I do not understand the MT objection to panel interviews.

I have listened to the podcast “No panel interviews” several times.

The objection seems to be based on some assumptions that are not really usually applicable, namely:

(1) The others on the panel are not in the same team and are disjoint from the team where the candidate would work;

(2) The panel get to ask their own questions that they have configured themselves;

(3) The panel have a vote in the hiring of the candidate.;

In my case, we have panel interviews where I work. They are compulsory. There are four on the panel. The questions get shared around in turn. Then the answers assessed by the panel after each candidate. We are allowed to probe answers. Anyone on the panel can probe the answer.

However, the conditions that apply are different to the assumptions in the cast. 

(1)    The team where the candidate would work write all the questions 

(2)    I am the chair of the panel,

(3)    I choose the panel members.

My team (i.e. including myself) complete all the phone screen interviews and we agree on who to interview face to face.

So, I use the panel interviewing paradigm to coach three others of my team in interviewing and assessing the answers. I find it extremely convenient and an effective addition to coaching the team in interviewing. They get confidence in asking the questions, probing when they hear the decision making phrases, and practice at assessing the answers.

The panel ( which are a subset of my team) then assess the answers in a post interview meeting.

I am not sure why the MT cast makes the assumption that the others on the team have configured their own questions and are not part of the team where the candidate would work. This seems to be the basis of the whole cast and there is no time devoted to any exceptions to those assumptions. I find the assumptions on which the arguments are predicated in the MT podcast to be the exception.  

Under the circumstances I have, do you think MT would object to panel interviews?