Interviews form the basic selection criteria for most longer companies. However, some people think that an interview is not a reliable method of choosing whom to employ and there are other better methods. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

There are some basic methods by which multinational , international and domestic organisations get selected of their workers like conducting written tests and verbal interviews. Some people proposed that an interview is not an authentic source of picking the employees; there are other selection criteria to qualify the candidates. I personally disagree with the notion. The

first

and foremost reason for the disappointment with the idea is that the recruitment of the employees by conducting face-to-face interviews enables the employers to estimate the personal characteristics and sophisticated cognitive skills.

For example

, verbal testing depicts the communication skills and fluency in the language along with the aptitude and quick response to emergencies.

Thus

, the recruitment by verbal testing assures the owner about the potential of the applicant. Moving

further

, some of the entrepreneurs use other options to specify the essence of human capital. The

first

method is written testing which helps employers to conclude the mathematical talent of the workers.

Secondly

, some of the multinational and international firms use references to select the helping hands.

For instance

,in the food industry, most of the owners verify the references. It disseminates more accuracy and transparency as the applicant is familiar with the current working staff. To conclude

then

, it is taxing work to decide which method is perfect for the vacancies. Howbeit, I think verbal testing would provide more clearance and accurate estimation regarding the potential of the candidates in comparison to others.