Everyone who uses video interviewing does so because it can drastically reduce costs associated with hiring, speed up the hiring process and help managers make more informed decisions. In short, video interviewing is more effective and efficient than traditional phone screening. Aside from those late adopters so afraid of technology they still use rotary phones, you might think video interviewing is a no brainer solution for most hiring organizations.
There are those who exist however who view video interviewing as a tool that makes discrimination easier. They know that, with or without video interviewing, if the hiring manager is bigoted, discrimination will still take place at some point in the process. They understand in today’s world of social media that with or without video interviewing you can still learn the race, gender, age and often ethnicity of a candidate prior to the interview. They understand that since corporations save more time by video interviewing than phone screening they actually have more time to review and screen in a broader range of candidates. Despite this, many opponents are determined to hold back the tidal wave of video interviewing with nothing more than a stop sign bearing the word “Discrimination”.
I’m certainly no proponent of discrimination but I’m no proponent of inefficiency either. Let me ask you a question. For how many of you does it take two hours or more to get to work on your horse? Anyone? No? No one? Okay then, for how many of you does it take at least one hour to get to work on your horse? Still no one? You mean to tell me that no one rides a horse to work? No one drives a carriage to the grocery store? Of course you don’t. Automobiles are much more effective and efficient in getting you to your destination and picking up the goods you need.
I’m perplexed however about something. In 2011 over 32,000 people died in car accidents. Each year in the U.S. over 2.9 million people suffer automobile accident related injuries. Two weeks ago a young girl in my county was killed while driving. July of last year my son spent three days in the hospital after the car in which he was riding was struck by another motorist.
Each day I, and probably you, are willing to risk death or dismemberment for efficiency because the benefits far outweigh the risks. Phone screening is to video interviewing what horse travel is to automobile travel. If we’re willing to die for the efficiency of automobile travel then can we not risk the few possible drawbacks of video interviewing for the far more numerous benefits it provides?
Video interviewing is here to stay and those crying “discrimination” should accept the technology and focus more on rehabilitating their organization’s discriminatory drunk drivers.