According to new research carried out by Glassdoor, it appears so. The more difficult the interview process, the better matched the final candidate seems to be for the job, and the more satisfied the applicant in the long-term. Take, for example, Google. Famed for presenting brain teasers and incorporating tests that measure behaviour into the interview process, such is their focus on finding the right person who will slot effortlessly into their business and with their culture.

So, does that mean all interviewers need to beef up their questioning, psychometric testing, and practical analysis?

This isn’t an assumption Glassdoor has made – there are firm statistics that back up their findings. Analysing six different countries, they found that an interview made 10% more difficult contributes to an increase in the job satisfaction of the chosen candidate by an average of 2.6%.

Of course, the whole point of the interview process is to filter applicants and to dig deeper into their skills, knowledge and attitude. If they’re tested more thoroughly, does this not just present the interviewer with more information on which to base his/her decision, leading to fewer bad hires? Hiring the right person for the right job – that’s as suitable for the candidate as it is for the hirer – would naturally lead to a greater level of job satisfaction, surely?

The inference that a company with a well-designed interview strategy has a stronger internal culture and takes better care of its employees is one thought. If a company places little importance on finding the right person, it’s unlikely the morale or commitment shown by its employees will be as strong, given the higher rate of staff turnover they’ll see and the weight of tasks the long-suffering workforce have to shoulder whilst yet another new employee is found. If that decision is right the first-time, and the job given to someone likely to embrace the role and company’s vision, it’s easy to see why this would increase job satisfaction, not only for the employee, but for those around them in recruitment web design.

Does a harder interview ensure the strongest and fittest?

According to Glassdoor’s research, there is an optimal degree of difficulty in the interview process. Making things so hard that only Einstein could pass doesn’t necessarily secure the best talent. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 was most difficult, and 1 was ‘easy’, an interview offering level 4 difficulty produced the employees who would display greater job satisfaction later on. Testing, yes; overwhelmingly so, no. One explanation offered by Glassdoor was that a level 5 interview may project an aggressive culture by the hiring company, which may put off candidates. On the flipside, making the interview process too ‘easy’ was found to have very little filtering affect at all.

To a certain extent, these findings seem only to support what common sense would tell us. Test a candidate well and you find out more about them (always a good thing when recruiting, anything that helps the hirer make the right decision); and a company that places a great deal of importance on finding the right candidate is likely to make newcomers feel welcome and valued from the off.

Original article: http://www.onrec.com/news/news-archive/do-difficult-job-interviews-lead-to-more-satisfied-workers-evidence-from-glassdoor