Xjyuk

I’m a senior technical team leader at my company. Because of my role and experience, I regularly have to conduct interviews with candidates. I’m facing more and more frequently this situation: I interview people I already know they will be rejected.

Reasons for this are multiple: candidates promoted from HR but without the technical knowledge/experience required by the position (a junior profile for a solution architect position), position no more available, position already filled, people already rejected by a different interviewer in the hiring process, budget no more available, etc.

I’m NOT asking suggestions on how to avoid useless interviews (they will always exist). I’m asking for suggestions about how should conduct these interviews: should interviews last the usual 45-60 minutes? Should I cut them as soon as possible? Should interviews be similar in content as standard? Or more simple? Should I send one of my team members maybe less busy than me (even if they may not have any experience as an interviewer)?

--EDIT--
i don't think my question is a duplicate of the one proposed by espindolaa: the behavior of the candidate has nothing to do with the outcome of the interview

If you have to interview these candidates, you should treat them just like any other person you are interviewing. Conduct the interview thoroughly, politely, and respectfully.

Remember, be respectful of the candidates time just as they should be of yours. Who knows, these candidates might surprise you.

There is only one answer here: Your company is absolutely unprofessional. I have to travel to your place, possibly wait some time, go through an interview, travel back home, and all that time you already know that I have no chance in hell to get a job.

The behaviour of your company is utterly disgusting.

You say "I’m NOT asking suggestions on how to avoid useless interviews (they will always exist)." Not at any decent place run by honest people. I'll just repeat this: What your company does is disgusting.

The best that you can do is to call the candidate, tell them that there is a problem (there is no budget, position already filled, position not available anymore) which makes it extremely unlikely they would be offered a job, and that you would be fully understanding if they didn't come to the interview.

Don't forget that how a company interviews its candidates is part of the company's reputation.

So if the word spreads (in Glassdoor for example) that candidates are not well received, interviews are rushed and people come for already filled positions and lose time for nothing, it could impact the company's future reputation, and prevent good candidates for coming.

Just do a good interview like you would for any other wanted candidate. And don't send one of your teammates last minute to replace you on a situation you decided.

Conduct the interview professionally and provide feedback to your manager and those setting up the interviews. The first issue is that they continue to happen with frequency. Until someone understands things like a lean talent pool is not assisted by wasting the time of the existing talent, this issue will persist.

To the interview itself, I agree with the others, conduct it professionally. Your time is largely already sucked up in the little details outside of the interview from details like not being able to start into the next step of your work because you have to get up in 10 minutes to just walking there and back. You probably have 45 minutes sunk in your day regardless of the interview length.

should interviews last the usual 45-60 minutes? Should I cut them as soon as possible?

Most any meeting should be guided primarily based on content. Time is more an upper limit than a lower. To sit uncomfortably for 40 extra minutes is trading one sad situation (that was a waste of time to come in) for another (that was a waste of time to sit through). Sure, if you're confirmed in two minutes, perhaps you can explore a bit about what led them to apply or things that both give them a sense of shooting for what they should not and you a sense of what to take back to the people causing your waste of time. But overall, artificial inflation serves little purpose.

Should interviews be similar in content as standard?

I really hope not. Don't get me wrong, having standard questions is not at all bad. But trying to cookie-cutter a process into a human conversation can really tie your hands. Take the questions where the conversation goes. Use the standard points as a framework. But once you confirm your suspicions, the only reason I can think of to insist on wasting everyone's time with questions that won't apply is leviathan companies more interested in not getting sued than finding quality fits.

Should I send one of my team members maybe less busy than me (even if
they may not have any experience as an interviewer)?

Like others said, you're still a reflection of your company. Perhaps bring another along to at least help that person get the experience. Down the road, it could be appropriate to hand off some of these interviews to someone now also qualified, but overall be wary of the message you'd be sending by handing these off. "I'd do this, but I'm far more valuable than you. So you do it." Even if it's true, it doesn't sit well.

In addition to the other answers, use these meetings as practice for colleagues that are unused to perform interviews. That is, invite e.g. a junior developer and ask him/her to "lead" the interview and only interrupt when he/she makes mistakes. Then give your colleague feedback afterwards what he/she did good as well as bad during the intr