In my experience, interviews can feel very different depending on how organized they are. Some interviews I have had felt professional and fair, while others felt random or rushed. Looking back now, I can see how much that affects reliability, validity, and utility.
One of the best interviews I had was for my job at Case Printing Solutions. The manager asked clear questions about my work habits, how I handle stress, and what I knew about the job. The questions stayed on topic and focused on real situations that could happen at work. This made the interview reliable because every applicant was asked similar things. It also had high validity since the questions were tied to the skills needed for the job. The process helped the company find someone who was a good fit and gave me a clear idea of what to expect, which made it useful for both sides.
On the other hand, I have been in interviews where the employer did not seem prepared. One manager spent most of the time talking about the company instead of asking about my skills. It was friendly but not helpful. Without structured questions or clear goals, it is hard to compare candidates fairly, which hurts reliability and validity. It also wastes time and does not help the company find the best person for the job.
If I could give advice to those employers, I would tell them to use structured interviews with behavioral and situational questions. They should focus on real examples of how someone handled problems or worked with a team. Using a rating scale and giving interviewers basic training to avoid bias would also help. Doing this would make the process more fair, accurate, and useful for both the company and the applicants.