The rationale for group interviews rests on the basic assumptions that: when an entire group interviews the applicant at the same time, the individuals tend to get the same general impression and can more easily reach consensus; and the pressure exerted by a group will bring out the so-called real person.
While there is little doubt that pressure can help generate more genuine responses from the interviewee, it is certainly not an automatic fact of life. Beyond that, the first contention regarding consensus is not supportable. As any psychologist will tell you, everyone sees something different in a common experience or event.
The great problem with group interviews, then, is not the pressure (though that is the feeling when you are under fire).
Rather, it is the fact that people seldom agree on a candidate's credentials and most of the group will simply give in to the most aggressive or powerful person. And if you didn't make a particularly strong positive impression on that one individual, you will not get the job.
The group interview really isn't a very effective device for either party in the recruitment process. It makes hiring decisions more difficult for the organization while it distorts the candidate's behavior and creates a confusing and nerve-racking situation for him or her. Still, there are organizations that continue to use group interviews. Happily for the candidate (and the organization), they are few and far between.
Screening Devices
Occasionally, you can expect to be confronted with screening devices. Many large organizations are turning to them early in the first stages of the process, in an effort to qualify candidates once it seems certain that the person meets the basic requirements to do the job. Then it becomes a question of sorting out the wheat from the chaff. That is, somehow deciding that a person possesses the exact qualifications to do the job well.
For the most part, these mechanisms are standardized tests that practically anybody can purchase from research-oriented publishers. Most of these exams have been validated (tested and confirmed for accuracy) and the employer picks out a variable or set of variables that he or she wants to test and buys the proper device to measure what he or she is looking for.
The problem with these tests is that they are usually so generic that they don't really do the employer much good. As scientific as they seem, they are not specific to the job and, at best, they either indicate very general tendencies, or else they plot a very narrow picture of one or two traits or abilities.
For the candidate, it invariably becomes a no-win situation. No matter how you try to second-guess the test, it is almost impossible to figure out how to respond. And even if you do figure out the "right" answers, the test may come back to haunt you later. For instance, if you score high on preferring to work alone as a technician, the test results may get you hired but they may prevent you from being promoted into a high person-contact management job in the future.
A variation on the screening test is the polygraph or lie detector. While the accuracy of this test has been in question for years, many employers still rely heavily on it, especially in the retail business where employees handle money and have easy access to tempting stock. There are those who claim they know how to "beat" these tests, but for the most part they are also very difficult to second-guess.
While such screening devices as generic psychological tests, aptitude tests, tendency tests, and polygraph examinations are used today on a selective basis, they are still the exception and don't pose a significant problem for most people seeking jobs.
The End of the Interview
All of us would like to know whether or not we landed the job immediately after the interview. But that is seldom the case. Most organizations want to consider a number of people for a job rather than jumping at the first attractive applicant. Also, they may want to factor in the screening test before making a decision. Finally, they may not want to give you the bad news if it comes to that, or they may be prohibited from telling you because of regulations.
The net effect of all this is that you normally leave the interview with a feeling of uncertainty. But that does not always have to be true, if you know the signs to look for. As often as not, if you have made a strong favorable or unfavorable impression, the interviewer will indicate this fact.
