E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSJust as speed dating adds more stress to the search for a mate, speed interviewing is sure to make the job hunt more tense.
Yes, speed interviewing.
In at least one extreme example, workers are being given just one minute to sell their skills to a hiring manager. If they fall short, they are out the door.
That’s the approach MediConnect Global has been taking with its interview process. Even though it may sound like a nightmare for some job seekers, it has worked out great for the medical records company and some lucky employees who passed the test.
When Zane Davis, 34, a client services representative, interviewed at Mediconnect two years ago, he was told before the meeting that he’d have less than a minute to pitch himself to a panel of company managers. “I had never heard of a company doing these speed interviews,” he said.
Davis, who had been a welder and was looking to change careers, said, “They wanted to know why they should hire me within 30 seconds or so.”
When he got to the company’s offices in Salt Lake City, Utah, there were 12 other job candidates waiting for the quick why-you-should-hire-me interview spiel. He recalled everyone else had flashcards they were studying, but he decided to focus on being confident and highlighting the skills he could bring to the table.
“I don’t remember what I said, but it worked,” he said. The company called him back for about five minutes of follow-up questions that day, and about a week later he was offered the job. “It’s kind of a nerve-racking experience, and very humbling.”
While quick back-to-back, rapid-fire interviews with multiple candidates have been a fixture at job fairs, tactic is unusual within the confines of company offices.
Many job seekers have reported a growing trend in the opposite direction, with employers putting applicants through endless hours of interviews. (I recently wrote about the phenomenon.)
“We have not received much pick-up amongst our clients in regards to speed-dating type interviews,” said Bob Kovalsky, senior vice president for Adecco Staffing. “The process that the majority of our clients uses is one that’s a bit more comprehensive.”
But using the speed-dating type format is not unheard of.
Booz Allen Hamilton uses “a technique where candidates can go from table to table to meet with interviewers who represent differing capabilities of the firm,” said James Fisher, a spokesman for the consulting firm. “This helps us ensure that we’re making the best match of candidate skills and job opportunities.”
In a post on the jobs website Glassdoor, one anonymous job seeker likened it to "speed dating."
“I don’t know that we would use the term ‘speed dating,’” Fisher said.
In situations where employers want to churn through lots of applicants quickly, some hiring managers are using the tactic, said Jay Meschke, president of recruiting firm EFL Associates.
He’s not convinced, however, it’s a smart move. “Sure people want applicants to meet with as many people as possible in a short amount of time, but what can you learn in a few minutes?”
Quite a lot, according to MediConnect CEO Amy Rees Anderson.
About two years ago, she heard about speed dating and thought it might be a great way to review many job applicants in a short time. While she began by giving candidates just 30 second to pitch themselves, she ultimately decided one minute was best.
“The purpose of that minute is to get a sense of their confidence, personality, ability to represent themselves,” she said.
Before the candidates make their brief presentations, the company has them complete skills, IQ and personality tests. “By the time they come for the interview we’ve got a pretty good profile of them,” she explained.
Sometimes applicants are nervous, she said, but the managers don’t hold that against them. Too much confidence can get you booted. “Someone that came in was so overly aggressive about why we should hire him, and when his time was up he refused to leave,” she said.
Two memorable applicants, she said, did something out of the ordinary. One candidate brought in 5-hour Energy drinks because he thought the managers conducting the interviews might be tired. And another applicant pulled out a huge stack of dollar bills, laid them on the table before his pitch, and picked them up when he left. “It caught our attention, made us remember him,” she said.
Verisk Analytics Inc. bought MediConnect in March. Officials from the parent company recently asked Anderson to walk them through the speed-interviewing process because they’re considering expanding the technique.
It’s not just about the words they say, or how creative they are, Anderson said. “You get a sense of the person,” she said. “They come in and tell us about themselves.”
Leave a Comment:
The companies are usually complying with the law that they have to put their add in the paper and interview people off the street. Most of them then turn around after five hundred interviews and hire from within the company. Or, they hire relatives. This is why when you send in your resume it usually only gets filed away and forgotten.
