The interview police: how are you treating those being interviewed?


"It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently." ~Warren Buffet
There are so many great websites, blogs, articles, books out there that capture the interest of job hunters or career seekers. You are given advice on your resume, your attitude and how to behave at the interview.
Yet while there are so many of these sites that offer candidates advice, where are the interview police? Well, I guess between Google searches, Linked In and other sources, one can easily find out a lot about a prospective employer. Distaste can be quick and immediate if one has a poor interview experience. That being that the interview was unprofessional, disrespectful and disengaged.
"If you take care of your employees they will take care of your customers and your business will take care of itself." ~ J. W. Marriott
How many companies assess what they are doing within their hiring practices and how they may be treating prospective employees. That is likely a major oversight that will only be rectified when the job market switches positions: from a buyers market perspective of employee recruiting to a sellers market from those seeking employment.
What are organizations doing to ensure that they are living values when presenting themselves to the outside world in favorable light? Of course, we get that advertising is a customization geared by marketing that can be skewed to give the impression that they have their act together.
However, what if the person representing your company is interviewing a prospective employee to join your company .... do you have metrics to track their record: hiring success as in placing people within the organization that become key producers and are promoted quickly? How many are let go within 3 months or quit within the first year or two: a drain on resources and finances.
I worked for an organization where the Code of Conduct was weak. There was a key manager who began an affair with a sales guy who had just had a baby, while his then-wife was suffering from postpartum depression which I can only imagine grew immensely upon discovering her husband cheating on her with a manager. 
No, they weren't direct reports. Yet one was a manager while the other was not, receiving direct benefit from the relationships by increased and highly leveraged sales opportunities. You sense a conflict of interest? 
There is the saying my grandmother often used: "cut off your nose to spite your face"..... that same manager had some other issues, the turnover under that area was constant. Bleeding the company dry as far as resources by constantly back filling positions, placing enormous pressure on the hard workers who remained. Taxing them so much that they end up leaving and then the organization was stuck with mediocre personnel or really disgruntled employees. 
The manager was a long serving member of the organization's management team. Attractive, with a witty sense of humor when the boss was around. A knife handy and ever-ready to stab others in the back when not. Surprised at the turn over?
The question was never asked: why is it that one manager can hire people who become key contributors while another has constant turnover? 
Another easy way would be to sit in on an interview with that manager. How are they communicating the key values of the organization? Are they sitting across from the applicant with a stapled questionnaire, mechanical and impersonal? Easily forgetting that the interviewer is representing the company. What impression are they giving?
I heard about a week or so ago that the joblessness is going to start improving in 2017. Interesting. I'm not sure if it will be as robust as it was around our town 10 years ago: where referral bonuses were common and finding any employee was a challenge, never mind a great one. 
"Train people well enough so they can leave. Treat them well enough so they don't want to." ~Richard Branson
Employees are the biggest advertisers of a company's brand: what do yours say about your company? Take it a step further, how do you treat your employees? Internal feedback doesn't seem to get much reaction because co-managers have each other's backs. Is a disruptive employee a trouble maker or a change maker? That can be defined by the strength of the leadership in the channel of command. 
Clean up seems to always be in the employee area.  Numbers save money. How can turnover not? It also seems counterproductive if you have someone who is interviewing, hiring people that are just recycled and spit out.  If companies think it is easy to search a candidate's background on ethical and behavioral attitudes, it should be obvious these days that so it is to search a company. It is increasingly readily available for employees to check out employers. There are sites that allow employees to grade their company, its executives, its management, reflect on how they treat their personnel, how well do they communicate or do they offer opportunities for advancement? There is always an area for comments. 
Comments and feedback are not solely isolated to past employees. It is open and public facing. Candidates are able to communicate on how they were made to feel during the interview process. How professional was it? How welcome were they made to feel? 
Some interviews are like inquisitions. Where the interviewee feels that they are being trapped or pushed to trip up. 
Ah the power of the interviewer .... can you take being made to feel minor, unimportant? IF you can, then you may just be able to fit in this company.
Other interviewers deem it their job to give feedback on the candidates resume, how it is laid out, ease to read. Like a foreshadowing that as an employee, you will have to have a strong armor and self-confidence against all the "constructive" feedback that could be demeaning or demotivating.
Yet GREAT interviewers do find valuable hires. Those new stars also make the hiring person look good. How do companies reward that? I haven't heard much of those types of metrics. Why not?
On smartphones: those tools of efficiency can be swords of disrespect
You may have someone in an important position facing the public.  Is the interviewer friendly, professional, using manners? Or do they give the impression that it is an unnecessary evil because they've already made up their minds to hire buddy from around the corner or something like that? How many people who have gone for interviews where the interviewer is rudely, unapologetically late or jumping up in the middle to take a call or respond to an email or text message? On smartphones: those tools of efficiency can be swords of disrespect::... that may depend on your culture.
Don't let your company fall into the deep trap of the pit of disreputable hiring practices. Ensure that whomever is in a position of hiring is also promoting your company. How professional, or lack of professionalism, can negatively impact your brand.
When the jobless market improves and career seekers fall back into the driver's seat, are you making it easier for your company or harder? 
That's where my grandmother's saying comes in: are your team members cutting off their nose to spite their face? Are they ruining the opportunity for your organization to attract valuable candidates?
Try not to wait until the job market does reverse itself. Try not to be one of those organizations who have to pay for referrals because your behavior, or the behavior of those interviewing others is sub par. 
"It doesn't make sense to hire smart people and then tell them what to do; we hire smart people so they can tell us what to do." ~Steve Jobbs
Don't get caught up in not making good on promises or not recognizing those that are making you look good. 
Case in point: a 27 year old young man who works for a major corporations, been with them for 9 years, adored by clients and is still only paid $12.25 per hour.  Is that organization delusional by thinking that it won't catch up with them eventually? 
How you treat prospective employees in your hiring practice may be an indication on how they will be treated as an employee. That can discourage the top performers and high achievers from even considering your company, withdraw from applying.
Instead of employee feedback, performance review forms and hiring questionnaires, why not have an anonymous interview feedback to candidates within only a few hours of an interview, that is unrelated to being hired or job offer a check box to take into account?
An interviewer's behavior should be identical whether they are having a one-on-one meeting with the CEO of your company or interviewing a prospective employee. It should be interchangeable and seamless, indistinguishable from one to the other. Its importance significant and treated the same.
Respect and manners at minimum should reflect appreciation for the candidates' time, nerves and preparedness. It would communicate the same values with which they would be treated as an employee. Seriously and important.
"You can't build a reputation on what you are going to do." ~Henry Ford
Your company's reputation can fluctuate by shareholders value or perceived value. How it treats its employees or candidates should be important enough to consider.