Most companies use interviews as the primary method to elect a candidate for a job some people think that this is not the best way Do you agree or disagree ?

Interviewing candidates for a position in a company is now widely used by most employers,

although

it is said that

this

is not the best method. I completely agree with

this

notion as scouting potential employees based on recommendations might be more credible than the former.

This

essay will discuss

this

further

and provide a concluding view. The process of an interview is usually one-on-one question and answer with an employer and a candidate,

this

can be done in a panel method too, which can be truly nerve-wracking for applicants. In many cases, they end up stuttering and miss their chance to receive an offer. Employers,

on the other hand

, lose potential good workers with

this

type of recruitment.

Whereas

being able to handle emotions

while

under pressure is an outstanding trait for an employee to possess, there could be some job seekers who have introverted personalities but have excellent skills for the job. Meanwhile, hiring through recommendations and scouting has certain benefits for businesses,

such

as credible judgment from other people's points of view. By

this

I mean, those who recommend applicants, will be able to provide actual information about the way candidates perform their jobs and work with a team.

In contrast

, during an interview, a candidate may highlight their strengths just to satisfy the interviewer's question. It seems more advisable for companies to tackle recruitment

this

way. In conclusion, utilising the usual method of recruiting employees,

such

as interviews may test the candidates' handling of their emotions during the process. In my opinion, having other people's input about an applicant's

overall

work ethic is considered more dependable, which is a better way to hire future workers.