"Rather than using the traditional question and answers interview to evaluate the job candidates, employers should observer candidates as they perform some of the job's actual tasks"

Some people think that employers should use the traditional questions-answers interview to evaluate the job candidates, others think that employers should observe candidates as they perform some of the job's tasks. The issue is controversial one but a closer examination reveals that observing candidates' performance of job tasks is more effective way to evaluate prospect employees for several reasons.
One reason is that many candidates say that they own many excellent characteristics. However, their characteristics that are expressed thourgh actual tasks are not as good as they said earlier. This is reason why many companies have trial period of 2 months that is used to evaluate candidate's ability before signing labour contract with them. For example, many candidates say that they have high responsibility with job and can be under pressure. However, in only short time of trying the position, they deny the job because they can not stand pressure or the boss does not want to give offer them because they are not responsible for job as they said.
Another reason is that traditional question-answer interview perhaps is limted by time. In general, an interview lasts 2 hour as maximum. Many interviews last only 15 or 20 minutes. Interiewers can assess rightly candidates in ehese short time? Actually the answer is no. Employers need much more time to assess the potential employees that is really suitable for the position. In the interview, interviewers can understand partly candidates by asking several questions. Thus, employers need keep an eye on their job performance in order to understand wholly candidates.
In summary, while the argument is be made for both sides, it is clear that there are greater advantages to the idea that watching candidates' job execution is the more fruitful way to judge candidates for several above reasons.