Not necessarily, it might just mean that the more optimal approaches are not obvious. It seems extremely unlikely that the current approach is optimal.
>At least from our current knowledge of interviewing practices
You have three promising candidates? Instead of trying to extract signal from gimmick interview tactics, hire them all and put them on a 3-month contract with the opportunity to renew to full time. Then you're giving them real weork instead of easily crammed questions, and remove some of the anxiety affecting interview performance.
There’ll be no shortages of applicants for quite some time but really destroys the society. So no.
No unless I’m guaranteed that upper echelon slot to judge them — no I wouldn’t want to live in a society like that.
On the other hand, I think it may be a good idea for the company to consider:
- either hire fulltime somebody, who has solid track record and "prooved" themself during on interview
OR
- offer 3 months contract to someone, who is not that good at passing interviews, so they can prove themself doing real work.
This is my least favorite part about discussing interview techniques.
It's taboo to say anything other than "interviews are broken", as if there is some alternative perfect practice that companies are voluntarily choosing not to use.
If no one, including the author of the linked article, can think of anything better, doesn't that mean that companies are already using optimal practices? At least from our current knowledge of interviewing practices. I always have my eyes open for new research, new suggestions, and new trends, but it's getting old to hear the constant chorus of "interviewing is broken" with zero attempt to suggest improvements.
That doesn't mean current practices are perfect or that we should stop trying to improve them, of course. It does feel a bit like politicians going on record saying that they're "deeply troubled" by something without proposing alternatives, though. It's the safe thing to say.