willing provided that their family life is not too disrupted in the form of relocation, long commutes or working irregular hours.  This applies only to women with families.  Women without children, like men, are more inclined to accept these inconveniences. 

Many women are taking time off of work to raise their children but seek to return to the workforce once their children enter school.  Their primary concern is of course how hirable they are after spending significant time away from the workforce.  A woman with multiple children could conceivably be a non-working parent for seven years or more.  Studies have shown that biases are indeed exercised towards individuals who have been unemployed for lengthy periods of time.  So in this instance moms may be ultimately punished for having a family.

And yet one poll found that non-working women are not nearly as desperate to return to work as non-working men.  In many instances, their lives improve in key categories whereas a man’s lifestyle tends to suffer during periods of unemployment.

Women want to succeed and be viewed as equals to men in the workplace and yet for mothers the best way to achieve this equality is to perhaps not pursue the path of motherhood at all.  They have a choice; a career or being the world’s greatest mom, and the statistics above might suggest praise from their child is more valuable than praise from their boss.

Four Fears of Video Interviewing.

As the client relationship manager for a video interviewing provider, I have spoken with many candidates over the years prior to their interviews.  Most candidates are un-fazed they have been asked by one of our customers to complete a video interview, however a few cannot hide their anxiety and some openly state how nervous they are.  Candidates who are camera shy or technologically unsophisticated prefer phone screens or face-to-face interviews versus logging into a website or conducting an interview using a mobile app on their phone.  Many, unfamiliar with video interviewing technology, question the point of it.

Quickly I will explain for job candidates reading this why video interviews have gained in popularity.  Recruiters and HR personnel are pressed for time.  Scheduling a phone screen takes much longer than inviting a candidate to complete a video interview.  Conducting a phone screen obviously takes longer as well.  If a recruiter has five phone screens scheduled in a day and commits twenty minutes of their time per screen, they have invested more than an hour and a half.  This time is not consumed when candidates complete a virtual interview.  At the completion of the phone screens the recruiter must adequately present to a hiring manager the notes taken during your phone screen and sufficiently compare them with the responses given by other candidates.  This task is more easily accomplished with recorded video interviews.  Overall, video interviewing saves a tremendous amount of time and effort but also provides you, the candidate, an opportunity to show off your personality and charisma.

Saving time for recruiters also means that they can screen more candidates.  Your chances of being seen are higher if the recruiter is using video interviews to screen candidates.

Despite the benefits to you and employers, concerns still pop up here and there.  Here are a few of the common fears.

Video interviewing is difficult:  Those who would rather pick up a phone than turn on a computer may worry they are not tech savvy enough to even start the interview.  Not to worry.  Most providers have a simple process in place that will test your camera and microphone to ensure they are working backed up by technical support teams that can walk you through it if you get stuck. Beyond the setup process, your video interview is simple.  Your questions will appear on the screen, you will read them and then provide your responses into the camera.  Upon completion the recruiter or hiring manager will be notified.  Also, you can complete the interview day or night at a time convenient to you.

Your interview will be shared on social networks:  Most providers store your interview on a secure server.  Downloads to a local machine by the hiring company are not permitted.  Therefore your interview will not appear on YouTube.

Your phone or tablet is a poor device to use:  Many candidates who own perfectly good smart devices are hesitant to use them for a video interview.  Truth be told, candidates who use the mobile app often run into less technical problems with their cameras and microphones than those using a pc or laptop.  Additionally, the camera built into a phone or tablet provides greater quality than a webcam and the touch screen interface with the app is often easier to navigate for less savvy users.

You worry you look terrible: If you have been invited to take a video interview, you have time to prepare yourself and your background.  You are conducting this interview on your turf in your comfort zone.  Take advantage of that!  Relax, smile and provide the interviewer with the enthusiasm you can’t show over the phone.

Remember, video interviews are not trying to take anything from you, they are trying to give something to you; time, convenience and an opportunity to put your best foot forward.