Two very different interview experiences in the same company pushed me to think more critically about bias and effectiveness in hiring.
My initial interview involved four independent interviews with different leaders. I was interviewing for an elevated management position. Each person evaluated me separately, and I received the offer. That experience made me feel confident and grounded in my value. It wasn’t just that I got the job, but that several people, independently of one another, saw potential in me. That confidence carried into the role itself. I stepped into the position knowing I had been evaluated fairly. Looking back, that outcome aligns with Knight’s (2017) argument that independent interviews produce stronger data because multiple individual evaluations are more informative than a single collective or centralized judgment, especially when the goal is predicting performance.
Later, after I had taken on responsibilities far beyond my original role and was effectively performing much of the highest-level position in my division, the process changed entirely. When that role formally opened, I submitted a formal written request for the opportunity to interview and was completely ignored. The decision rested with a single leader who was new to the organization and came from another company. The role was filled by an external hire from that same company, despite the fact that I had already been doing much of the work.
That decision felt biased, but more importantly, it felt disconnected from any meaningful evaluation. Bohnet (2016) explains that managers are often overconfident in their own judgment and resist structured processes because they believe their experience alone is sufficient to assess candidates. When formal evaluation is bypassed entirely, personal judgment fills the gap. Bohnet also points to research showing that decision-makers commonly look for people who feel familiar or similar to themselves. In this case, the role was filled by an external hire from the same organization the decision-maker came from, reinforcing the sense that familiarity and comfort were prioritized over demonstrated performance. When hiring decisions rely on individual discretion without safeguards, they become especially vulnerable to bias and difficult to justify on the basis of evidence.
What became apparent was that one process relied on structured evaluation, while the other relied almost entirely on informal judgment. The earlier interview process not only made me feel capable and valued, but it also accurately predicted how I would perform in the role. The latter process ignored performance evidence entirely, which undermined the usefulness of the decision. In his discussion of Google’s hiring philosophy, Friedman (2014) relays Laszlo Bock’s view that learning ability, adaptability, and emergent leadership are stronger predictors of success than surface credentials, yet in my situation, those qualities were never formally evaluated.
The difference between the two processes comes down to reliability, validity, and utility (Lecture 2). Only one of the processes was designed to evaluate potential through structured, independent assessment and connect that to later outcomes, which made it far more useful to the organization.
If I could go back and advise that organization on how to improve its interview process, I would tell them to treat internal advancement with the same structure and care they used when hiring externally. The company already had a process that worked: multiple interviewers, independent evaluations, and clear expectations. That approach identified my potential accurately the first time. Where it failed was abandoning that structure once I was already inside the organization. Allowing one person to quietly decide who was “interview-worthy,” without a formal process or feedback, opened the door for bias and disconnected the decision from actual performance. Simply applying the same structured interview standards to internal candidates would have made the process fairer, more transparent, and far more effective.
This experience reinforced for me that interviews shape more than hiring outcomes. When designed well, they build confidence and predict performance. When they are not, bias can fill the gaps, and both people and organizations pay the price.
References
Bohnet, I. (2016). How to take the bias out of interviews. Harvard Business Review.
Friedman, T. L. (2014, February 22). How to get a job at Google. The New York Times.
Knight, R. (2018). Seven practical ways to reduce bias in your hiring process. Society for Human Resource Management.
