小组面试：招聘还是“选秀”？

    朱迪•肖是企业培训机构赢商教练公司（ActionCOACH）的CEO，主要负责公司在美国和加拿大的业务。她说，当公司对前来面试的求职者宣布，公司将以小组方式对他们进行评估时，大多数人的反应是吃惊。甚至有人心生怀疑，询问公司是不是要向他们推销某种产品。

    她说：“对于大多数人来说，这是他们第一次参加小组面试。他们面面相觑，有点不知所措。”

    尽管求职者在开始时会有些紧张，但采取小组面试的赢商教练公司和其他公司却认为，这是一种最有效的方法，可以将符合某个职位的若干求职者进行公正的对比。因为通过这种独特的方法，招聘经理可以深入了解到未来的员工在团队协作方面,以及在压力下的工作表现。但反对小组面试的批评者却认为这种方法有损人格，声称这种方式给本已困难重重的求职过程增加了不必要的额外压力和竞争。

节省时间，公平公正

    肖发现，部门主管更愿意花一个小时来同时面试12名求职者，而不愿意拿出12个小时进行一对一的对话。而且，在一对一面试中，经理们可能因为当天情绪不佳，或者因为要把以往的面试与昨天刚进行的面试进行对比心生厌烦，从而对求职者产生偏见。但把求职者放在一起进行比较，则可以消除这种偏见。

    肖解释道：“小组面试之所以有效，是因为能一次面对一组求职者，并对他们进行比较。如果他们能走进面试间，说明他们就已经达到了我们招聘的最低要求……实际上，我要招聘的员工首先要和企业文化相契合。”

    在进行面试之前，赢商教练公司会要求求职者先进行性格测试，以便根据他们的性格进行分组，并针对他们的性格特征提供最适合的职位。这样，外向性格的求职者之间将进行对比，内向型也是如此。

    肖表示：“有时候，对于内向性格的求职者而言，小组面试可能会让他们望而却步。但是，由于同一个小组的求职者性格类似，他们的感受也是相同的。”

    有些公司对小组的评估甚至在面试之前便已经开始，比如位于美国波士顿的环游旅行公司（Grand Circle）。公司的接待员会观察求职者在大厅等待面试时的行为。该公司负责人力资源与企业文化的执行副总裁玛莎•普莱贝罗表示：“在这里，你可以得到关于求职者表现的第一手资料：哪些人乐观向上，哪些人畏缩不前。”

    一旦8到10人的小组面试正式开始，面试官就会提出问题，目的是要判断求职者与公司价值观的契合程度，包括风险承受能力和“勇于表达”的沟通能力。普莱贝罗不仅会听求职者的表述，还会观察他们等待发言时的肢体语言。

    之后，求职者会被分成小组，每个小组可分配到一些稻草和胶带。他们的任务是：用这些材料造一个容器，保证一枚生鸡蛋在从20英尺的高度落下后不会被摔碎。之后，各小组需要通过营销演示来陈述他们的想法。

    普莱贝罗称：“立马就能看出谁在团队中发挥领导作用，谁是主导，谁没有发挥作用，谁能提出解决方案等等。观察他们的表现非常有用，可以告诉我们很多东西。”

    有一些求职者拒绝参加小组面试，或者会中途离开。普莱贝罗认为，这也是小组面试的效果之一，因为很明显他们并不是合适的人选。

    她指出：“如果求职者不愿意尝试不同的事物，说明他们不愿意承担风险，在公司也不会取得成功，这一点得弄清楚。我们希望求职者能走出‘舒适地带’。”

小组面试只能揭示求职者最糟糕的一面

    有些求职者对小组面试深恶痛绝，美国加利福尼亚州萨克拉门托市的米歇尔•甘布尔•瑞斯丽便是其中之一。在成立自己的3L出版社（3L Publishing）之前，她曾参加过一个公共关系职位的面试，当时大约有200人参加了小组面试。

    在此之前，甘布尔•瑞斯丽有过15年的工作经验，但在面试中却被安排坐在金属折叠椅上挤在在一排排求职者中间。谈到当时的感受，她表示：“那种场面太令人震惊了，而且很让人泄气。我认为我的能力属于高管级别，不应该参加这种‘选秀式’的面试。如果他们提前告诉我，我肯定不会参加。”

    据甘布尔•瑞斯丽描述，面试官随后开始对求职者提问题。求职者都争先恐后地举手回答问题。

    她说：“我认为这种方式非常不合适，甚至有些无礼。我觉得这除了能证明有些人比别人更自以为是之外，没有任何效果。它会让人们产生一种奇怪的绝望情绪。如果我要招聘专业职位，绝对不会采取这种方式。”

    职业教练福特•R•迈尔斯也同意她的观点。他认为，理想的面试应该是雇主与求职者之间通过谈话，来确定双方是否合适，而小组面试则是人为设计了一种环境，而忽略了一个事实——团队精神是需要花时间来培养的。

    迈尔斯曾著有《绝处逢生，找到理想的工作》（Get the Job You Want, Even When No One's Hiring）一书，他认为：“这种方法效率极端低下，甚至很不明智。这种方法明显是错误的，而且会产生相反的效果。不仅浪费时间和精力，对求职者也不够尊重。我呼吁所有公司都能摒弃这种做法，除非它要为舞蹈演出或歌唱比赛进行选秀。”