I think that happens sometimes. Especially with those hard to get jobs-whether it be county/city/federal, or just with those ones that you know get filed by people but it just never seems to be anyone you know, have ever known and you wonder if they bring them in from another state, or another planet.
Having said that, what I think mostly happens is that the employers have so many people to choose from that they pick the very best one that comes off on the interview and whose references check out and if you never ever get chosen you have re-assess why. I mean really look at yourself in the mirror.
Sometimes what comes back at you from that mirror will be something you cannot do anything about (age, for example--agism is alive and well) but other times you will see things that you know have needed improvement (like better interviewing skills, better resume, better presentation about your skills) and that you need to fix and can fix.
Best of luck out there to those who are fully qualified, good employees that are being passed over just because someone can sell themselves better, or by luck, nepotism or whatever else. Chin up and don't give up.
All of my jobs were not advertised.
When they are not hiring they file it away but I get calls 6-8 months latter asking if I would be interested in switching jobs and work for them.
Auto 101 - you're a blue-collar worker in one of the few industries that still has a shortage of workers (certified auto mechanics).
Most people are not in one of these rare niche job categories (and you'd be sorry if they were, because you'd be competing a lot harder for a job).
You tend to view all problems by your own experience, however, which is always a mistake. Everyone who isn't in an industry like yours isn't "lazy" just because they can't walk into a new job anytime they want one. There are systemic factors involved that individual workers have no control over (outsourcing to overseas factories, NAFTA, shifting of America's economy to the financial sector, ballooning corporate profits, workers contributing more and more productivity for no more pay, etc. etc).
There are 5 unemployed workers for every job opening in most sectors, and they can't all just shift to the few where there is a more equal distribution of applicants to jobs. It ain't that simple, bub.
It is called thinking a head IT was one of 4 careers I was thinking about.
As a mechanic who is ASE and Toyota Certified, my career is slowly dying. Pay is going downhill and flat rate is really a killer when there is no work. Plus tools cost way too much. All the techs in my shop haven't had a change in pay in 5 years.
So you're sure it was your omniscience in knowing what career wouldn't get trashed in the recession?
Or did you get really lucky?
Because you seem to use your good fortune as a prejudice against those who weren't so lucky (through no fault of their own).
Employers can use this tactic due to the abundance of people looking for jobs. Once the economy improves, things will change. I've not experienced this speed interviewing technique, but I doubt that a company like that is a good one to work for. an interview, in my opinion, is as much about the applicant being good for the position, as it is about the applicant getting a feel for the company, and deciding if they want to work for them. It almost sounds like speed hiring could change into speed firing, if the company experiences the least bit of problems meeting their quarterly objectives.
That's who I want handling my medical records--someone who had a 60-second interview.
IT is not slowly dieing it is just evolving you have to keep up.
Yes that can be a good thing or a bad thing with Toyota they are always have cars in the bays it is easy to get 50-60 house a week the down side is it is Toyota and it is easy to work on so the pay is lower not as low as ford and GM.
They do cost but if you work on one car line you don't need much more than 15K in tools.
That is because Toyota is one of the car manufacturing dealerships that base their pay off of ASE(that are worthless) When I worked at Lexus the techs maxed out at 22 an hour. At Volkswagen or Audi you make about 25 an hour with only 3 years of experience.
It is called researching The average career of a tech is 15 years and most are older than 45 and for the state of California you have 1 technician for every 3,000 cars.
How ridiculous. HR is nothing but a series of fads coming and going.
HR is a joke.
Chuckx, exactly correct. My buddie's wife interviewed for a job with the company she works for. The HR guy told her she wasn't qualified, when her boss told her to apply because she was so qualified for the job. she was devastated, but the next time the opening was available she applied and got the job. a year or so later, the HR guy that said she wasn't qualified moved into a new position, and my friends wife is his boss. She holds no grudges, but has commented to us that this guy is a complete idiot, and was shocked that he was moved into the new position. I really love how this situation turned out. Thought it was worth telling.
