Even though I haven’t personally been on the interview side as a candidate, I have been the one running interviews for people at my own company, and that experience has definitely changed how I think about the process. Looking back, I can see how inconsistent interviews can become if you don’t have a clear structure going in. Some interviews felt more like conversations, others felt rushed, and the questions would shift depending on the person. At the time it didn’t seem like a big deal, but now it’s clear that this hurts reliability. If every candidate isn’t being evaluated the same way, it’s hard to compare them fairly or feel confident in the decision (Lecture 2 – Introduction to Selection).
Another thing that stands out is how easy it is to focus on the wrong things. It’s natural to pay attention to how someone talks, their energy, or how well you connect with them, but that doesn’t always mean they’ll perform well on the job. That’s where validity becomes an issue. The lectures explain that interviews should be tied directly to job requirements, which is why structured interviews with set questions and scoring guides tend to work better (Lecture 4 – Increasing Interview Effectiveness). Thinking back, I can see how first impressions or small details could influence decisions more than they should have.
If I could go back, I would approach interviews with a lot more intention. I’d build questions around the actual job and what success looks like, and I’d use a consistent way to evaluate answers. That would make the process feel more fair and less dependent on gut instinct. It would also improve utility, since better hiring decisions save time, reduce turnover and make the whole process more efficient in the long run (Lecture 2 – Introduction to Selection).