Author: Marley Holborow

At this point in our lives, we’ve been to an array of job interviews… from minimum wage barista gigs to our first big job at a corporate firm. Looking back, it is pretty clear to me that some prepared me better than others. While some were structured and intentional, others felt more like a soulless conversation that could easily be influenced by bias or first impressions.

The most effective interviews I’ve experienced were structured and consistent. Interviewers asked the same types of questions, focused on past behavior, and gave me space to explain how I think through problems and various scenarios. This aligns with higher reliability and validity because when interviews are standardized, they are more likely to actually measure job-relevant skills rather than just “gut feelings” (Bohnet, 2018). It also connects to Google’s hiring approach, where they prioritize cognitive ability and learning capacity over surface-level metrics like GPA (Friedman, 2014). These kind of interviews feel fairer and more predictive of real performance rather than looking good on paper.

On the other hand, the least effective interviews I’ve experienced were unstructured and heavily personality-based. In a few cases, it felt like the interviewer decided within the first few minutes whether they liked me, which reflects common biases discussed in hiring research (Chamorro-Premuzic & Steinmetz, 2013). These types of interviews lack reliability because each candidate is evaluated differently, and they lack validity because they don’t actually measure the skills needed for the job. They might feel efficient, but their utility may be low because they don’t actually lead to better hiring decisions.

If I could go back and have the chance to advise those employers, I’d suggest a few improvements that will benefit everyone at the end of the day. Implementing structured interviews with standardized questions and scoring systems to reduce bias is a great first step to ensure that their is a solid baseline for all interviewees (Knight, 2018). By structuring interview question to focus on the candidates’ abilities to learn, adapt, and collaborate rather than just experience or credentials helps the employer understand how each interviewee will actually work and learn (Friedman, 2014). Lastly, they need to be intentional about reducing bias by evaluating candidates side-by-side instead of one at a time (Bohnet, 2018). In today’s labor market, where talent shortages are real, companies need to focus on identifying potential and skills… not just traditional, face-value signals like degrees and gpa (The Conference Board, 2025).

I have learned that the best interviews are the ones that are thoughtful, consistent, and focused on what actually predicts success… not just who makes the best first impression.

Sources:

Bohnet, I. (2018). How to take the bias out of interviews. Harvard Business Review.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Steinmetz, C. (2013). The perfect hire. Scientific American Mind, 24(3).

Friedman, T. L. (2014, February 22). How to get a job at Google. The New York Times.

Knight, R. (2018). 7 practical ways to reduce bias in your hiring process. Society for Human Resource Management.

The Conference Board. (2025). Responding to US labor shortages.

Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (2016). First, break all the rules: What the world’s greatest managers do differently (2020 ed.).

Mintz. (2025). The DOJ issues its interpretation of “illegal DEI”.

As a soon-to-be Oregon State graduate, I have reviewed hundreds of job descriptions. Whether it be for a part-time side gig or full-time job at a corporate office, I rely on this debrief to see where I see myself fitting in. But this is where many people get it wrong… without regular tender love and care, job descriptions often become outdated or too generic. In Job Worth Doing: Update Descriptions, Tyler (2013) emphasizes that job descriptions are the backbone of nearly every HR function, yet many companies fail to revisit them as roles evolve. I have definitely came across this issue; jobs change faster than documentation, which leads to confusion in hiring, performance evaluation next, and even employee satisfaction… or dissatisfaction in this case.

Companies often focus too much on vague traits instead of clearly defining what the job actually requires, or they tend to use the same language as similar job postings to familiarize their audience. The Harvard Business Review article points out that firms frequently rely on generic competency models or “gut feel” rather than identifying specific skills and responsibilities (Fernández-Aráoz et al., 2009). This makes it harder to hire the right people because the expectations aren’t clearly aligned with the role. From the lectures, this connects to the idea that strategy and internal capabilities need to match. If the job or position isn’t clearly defined, you can’t build a strong team.

In order to overcome these challenges, I think companies need to treat job descriptions as living, ever-changing documents. Regular updates based on actual job performance and future needs are key. The recruiting framework from the HBR article highlights the importance of “anticipating the need” and “specifying the job” as early steps in an effective hiring process (Fernández-Aráoz et al., 2009). That means thinking ahead about what skills will be needed, not just what worked in the past. It might be in the HR lead’s favor to make note of all the pitfalls of new hires or goals the company wants to accomplish with each role in the future.

By involving both managers and employees in the process of updating job descriptions would make the descriptions more accurate and realistic. All in all, better job descriptions lead to more accurate hiring, and as we saw in the wage article, improving job quality (even through pay!) can dramatically increase the number of applicants interested (Rosenberg, 2021). Clear, well-designed roles are a key part of that equation.

Sources:

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

Rosenberg, E. (2021, June 12). These businesses found a way around the worker shortage: A big boost in wages. The Washington Post.

Tyler, K. (2013). Job worth doing: Update descriptions. SHRM.

In the article, Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For 2025, by Great Place to Work, we are introduced to the leading organizations in our country who demonstrate what excellence in workplace culture and employee satisfaction looks like in the modern age. To know surprise, many of the top companies on this year’s list were hospitality companies themselves, proving how strong HR practices can directly impact both employee satisfaction and overall success of the company. Unlike the drama we see unfold in hospitality on TV, companies like Hilton, Marriott International, and The Breakers Palm Beach, are standing out for creating people-first workplace cultures that create ripples in the world of HR Management.

Over at the distinguished hotel chain of luxury and leisure, Hilton establishes rapport in the #1 spot by creating a people-first culture that prioritizes connection and employee engagement. Employees at Hilton talk a lot about teamwork and diversity, which reflects a strong focus on inclusion and engagement within the workplace. This connects to what we’ve learned about how HR practices shape employee attitudes and performance. Similarly over at Marriott International, a slightly different approach is taken by emphasizing internal promotions and long-term growth, showing how important training and development are for retention and personal excellence. At The Breakers Palm Beach, employees describe more of a “family” environment and a good work-life balance, which highlights the importance of supporting each and every employee’s well-being.

Emphasis on employee-first culture is supported in the article, First, Break All the Rules, where great managers focus on people’s strengths and make employees feel valued in order to build a strong backbone to support all other operations within a company (Buckingham & Coffman, 2016). Over at Google’s Project Oxygen, we tap into something similar, highlighting that good management (like the the golden rules of clear communication and company support) actually improves performance and overall well-being… shocker (Garvin, 2013). All three companies seem to apply these ideas by building trust and investing in their people in both the short and long-term.

Whether a future manager, associate, or common employee I want to add to a work environment where people feel supported, motivated, and able to grow. HR tools like training, performance feedback, and open communication will be extremely important in making that happen, with an exception that it is done right. I think the hardest part of this concept will be balancing results with employee well-being. Being able to do both effectively is what separates average managers from great ones, and it’s something I want to continue improving on and integrating as I learn more about the subject (Breitfelder & Dowling, 2008).

Welcome to blogs.oregonstate.edu. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!