Most employers do job interviews before offering a position to a person. Do you think this is the best way to do it, or are there better alternatives? What is the best method of choosing employees in your opinion?

Nowadays, when applying for work, you are obligated to engage in an interview as a trial to determine whether you are a valuable asset to a company's firm. But recently, I

find

Wrong verb form

found

show examples

that

this

method of choosing workers is quite insubstantial because of how little evidence is provided to entrust new individuals, which will be

further

elaborated and clipped with a hypothetical solution.

Firstly

, an employer's duty is to seek out the best-performing individuals to be admitted into their department. Their judgement is incredibly influential in affecting the outcome,

however

, they are flawed opinions. Fundamentally, interviews are simply too vague to fully determine a talent because they are only supported by words and not actions, which leads to devastating results.

For example

, a person could show a good demeanour but lack the skills needed for the task.

Therefore

, I propose a hypothesis for employers to select their future peers more successfully and

that is

to experience first-hand their working capability. The solution is to offer them a temporary internship position for a limited period of time. Let them show their strengths by permitting them to work as a regular employee.

Consequently

, it is easier to identify and choose an upcoming soon-to-be-employee by doing

this

.

Additionally

,

this

method will reveal more about the workers, which will be very helpful for employers. In conclusion, choosing a valuable asset for a company is extremely arduous and at times untrustworthy. People can easily contradict themselves more often than not; which is why I think that

this

solution will prove definitively if an individual is either qualified or not.