How do you evaluate video interview responses in ATS?

An example of this would be to complete a job analysis prior to interviewing. Also, collaboration with the hiring manager on their ideal candidate before you begin interviewing can help tremendously. Use the same questions for every candidate. Behaviorally based questions provide the most insight.

"Define Your Diamonds in the Rough: Setting Clear Criteria" While video interviews offer a glimpse into a candidate's personality, avoid going in blind. Based on my experience, clearly define the skills, competencies, and behaviors you're seeking for each question upfront. This creates a scoring rubric for fair and objective evaluation, ensuring you unearth the real diamonds amongst the applicants.

Evaluating video interview responses within an ATS is all about blending intuition with data. I focus on key behavioral cues, communication clarity, and problem-solving abilities. While the ATS helps structure the process, my attention remains on the candidate’s authenticity and adaptability. Each response reveals how they’ll fit within the team and culture. The future lies in evolving these evaluations to be even more precise, ensuring we’re not just hiring skills but building a dynamic, growth-driven team. The goal? Spotting those who’ll thrive in our ever-changing landscape.

Be consistent. If you reject one candidate for poor body language (which is by itself a somewhat subjective criteria depending on which culture you are from) you need to make sure you are judging everyone by that same standard.

Invest in world class ATS, implement it well, optimize it and continue roll out new features. Make a case to hire an ATS product owner responsible for driving that work. Continue to innovate and enhance your ATS. Invest in integrations with LinkedIn and other vendor partners.

Most of us pay top dollar for our ATS and we should be using it to its full capacity. Working within the system and not outside of it can help you maintain compliance standards and make reference notes for future hires.

Take advantage of the automation you can build with a top tier ATS. After an "impersonal" video interview, automate tasks and emails that will quickly make that candidate feel like spending time talking to their camera was worth their time.

When comparing video responses make sure you are aware of the recency and primacy bias. Primacy Bias is the empirical phenomenon that you remember the first items in a list better than the middle ones. Recency Bias is the phenomenon that you remember more recent information better than older information.

Comparing candidates is a red flag in hiring. Contrast Bias happens when an interviewer?inappropriately compares candidates. Self-check for this unconscious bias that can impact a fair & DEI in recruitment. Comparing candidates to one another, instead of assessing them on their qualifications/requirements, employers risk hiring a wrong fit. Eg: This impacts people with accents who speak multiple languages & may impact internationally trained immigrants. When compared to people without accents. ??Also people with language barriers, speech disabilities, neurodiverse, eye contact issues, and who stutter. When in doubt, always go back to job requirements instead of comparing candidates. Does the person have the things you need?

Assuming this is referring to async one-way videos, they are beyond problematic, IMO. Employers using async "interviews" to narrow their candidate pipeline are opening themselves up to discrimination/bias. It also dehumanizes the recruiting process and the candidate experience is demoralizing.

If you're watching someone else's recording my question is: Why? One way interview? Please don't do these. The bias is unavoidable and potentially ruinous when/if lawsuits are launched because the videos and any responses recorded in any format inside or outside the ATS would be discoverable. As for live interviews, tools that autotranscribe the audio can keep things neat, allow interviewers to focus on the candidate, and give a neat record. There is no need to behave any differently than in an in-person interview. The point of interviewing is to see if a candidate fits the criteria for functioning in the job, not creating a podium for teams to indulge in competitive viewing with alarm.