Looking back on my interview experiences, I can see how much the design of the hiring process influences whether interviews are fair and effective. Some interviews felt thoughtful and structured, while others felt informal and driven by first impressions. After reading The Perfect Hire and Rebecca Knight’s article on reducing bias in hiring, it became clear why those differences mattered and how reliability, validity, and utility can easily break down when interviews rely too heavily on intuition.
Several of the less effective interviews I experienced were unstructured and conversational. While these interviews felt relaxed, they often seemed to reward confidence, likability, or chemistry rather than actual ability. The Perfect Hire explains that people are generally poor judges of talent in interviews and tend to overvalue traits like charisma while overlooking predictors of job performance. This helps explain why unstructured interviews are unreliable—different interviewers may walk away with completely different impressions of the same candidate based on subjective judgments rather than evidence.
Validity was much stronger in interviews that focused on job-related behaviors and skills. Knight’s article emphasizes that structured interviews, where each candidate is asked the same questions and evaluated using consistent criteria, help minimize bias and focus attention on factors that directly affect performance. Similarly, The Perfect Hire highlights that methods such as work sample tests are far better indicators of future success than interviews alone. Interviews that incorporated these elements felt more meaningful because they assessed what candidates could actually do rather than how well they presented themselves.
Utility also shaped how I perceived each organization. Interviews that were organized, efficient, and clearly linked to job requirements left me with a more positive impression of the employer. According to Knight, structured interviews combined with tools like scorecards and work samples not only improve hiring accuracy but also make the process more practical and defensible. From a candidate’s perspective, this made the time investment feel worthwhile.
If I could advise employers, I would strongly encourage them to reduce reliance on gut feelings and redesign interviews around evidence-based practices. Using standardized questions, rating scales, and work sample tests, as recommended in both articles, would improve reliability, increase validity, and ultimately lead to better hiring decisions for both employers and candidates.
References
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Steinmetz, C. (2013). The perfect hire. Scientific American Mind, 24(3), 42–47.
Knight, R. (2017). 7 practical ways to reduce bias in your hiring process. Harvard Business Review.