How about starting off with "you have 60 seconds to tell my why I should want to work for you?"
Don't interviewees get to ask questions? Before I take a job with the company I like to talk to them and get an idea of how they function as well.
This quickie interview is to get you in the door. Until they decide if you are worthy of the time to get a second, more in depth, interview they could not care less if you have questions for them. The last thing they want to do is waster hours and hours talking to people that have no chance of being hired into a job.
Well that's dumb. That's what resumes are for. This "speed interview" thing is just a game for corportations. They laugh at how desperate people who have been out of work for 6+ months really are. You screen resumes, then you screen again in a 60 sec "interview"? Its more like a sales pitch.
Luck is everything is finding a job, as in everything in life. Also, I'd hate to work for a company that finds entertainment in the desperate jobless....
HR can't read and only have an attention span of 60 sec. Go fig.
n/m
This sounds like a great idea if you are looking to hire only the slick-quick-talkers for telemarketing or used car sales. It is a perfect way to weed out anyone who may be able to think beyond the superficial.
It's also a good way to hire people who are able to think quickly and present in a clear concise manner. Not every job lends itself to be filled with someone who has to deliberate for hours before being able to reply in a meaningful way.
ohwow, you have to think quickly in any interview. They ask you a question, do you have hours to deliberate an answer? No. You have about 0.5 seconds to answer or else they start thinking you're slow. This speed interview process is nothing but a joke. You can't justify it. At least with speed dating, its to rule out the question if a hot guy/girl is dumb or not/matches your personality.
Fluff piece, I have seen some good talkers get in the door. Once they get behind the desk they either 1) know nothing 2) after the first 5 minutes pass you realize they never noticed that the person has some mental issues
Yeah, I've seen that many times over. The bs artist/know it all/claw their way in and up/ bully who can put on a good floor show and brown nose the right people gets in and wastes everyone's time and $$$.
My first "job" was a paid internship that screened through an immersion program. Come in for a few days, do some work that is relevant to what you'll be doing, then they go and review the quality of the work you did. At the same time, you interact with the staff and see how well you get along. Of course, first you send them your resume first and all the technical stuff, but I thought that this was an excellent way to hire people, and companies shoud start doing something like this. It shows that you're a quick learner, good at what you're applying for, hard working, and teamworker. It screens out all the "all talk, no action" types. What else does an employer want in an employee?
Granted, the applicant would need time to do this, and it could only apply to certain types of jobs (desk work, mainly) but if you're unemployed you have all the time in the world. And if you already have a job and are looking to switch gears, use sick time.... Everybody wins.
HR is such a joke
Works great if they're hiring a salesman... not so much for managers and engineers.
In my experience managers are some of the best BS people in the business.
@ohwow... yes, but you have to spend time with one to find out how good their BS really is ;)
While I do want to have an HR person's opinion on a candidate, I do not let them vet candidates on their own. HR leans towards communication and political skills. I lost count of how many accounting and bookkeeping candidates they sent me who couldn't explain the difference between depreciation and amortization; or between cash-based and accrual-based numbers; or where net income goes after the current year ends and the new year begins. HR is shocked to hear about the candidate's incompetence because they interviewed so well...
Most companies don't know (and never did know) how to find and recruit good employees. The grass is always greener to them and they base their perceptions incorrectly. It takes both skill and a bit of luck/being in the right place at the right time to land a good job. You won't get one if you give up, though.
I have found most most employees believe the grass is greener on the other side of the fence and once they are there they want to go back. With most interviews they know if they are interested in the first 20 seconds of the interview the trick it to keep that interest.
I think this is a very bad idea.
One downside to this process is that fast talkers (not necessarily fast thinkers) will win, while more contemplative, progressive candidates will lose.
That may be okay for positions that require slick rhetoric, but for job openings like engineering, math and many sciences, it's a no-go.
Another downside is that it's damn rude.
In my career, I've interviewed more candidates that could fit into a good-sized office building. Not all of them were hired...but all were treated as guests to my company, and welcomed as such.
