Data Day: Correlation in Video Interviews Between Candidate’s Rating and the Number of Rough Drafts
Ziggeo’s data suggests an interesting correlation between a candidate’s rating by the interviewer and the number of times the candidate has done a “rough draft” of the recorded interview before submitting the final one.
One way to interpret our data (see chart below) is as follows:
- the top-rated (5-star) candidates tend to be fairly sure of themselves, which is why they don't need many drafts;
- 4-star people are eager to secure the position and are trying hard to submit the best application possible, which is why they practice the most; and
- 3-star to 1-star rated people (the lowest ratings) spend less time with the application process and hence probably also receive lower ratings for their efforts.
One lesson here for candidates is that, unless you are a shoe-in for the job, practice does seem to pay off in higher ratings. This doesn’t mean you should memorize your interview, but you should at least try to practice enough to get out the “bugs”, including poor delivery (speaking too fast or too slow) and technical issues such as lighting and sound quality. After all, who wants to hire a sloppy employee?
Speaking of sloppy, a lesson here for employers is that a candidate who has made close-to-zero effort to give at least a presentable video interview should probably (and justifiably) receive a close-to-zero rating.
In video interviews, practice may not always make perfect, but it sure can help.
DATA
Rating/Drafts
- 5 : 2.63
- 4 : 3.37
- 3 : 2.81
- 2 : 2.49
- 1 : 2.29
—
Ziggeo lets you quickly and easily pre-screen candidates by watching their videos. Candidates simply record short videos of themselves for your own private viewing.