It still seems odd to me after being a participant of the labour market for almost a decade now that conducting interviews remain the key to get to know if the employer or employee is a good fit. The main reason for that is the need to balance: cost (to both the employer and the employee).
Nothing beats experiencing the working environment and meeting the team whom you will be working with directly to understand if you fit into the team’s and company’s culture. As for the organisation, nothing beats allowing the candidate to experience a day at work with the team and understand his thought process and experience the related work area before being able to determine if he/she is suitable for the work. Yet, the cost of experience is expensive both to the organisation (esp. those operating on a smaller scale where time spent on a prospective employee may result in high opportunity cost in business operations). As an individual, some might not have the luxury of affording a full day off to experience a prospective job experience. Though few might be happy to have a change in environment, even if it’s only for a day.
In conducting interviews, it’s not rare to find interviewers depending on heuristic to determine the fit and suitability of the candidate. When they ask a question, they already formulate some judging criteria on the interviewee’s answer which may or may not be aligned to the interview assessment form. Some might have underlying assumptions that were not explicitly verbalised during the interview. It’s also not difficult to see that certain personality types would definitely score higher in common soft skills for majority of the roles such as communication, leadership potential etc. A successful hire does not equate to a good fit to the job role. That’s where the “probation period” kicks in.
A probation period is a period of time (typically between 3–6 months) where the organisation and employee evaluate if each other is the right fit. Kind of similar to dating during getting married. If it doesn’t work out, either side has the right to terminate the contract in search for a better fit elsewhere. One would tend to assume the clause is fair. However, it’s obvious that the organisation has the upper hand. After all, the contract was drafted by them. Furthermore, as an employee, being terminated during probation period may reflect badly during background checks when the next prospective employee checks in with the previous company on your work period and performance. A contract is always benefit the drafter(s) unless the recipient has a legal counsel to review and negotiate any unbalanced clauses. The only protection would be labour laws, which no one learns about in school. It’s only when you need it, that you find it. Most people go about their life without really learning the main gist behind such laws. It wouldn’t be surprising that many potential breaches of labour laws and guidelines remain unseen and unheard of by authorities and media.