Imagine you’re a seasoned chef, tasked with judging a cooking competition. But instead of tasting the dishes, you’re only allowed to interview the contestants about their recipes. Sounds absurd, right? Yet this job interviewing process is precisely how we’ve approached the lion’s share of hiring for the past 200 years.
Yet a meta-analysis published this week by Wingate and colleagues (2024) highlights that within a sample of over 30,000 people, job interviews do not in fact predict future job performance. Thus, interviewing someone may not actually help us make better hiring decisions.
In light of this, it’s worth asking: How much of our hiring decisions are based on evidence, and how much on subjective impressions? Let’s explore why interviews are poor predictors of performance and discuss ways to improve hiring decisions.
Anyone involved in hiring has been there: sitting across from a candidate, convinced we can gauge their potential and predict their performance based on a 60-minute conversation. However, the sobering reality is that interviews only explain about 9 percent of the variance in future job performance.
In other words, 91 percent of what determines how well someone will do in a job is completely missed by the interview process. It’s like trying to predict the outcome of a chess match by watching the players set up the board. Interviews are thus not valid tools to assess people’s capabilities and the illusion that it is an accurate tool is costing businesses dearly.
Many of us believe that if we just ask the right questions, we’ll uncover the truth about a candidate. We craft behavioral questions, situational judgement scenarios, and technical assessments that we are convinced reveal the perfect person for the job. But research tells a different story.
Whether we’re trying to assess behaviors, task-related skills, or interpersonal abilities, interviews show surprisingly low levels of accuracy. Both structured and unstructured interviews fail to predict a candidate’s potential performance.
Further, interviews are equally mediocre at predicting both task-specific skills and broader contextual behaviors. This suggests that the standard interview format may be too blunt an instrument to capture the nuances of diverse job requirements.
Interviews are often seen as a one-size-fits-all tool to assess capability in diverse job roles. But is it really possible to use the same tool to assess a software engineer’s coding abilities and a sales representative’s client relationship skills?
Another problem with interviews is that they are heavily influenced by our unconscious biases. Even with structured formats and scoring systems, we’re all susceptible to making snap judgments based on factors that have nothing to do with job performance.
A candidate’s appearance, speaking style, or even how familiar they are to us can unconsciously sway our decisions. Maybe we’re swayed by a candidate’s charisma, or we feel a connection because they remind us of ourselves. These biases can lead us to make decisions based more on gut feeling rather than objective assessment.
Similarly, the halo effect, where one positive attribute colors our entire impression of a person, is particularly problematic. A charismatic response to the first question can overshadow later missteps, while a single awkward moment early on can unfairly taint our perception of an otherwise capable candidate.
This effect is so strong that it can overshadow the actual skills and competencies that are crucial for the job. We thus end up hiring people who are great at interviewing but not necessarily great at the job.
Another pitfall is the overemphasis on cultural fit. While it sounds logical to choose candidates who align with company values and team dynamics, this approach often leads to homogeneity rather than diversity.
When companies prioritize cultural fit, they often end up creating teams that think, act, and look alike. This is because people tend to feel more comfortable around others who share similar backgrounds, interests, and ways of thinking. While this might create a harmonious and easygoing workplace, just fitting in with a group doesn’t mean a candidate has the right experience, skills, and abilities to perform well in the role.
When we prioritize fit, we not only risk creating echo chambers where new ideas and perspectives are rare, but we tend to neglect the actual capacities required for the individual to perform and the organisation to grow. True performance relies on a combination of cultural fit, personal capabilities to perform in the role, and potential to grow. While interviews can evaluate fit, they are particularly weak in predicting potential and performance.
So, if interviews aren’t the reliable predictors we thought they were, how can we improve our hiring decisions? Here are some evidence-based strategies:
As we stand at the crossroads of tradition and innovation in hiring practices, it’s time to ask ourselves: Are we truly seeing the forest, or are we still fixated on a single tree? The next game-changing employee might not be the one who interviews best, but the one whose true potential is waiting to be discovered.
