When I think about what makes an interview effective, I always go back to my interview with Ausland Group, where I applied for a project engineer internship. From the start, it felt like the best balance between professional and personal. Before we even sat down, I was introduced to everyone in the office, including the CEO, and they explained what I’d actually be doing day to day. That experience stuck with me because it showed me that the interview wasn’t just about checking boxes, it was about learning whether we were truly a good fit.
According to The Perfect Hire by Chamorro-Premuzic and Steinmetz, most hiring decisions rely far too much on intuition rather than evidence, and as a result, many interviews are unreliable predictors of performance. They point out that structured, scientifically grounded assessments are much more effective than “gut feelings” in selecting the right candidate. Thinking back, that’s exactly what made the Ausland interview so solid, it felt consistent, relevant, and focused on real-world performance rather than charm or small talk.
On the other hand, I once interviewed with an electrical company that did the exact opposite. Instead of asking about my experience, they asked about my favorite color, meal, and sports team. It didn’t feel serious or job-related at all, and I left feeling like they didn’t value the process or their people. The Perfect Hire emphasizes that interviews like that tend to produce poor hiring decisions because they lack both reliability and validity.
If I could give that employer advice, I’d tell them that hiring should be intentional, not just conversational filler. When interviews are structured, relevant, and built around actual job skills, both sides walk away with a much clearer picture of success.
Reference
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Steinmetz, C. (2013). The Perfect Hire. Scientific American Mind