what a wonderful article. Over the years the way on how we apply for jobs has changed consistently. And with unemployment rates rising daily, Employees need to become more creative in ways how they represent them self. Personally their is to much negative talk about Video Resumes. We experience a very large interest to use Video Resumes in addition to the standard resume. I was in touch with Joel Cheesman and he is not very optimistic in regards of using Video Resumes. The problem in the past was that Video Resumes were uploaded to youtube and creative a negative impact. No with secure sites such as http://www.mayomann.com this problems are solved and only potential employers are able to view the Video Resume.

Again, I would like to point out that this was a very well written Article.

Regards

Teresa Lindsay

You’ve thought it through and communicated it well!

I think you are correct to point out that an act of discrimination using a particular tool is not the fault of the tool. You are also correct in implying that video is not appropriate for every occasion. You are brilliant in pointing out that a video interview is a mechanism for controlling the questions put to the candidate, and responded to (essentially, a tool for compliance)!

I’ve thought about this a lot, though I’m sure not as much as you, and here are some of my random thoughts:

1. Video interviewing is not appropriate for all jobs and all situations, though many. It should not be required by the employer of all candidates. (Your disparate impact argument.)
2. I understand the concern about the “police-line-up-behind-the-two-way-mirror” aspect of the video interview. However, the reality of the matter is that most protected class information is disclosed in a written resume anyway (intentionally or not), so the video interview like any other interview is usually confirmation of impressions already disclosed.
3. The essence of the resistance to video interviewing is really whether the candidate feels they are competing for a job, or selling themselves to a prospective employer. If selling themselves, then video interviewing is an great marketing tool with no downside. If competing for a job, the assumption is that the man behind the two-way mirror is an older white male, which is often the case, but not always. It is entirely possible that those protected class characteristics the candidate would rather not disclose are the ones that might give them a competitive edge with the hiring manager (”reverse” discrimination, affirmative action, workplace diversity goals, etc.). (Your disparate treatment argument.)
4. I’m not sure where you got your EEOC numbers, but it would be interesting to know how many cases are brought to the EEOC regarding external hiring only (as opposed to promotion or termination). I would guess the external hiring number would be small, but I live in the Seattle bubble so my Weltanshauung is skewed.
5. Everyone knows that the largest chasm in the hiring process is between the submission of hiring materials (resume, etc.), and “getting an interview.” It seems to me that the advantage bridging that chasm with a video interview far outweighs the potential protected class rejection for the job.
6. For certain positions, a video interview could give the candidate the opportunity to display samples of their work product.
7. It seems to me that hiring is all about skills, experience, and “fit.” Skills are how you sort through resumes to determine who might be qualified to do the job, but rarely are skills tested during an interview. Experience comes to play when “where the candidate worked and what they did” is important, for whatever reason (competitors, similar industry, etc.). We often drill down into experience during an interview, for both skills experience and situational experience. “Fit” is just determining whether the candidate is a good match for the employer’s work environment. “Fit” is the problematic area, for while I don’t believe that an employer can reliably determine positive “fit” from a video interview, the negative, potentially discriminatory (beneficial and detrimental), aspects of “fit” can be. The problem you have is that, assuming skills and experience requirements are met, the rejection of the candidate based on “fit” moves from the live interview to the video interview, and it’s a one-sided, unobserved-by-the-candidate rejection. If I were an employer using video interviews as a tool, I would design the screening process so that if a candidate were rejected, the rejection would have to be based on skills and/or experience, and would document the reason to the candidate. (Anyone who has dealt with H1-B or Workforce/Labor Surplus compliance process would already have this mechanism in place, they would just have to apply it to candidates rather than compliance agencies.)
8. The bottom line is that the potential for discriminatory practices when using video interviews, though highly theoretical, to the candidates can feel very real, though there are easily ways to use the tool to mitigate those feelings. However, there are upsides to the candidates: jumping the chasm between resume and interview; the ability to put your best face forward in a controlled, deliberate interview; changing the focus to selling oneself (rather than competing based on cues from the live interviewer).