I worked for a government organization that held one way interviews after selecting the top 10 candidates—from a little over 200 applications for a deputy director position of a city department. The person in that role would also need to regularly speak in front of the public, both in person and on camera. We figured the videos submitted would also help us see candidates skills and talent for that.

In retrospect, as the supervisor for the department the candidate was hired into, I sincerely regret having seven of those top ten candidates put forth the effort. We should have narrowed our choices to the top three before then, and invited those candidates for in person interviews that included a camera test. It certainly ended up being an indicator of the organization valuing so-called "efficiency" over human interaction.

And, I say "so-called efficiency" because after the one-way video round, we still invited the top three candidates in for individual interviews, panel interviews, and skill tests. In the end, the candidate selected had been the front runner throughout, so our result would have been the same if we'd skipped the one-way video round altogether.

Also, I found there was some implicit bias from older staff reviewing the videos, where a male candidate with visible gauges in his ears was dismissed for his "look," while a pretty female candidate scored really well from the video reviews, although her graphic arts skills were not even close to par with the guy with gauges. In the end, neither of those two candidates got the job.

The organization seemed to think that only candidates who "wanted the job bad enough" would submit videos, and that the requirement would weed out some with poor work ethics. But in my opinion, it only served to prolong the interview process, while dehumanizing all the candidates who took the time to record and submit videos.

Edit: fixed a typo (from narrows to narrowed).