????朱迪?肖是企業培訓機構贏商教練公司（ActionCOACH）的CEO，主要負責公司在美國和加拿大的業務。她說，當公司對前來面試的求職者宣布，公司將以小組方式對他們進行評估時，大多數人的反應是吃驚。甚至有人心生懷疑，詢問公司是不是要向他們推銷某種產品。

????她說：“對于大多數人來說，這是他們第一次參加小組面試。他們面面相覷，有點不知所措。”

????盡管求職者在開始時會有些緊張，但采取小組面試的贏商教練公司和其他公司卻認為，這是一種最有效的方法，可以將符合某個職位的若干求職者進行公正的對比。因為通過這種獨特的方法，招聘經理可以深入了解到未來的員工在團隊協作方面,以及在壓力下的工作表現。但反對小組面試的批評者卻認為這種方法有損人格，聲稱這種方式給本已困難重重的求職過程增加了不必要的額外壓力和競爭。

節省時間，公平公正

????肖發現，部門主管更愿意花一個小時來同時面試12名求職者，而不愿意拿出12個小時進行一對一的對話。而且，在一對一面試中，經理們可能因為當天情緒不佳，或者因為要把以往的面試與昨天剛進行的面試進行對比心生厭煩，從而對求職者產生偏見。但把求職者放在一起進行比較，則可以消除這種偏見。

????肖解釋道：“小組面試之所以有效，是因為能一次面對一組求職者，并對他們進行比較。如果他們能走進面試間，說明他們就已經達到了我們招聘的最低要求……實際上，我要招聘的員工首先要和企業文化相契合。”

????在進行面試之前，贏商教練公司會要求求職者先進行性格測試，以便根據他們的性格進行分組，并針對他們的性格特征提供最適合的職位。這樣，外向性格的求職者之間將進行對比，內向型也是如此。

????肖表示：“有時候，對于內向性格的求職者而言，小組面試可能會讓他們望而卻步。但是，由于同一個小組的求職者性格類似，他們的感受也是相同的。”

????有些公司對小組的評估甚至在面試之前便已經開始，比如位于美國波士頓的環游旅行公司（Grand Circle）。公司的接待員會觀察求職者在大廳等待面試時的行為。該公司負責人力資源與企業文化的執行副總裁瑪莎?普萊貝羅表示：“在這里，你可以得到關于求職者表現的第一手資料：哪些人樂觀向上，哪些人畏縮不前。”

????一旦8到10人的小組面試正式開始，面試官就會提出問題，目的是要判斷求職者與公司價值觀的契合程度，包括風險承受能力和“勇于表達”的溝通能力。普萊貝羅不僅會聽求職者的表述，還會觀察他們等待發言時的肢體語言。

????之后，求職者會被分成小組，每個小組可分配到一些稻草和膠帶。他們的任務是：用這些材料造一個容器，保證一枚生雞蛋在從20英尺的高度落下后不會被摔碎。之后，各小組需要通過營銷演示來陳述他們的想法。

????普萊貝羅稱：“立馬就能看出誰在團隊中發揮領導作用，誰是主導，誰沒有發揮作用，誰能提出解決方案等等。觀察他們的表現非常有用，可以告訴我們很多東西。”

????有一些求職者拒絕參加小組面試，或者會中途離開。普萊貝羅認為，這也是小組面試的效果之一，因為很明顯他們并不是合適的人選。

????她指出：“如果求職者不愿意嘗試不同的事物，說明他們不愿意承擔風險，在公司也不會取得成功，這一點得弄清楚。我們希望求職者能走出‘舒適地帶’。”

小組面試只能揭示求職者最糟糕的一面

????有些求職者對小組面試深惡痛絕，美國加利福尼亞州薩克拉門托市的米歇爾?甘布爾?瑞斯麗便是其中之一。在成立自己的3L出版社（3L Publishing）之前，她曾參加過一個公共關系職位的面試，當時大約有200人參加了小組面試。

????在此之前，甘布爾?瑞斯麗有過15年的工作經驗，但在面試中卻被安排坐在金屬折疊椅上擠在在一排排求職者中間。談到當時的感受，她表示：“那種場面太令人震驚了，而且很讓人泄氣。我認為我的能力屬于高管級別，不應該參加這種‘選秀式’的面試。如果他們提前告訴我，我肯定不會參加。”

????據甘布爾?瑞斯麗描述，面試官隨后開始對求職者提問題。求職者都爭先恐后地舉手回答問題。

????她說：“我認為這種方式非常不合適，甚至有些無禮。我覺得這除了能證明有些人比別人更自以為是之外，沒有任何效果。它會讓人們產生一種奇怪的絕望情緒。如果我要招聘專業職位，絕對不會采取這種方式。”

????職業教練福特?R?邁爾斯也同意她的觀點。他認為，理想的面試應該是雇主與求職者之間通過談話，來確定雙方是否合適，而小組面試則是人為設計了一種環境，而忽略了一個事實——團隊精神是需要花時間來培養的。

????邁爾斯曾著有《絕處逢生，找到理想的工作》（Get the Job You Want, Even When No One's Hiring）一書，他認為：“這種方法效率極端低下，甚至很不明智。這種方法明顯是錯誤的，而且會產生相反的效果。不僅浪費時間和精力，對求職者也不夠尊重。我呼吁所有公司都能摒棄這種做法，除非它要為舞蹈演出或歌唱比賽進行選秀。”

????但顧問喬治?布萊特卻認為小組面試是最有效的方式之一，通過這種方式，可以從一開始就找出具有團隊協作能力的潛在求職者。

????布萊特表示：“這種方式非常有效，尤其是可以將求職者進行對比，因為這種方式摒除了情景面試的偏差。面試官需要觀察求職者的行為和處理人際關系的能力。而一對一面試則恰恰相反，面試官只是在聽求職者陳述。”布萊特著有《新官上任百日行動計劃》（The New Leader's 100 Day Action Plan）一書。

????與普萊貝羅一樣，他也會在正式開始面試之前就開始觀察求職者。他說：“有的人來了之后，只是盯著桌子看，然后就開始查看電子郵件或拿出隨身攜帶的筆記。面試還沒有開始，所以他們做的都是自己想做的事情。有的人到場之后，則會與房間里的其他人，或者跟我或公司的員工攀談。我并不想判斷他們行為的對錯。但這些行為特征通常可以展現他們與外界互動的方式。”

????（翻譯 劉進龍）

????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."