Month: October 2025

Throughout my career, I have only participated in unstructured interviews, which tend to vary widely in their effectiveness. One example was for a scholarship for the graduate program at Oregon State University. I met with the interviewer one-on-one, and she asked conversational, open-ended questions about my past experience and future career plans. According to “7 Practical Ways to Reduce Bias in Your Hiring Process” (Knight, 2017), this style of allowing a candidate’s experience and expertise to unfold organically can feel natural but is often unreliable for predicting job success and allows more bias to influence hiring decisions. Structured interviews, by contrast, minimize bias by focusing on specific factors that directly impact performance.

The company I currently work for also used an unstructured approach when hiring me. I applied for the position even though I lacked the technical experience they were initially seeking. I met with a panel of top management who mainly described the role’s responsibilities rather than asking competency-based questions. According to “How to Take the Bias Out of Interviews” (Bohnet, 2016), managers should avoid group interviews because “if you have four interviewers, four data points from four individual interviews trump one data point from one collective interview.” Despite the process’s low reliability and validity, the decision ultimately proved successful. The company took a chance, and over time, I have grown into my role and far exceeded the original expectations for the position.

Looking back, I believe both interviews could have been more effective if structured, evidence-based methods had been used. Structured interviews make it easier to identify whether a candidate’s natural talents align with the role and the organization’s culture. As “First, Break All the Rules” (Buckingham & Coffman, 2014) explains, the best hiring decisions come from recognizing a person’s strengths rather than focusing solely on experience. If my interviewers had used structured questions or work-sample tests, they would have gained a clearer picture of my abilities and potential. They also would have seen my willingness to learn, which “How to Get a Job at Google” (Friedman, 2014) notes is often a stronger predictor of future success than past experience. A more structured approach would have helped the interviewers make more informed decisions and given me a better opportunity to demonstrate my potential.

Friedman, T. (2014). How to get a job at Google. The New York Times.

Bohnet, I. (2016). How to take the bias out of interviews. Harvard Business Review.

Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (2014). First, break all the rules: What the world’s greatest managers do differently.

Knight, R. (2017). 7 practical ways to reduce bias in your hiring process. SHRM.

The last time I reviewed the job description for my position was prior to applying for the role. Since that time, my responsibilities have expanded exponentially, yet my official job description has not evolved to reflect these changes. While my company reviews most job descriptions annually, upper management positions are excluded from that process. According to the article “Job Worth Doing: Update Descriptions,” this oversight poses a legitimate legal risk for organizations. The article warns that “if you have a measure of performance that doesn’t appear on the job description and you have a case brought against you, depending on the agency [involved], there could be punishment” (Tyler, 2013).

This situation is common across many organizations, where job descriptions often lag behind the actual scope of employees’ responsibilities. A natural opportunity to update them arises during the hiring process. Step 2 of Hiring Top Executives: A Comprehensive End-to-End Process from HBR’s “Definitive Guide to Recruiting” is: Specify the Job. Having a current, relevant, and detailed job description that clearly outlines the necessary skills and experience is a crucial element of effective recruitment (Fernández-Aráoz, Groysberg, & Nohria, 2009).

However, rather than updating job descriptions only when hiring, they should be treated as living documents rather than static forms. As “Job Worth Doing: Update Descriptions” emphasizes, “updating job descriptions should be an ongoing process anytime something significant changes” (Tyler, 2013). Linking this process to annual performance evaluations could help maintain both accuracy and engagement. Additionally, granting employees and managers shared ownership and access to job descriptions could streamline the process and promote accountability, as maintaining accurate job descriptions should be a shared responsibility among employees, managers, and HR.

This participatory approach would not only ensure that documented responsibilities align with real duties but also validate employees’ evolving contributions to the organization. When employees can demonstrate that they are exceeding the expectations outlined in their job descriptions, it creates an opportunity for a constructive conversation about advancement and how the organization can better leverage their skills and education (Tyler, 2013).

After reflecting on this, I plan to update my own job description and bring it into the discussion during my upcoming end-of-year performance review.

Tyler, K. (2013, January 1). Job worth doing: Update descriptions. HR Magazine.

Fernández-Aráoz, C., Groysberg, B., & Nohria, N. (2009). The definitive guide to recruiting in good times and bad. Harvard Business Review, 87(5), 74–84