    但顾问乔治•布莱特却认为小组面试是最有效的方式之一，通过这种方式，可以从一开始就找出具有团队协作能力的潜在求职者。

    布莱特表示：“这种方式非常有效，尤其是可以将求职者进行对比，因为这种方式摒除了情景面试的偏差。面试官需要观察求职者的行为和处理人际关系的能力。而一对一面试则恰恰相反，面试官只是在听求职者陈述。”布莱特著有《新官上任百日行动计划》（The New Leader's 100 Day Action Plan）一书。

    与普莱贝罗一样，他也会在正式开始面试之前就开始观察求职者。他说：“有的人来了之后，只是盯着桌子看，然后就开始查看电子邮件或拿出随身携带的笔记。面试还没有开始，所以他们做的都是自己想做的事情。有的人到场之后，则会与房间里的其他人，或者跟我或公司的员工攀谈。我并不想判断他们行为的对错。但这些行为特征通常可以展现他们与外界互动的方式。”

    （翻译 刘进龙）

    When ActionCOACH tells job candidates they'll be evaluated in a group when they come in for an interview, most react with surprise. Some even ask if the business coaching company is going to

    "For the majority of the people, it is their first group interview," she says. "They're a little bit bewildered still, giving sideways glances at the next candidate."

    Despite job-seekers' initial anxiety, ActionCOACH and other companies that use group interviews believe they're the most efficient way to honestly compare qualified candidates for a job opening, because they give hiring managers unique insights into how potential employees would work on a team and function under stress. But critics of group interviews find them demeaning and say they add unnecessary stress and competition in an already-difficult job-hunting process.

Saving time, being fair

    Shaw finds department heads much more willing to spend one hour in a group interview of 12 candidates than to set aside 12 hours for one-on-one conversations. Moreover, by comparing applicants side-by-side, she says managers eliminate bias from their mood of the day or trouble from comparing a long-ago interview with one that occurred yesterday.

    "The reason group interviews are so effective is you get to see the entire group at one time and are able to rank those candidates," Shaw explains. "If they're in the room, they've met minimum expectations for what we're looking for in the role ... I'm really looking for cultural fit."

    Before the interview, ActionCOACH asks candidates to take a personality test in order to group together applicants with similar profiles for positions that best fit those traits. That way, the extroverts are all compared with each other, as are the introverts.

    "Sometimes for introverted people the group interview can be very daunting," Shaw says. But, "because they're all the same behaviorally, the group is feeling the same way."

    At Grand Circle, a Boston-based travel company, evaluation of the group begins even before the interview starts, as the firm's receptionist observes the behavior of candidates waiting in the lobby. "You're getting your first piece of data on how people are going to perform: who's upbeat, who's hanging back," says Martha Prybylo, the firm's executive vice president of people and culture.

    Once the formal interview begins in groups of eight to 10 people, an interviewer asks questions that aim to figure out how well candidates fit with the company's values, including risk-taking and "courageous communications." Prybylo not only listens to what candidates say but also watches their body language while they're waiting to speak.

    Applicants are then divided into teams with a handful of straws and tape. The goal: to create a vessel that will protect a raw egg from breaking when dropped from 20 feet, followed by a marketing presentation describing their ideas.

    "Right away you see who's taking a leadership position, who's taking over, who's not contributing, who's coming with solutions," Prybylo says. "It's great stuff to watch and really tells us a lot."

    Some potential employees refuse to come in for a group interview or walk out halfway. Prybylo says that's a success, because they clearly weren't a good fit.

    "If somebody's not wiling to experience something that's different, they won't take risks, and they won't be successful here, so let's get that clear." she says. "We want people to get out of their comfort zone."

Bringing out the worst in candidates

    Michelle Gamble-Risley of Sacramento, Calif. is a former job-seeker who wants nothing to do with group interviews. A few years ago, before she started her own publishing company called 3L Publishing, she interviewed for a public relations position in a group of about 200 people.

    "It was just shocking and demoralizing," Gamble-Risley says of being seated in rows of metal folding chairs after 15 years' experience in the workforce. "I felt I was at an executive level and I shouldn't be put into a cattle call. If they had warned me in advance, I would not have even shown up."

    The interviewers started lobbing questions at the job candidates, according to Gamble-Risley. People were raising their hands to provide answers, each attempting to one-up the next.

    "I thought it was inappropriate and rude," she says. "I don't think it's going to show anything about anybody except that somebody has a bigger ego. It brings out this strange desperation in people. I would never hire anybody for a professional position in that way."

    Career coach Ford R. Myers agrees. Ideally, a job interview is a conversation between employer and candidate about whether there's a good fit, he says. But a group interview creates a contrived environment and ignores the reality that teamwork takes time to develop.

    "That is an extremely ineffective and ill-advised approach. It's just plain wrong. It's counterproductive, it's wasteful, it's disrespectful," says Myers, author of Get the Job You Want, Even When No One's Hiring. "I would urge every company to stop doing this unless it's tryouts for a dance recital or a singing contest."

    But consultant George Bradt says the group format is one of the most organic ways to spot the ability of potential employees to work in teams from the get-go.

    "They're really good, in particular, at comparing candidates because there's no situational interview bias," says Bradt, author of The New Leader's 100 Day Action Plan. "You get to observe behaviors and relationships -- as opposed to a one-on-one interview, you just hear about them."

    Like Prybylo, he observes candidates prior to the official starting time. "Some people show up and just pick a spot at the table and immediately check their email or pull up their notes. They're not on stage yet so they're doing what they want to do. Other people show up and strike up a conversation with someone in the room, or me or the staff," he says. "I'm not suggesting that one is right and one is wrong. Those are behavioral cues about how people are going to interact in general."