I always assumed that the person across the table from me worked hard to prepare, and that earned my respect and time.
Also, an interview is a two-way street: you're interviewing the candidate, and he or she is interviewing you (and the company). Neither side wants to leave a bad impression.
Despite recent attempts, filling vacancies in personnel is a lot of work. And like many things requiring work, there are few shortcuts that truly succeed.
This could also be considered discriminatory to people like me, who have speech impediments that prevent them from talking fast or even normally. Sometimes I struggle for 25-30 seconds before I can even start talking.
FordMan97,
Excellent point.
But in fairness (to a process that seems anything but fair), if there's one thing I've learned, it's that HR departments nationwide are growing very sensitive to the "D" word: Discrimination. And that's a good thing.
With this in mind, I'm sure that in most cases a speech impediment or other individual challenge would be grounds for exceptions to the 60-second rule.
So I think that particular candidate will get his or her time to make their case.
Whether that person gets hired after fair consideration behind closed managerial doors...well, that's another story.
For the vast majority of positions, vetting candidates first on how well they communicated their '60-second elevator speech' is remarkably stupid.
We, as candidates, should be the ones interviewing the potential employer(s). I'd like to know what kind of people I would be working with--Are they nut jobs, do they believe in communication, is there diversity, is the atmosphere inviting, do the co-workers appear to get along, is the area clean, do the employees look reasonably happy...? The candidates are the ones who will be working 8+ hours with these people and if I'm not able to ask questions then I wouldn't want to waste my time doing a 60-second interview.
I have yet to work in a company that believes in communication and integrity. For over 2 years now, I've had to deal with people who choose not to communicate, resolve issues, share information, and frequently lie to management regarding status of projects. I'm guessing they really don't know the true meaning of the word 'T-E-A-M', nor 'H-O-N-E-S-T-Y'. It's been frustrating because how can you complete projects with the highest of quality if you aren't included in any of the communication involving the project(s)?
Anyway...that's what I think of this 60-second interview.
The only problem I have with the 60 second interview is the possibility that I might be called back and have to make yet another return trip for a more in depth interview that leads to another interview and another ad nauseum. Personally, the current trend of interviewing a potential candidate to death is much worse that the 60 second interview. My wife just completed 15 interviews over a three month period for a middle management position. That speaks more of an organization incapable of making a decision than a thorough vetting of an applicant.
kiddin: If you've had a minute interview, then you have probably found out all you need to know about the company. I have the same response to this as I did regarding those recent articles where employers want facebook passwords. If you have half a brain then you know that you are in for hell under the gestapo at work if you take a job for them. That's actually a creative way of weeding people out. If they are willing to do that, then they know they have them under their thumbs.
As for the 60 second interview, this might be useful for sales positions. We all know first impressions make a big difference in the sales field. Of course, the sales professionals work out their own techniques over time. Just suddenly out of the blue doing this for an interview would cause one to see who can think quickly on their feet.
Between this practice and using gameable metrics like "Klout" score, getting hired is now like auditioning for a game show. Hey look it's the work game.
Did any of you that left previous comments read the article? Did you miss this statement?
In the current job market there may be hundreds of applicants for a job.
If you are lucky enough to get a face to face interview, then in reality you might only have the first minute or so to impress.
I didn't see thorough background check or a real face-to-face interview to uncover untruths or to match the person with a personality test which, by the way, are the easiest tests to get good scores on without really revealing a darn thing about your real personality.
First we hear about a bunch of 20 somethings cooking up derivitives and SWAPs thinking it's a great idea and fast way to make profits for the bank forgetting to think about the long range problems and the ultimate collapse of the economy. Now we have the dehumanizing 60 second interview.
Picture this: Adolp Hitler applying for a customer service job, or Charlie Manson. I'm willing to bet using this technique...confidence and articulate, fast speech...both would be hired. The interviewers would walk away remarking how neat and well groomed Hilter was and his ability to work them into a fenzy during the interview and how Charlie's confident stare was indicator of his ability to focus and highlighted his attention to detail!
