> interviewing was less of an art and more of a science
I'd extend your wish to "Whole recruitment process should be less of an art and more of a science".
The problem is that even the properly conducted interview using established, good practices (like competence based/behavioral interview) can give you max. 50% accuracy in assessing the competencies. What means that additional methods are absolutely necessary.
But even the most accurate methods will lead to wrong decisions when companies don't have precisely and adequately defined what competencies are actually required to perform well in a given position.
And from my experience this is the core problem. People debate over questions/fizz-buzz/puzzles/whiteboard/whatever but usually do not invest enough time to determine what would they like to measure with these methods.
I'd extend your wish to "Whole recruitment process should be less of an art and more of a science". The problem is that even the properly conducted interview using established, good practices (like competence based/behavioral interview) can give you max. 50% accuracy in assessing the competencies. What means that additional methods are absolutely necessary.
But even the most accurate methods will lead to wrong decisions when companies don't have precisely and adequately defined what competencies are actually required to perform well in a given position.
And from my experience this is the core problem. People debate over questions/fizz-buzz/puzzles/whiteboard/whatever but usually do not invest enough time to determine what would they like to measure with these methods.