Sure enough...the corporation has been sold because the CEO has run through many companies in her fast climb since being a dental assistant. I just hope all the fast talkers she hired are very careful with my medical records, both in recording and releasing them. "haste makes waste"...true then and still is.
Thoughts that come to mind...The "Donald" saying "your fired" ...after the speed
interview or possibly BEFORE the minute is up.
A "dancing bear"...would you like some somersaults or backflips with that interview
Human resources people are dreaming up ridiculous ideas in this job market
in an attempt to ensure THEIR jobs.....it's predatory and disgusting. I would like
to go to one of these "interviews" and accidentally spill my coffee all over their
paperwork and computer.
And you have 60 seconds to GO SCREW YOURSELF!This is just another Evil way to rub people's faces in the dirt and kick them to the curb,because the economy is in the Crapper
I's love to see the day come when these Arrogant Bastards,beg for workers,instead of playing these DISGUSTING, IGNORANT, STUPID, AND EVIL GAMES by wanking people around and playing with their minds,in this Cruel manner.
Again Go Screw Yourselves,I'd rather starve to death than to put with this Bull Sh it!
It's easy to get a job it just takes a few hours.
Really a few hours and how's that?
IT is called having an in-demand skill. There are a few careers that are always hiring.
It only takes about a minute to recognize a worthless potential hire at an interview. Why waste more time?
I just ask them what kind of phone they have and whether they use IM.
Based on the quick response, out they go... useless entitled generation thinks work is for texting, IMing and electronic socializing....
Best to move back with Mommy and Daddy!
jello heads!
"Skirt UP" or "Drop Trou" works pretty fast for getting rid of interviewees you don't want
Sloppy Joe.... you sound like you interview as though you think you're a dicktaster for your company. If the company presents YOU as the face of their company, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want the gig.
This "speed interview" concept seems to work for the particular company mentioned in the article. It appears that they are able to hire the type of people they feel they need.
So, I have an idea for all of you who so vociferously disapprove of this method: don't apply for a job with this company! That way, you won't have to deal with the evil, degrading, embarrassing, dehumanizing "speed interview" and everyone is happy.
That's the way Admiral Rickover started his interviews with prospective Engineering Officers
The response he liked was when you immediately took charge & knocked everything off his desk
"Speed Interview"? ----- Be carefull what you wish for, It didn't work for the GOP & McCain
Q.... "You have 60 seconds to tell me how bad you want the job"
A.... "I'm sitting in front of you aren't I?"
If any company is going to make you jump through hoops before they ever hire you, whether it's selling yourself in sixty seconds or coming back for sixty interviews, you might want to question whether you want to work there anyway. It might be a short term filler job but that doesn't sound like a place I would be happy long term. It sounds more like a company who focuses on meetings, political correctness, and miles of red tape instead of allowing you to just get the job done.
I know there's a job shortage, but I think the real talent can still pick and choose - interviewers are representing their company and need to understand they are being judged as well. At the end of the day, you can either check interviewees' references, believe what's on their application or resume and go with your gut feeling knowing that only time will tell how well it will work out. All these "new" ways of conducting interviews amount to is baloney and end up repelling really good workers. If you are interested in retaining employees, it's probably best not to make them miserable before you ever hire them. Just my opinion.
I went to one of those. I went in, sat down, looked at my watch and said nothing. After about 30 seconds the interviewer started talking and asking questions. I said nothing and at 1 minute I got up and thanked her for her time and left. I received a call the next day wanting to know why I'd even showed up. I told them my resume said everything they needed to know and I had nothing better to do than take up their time.
I highly doubt a company would call you up to ask why you said nothing.
Get over your big bad self, Princess.
On the bright side, you probably don't have to worry about making it through the interview before you need to use the restroom - no matter how much coffee you had to drink.
This is basically true and the same thing goes for a resume---either it sells you in 30 seconds or less or it's in the trash can. Sad.