An NBC poll reveals more than 28% of Americans are searching for new jobs. And the question on every job hunter’s mind is, “What are recruiters looking for?” Job seekers are constantly guessing at how to make a good impression, differentiate themselves and meet recruiter expectations. Now, experts are claiming that it would behoove companies to clean up their broken interview processes to make better impressions, too. Aptitude Research charges that, for many companies, the broken interview process is inconsistent, impersonal and biased, costing companies big bucks.
Cruel And Unusual Punishment In The Broken Interview Process ?
Of course, job seekers want to stand out from the pack, but in some cases recruiters go to great lengths to stand out in their interviewing strategies as well. And some of the stories recruiters tell sound reminiscent of hazing initiations practiced in college fraternities.
Recently CEOs have been vocalizing their hiring practices, putting applicants through “special tests” without them knowing to see how they react like a secret water test. Recruiters place a jug of water and a cup to see if the applicant will drink during the interview.
Another recruiter tests job seekers on responsibility, asking them to go back out the front door and come in the back through the kitchen. The recruiter places a broom in front of the kitchen door to see if applicants will step over the broom or pick it up and put it in a corner. Placing the broom where it belongs is supposedly a sign that the candidate would make a responsible employee.
Other hiring employers like Snapchat’s CEO, Evan Spiegel, purposely terrifies new hires by setting them up to fail on their first day on the job. He asks them to pull together a presentation with new ideas in minutes–an impossible task and inevitable failure to see how they handle it.
Cruel and unusual punishment, you say? I spoke by email with Andy Nelesen who says these antics force candidates to wonder if interviews matter anymore. Nelesen, Solutions Lead, Talent Acquisition at SHL, argues that the interview process is long overdue for overhaul and that interviews without structure are inherently biased, inconsistent and inefficient.
“With around four billion interviews conducted each year, organizations waste precious time and resources on outdated interview methods that fail to reveal true candidate potential and fit,” Nelesen told me. “It’s time for a new generation of interviewing, powered by science and analytics, that delivers real results.”
6 Interviewing Myths Of The Broken Interview Process
Nelesen debunks the six most common myths that make job interviews ineffective and unreliable and cost companies top talent:
Myth #1: Gut instinct is the best hiring tool. “Many interviewers believe they have a natural ability to gauge a candidate’s potential within minutes of an interview,” he notes. “While intuition plays a role in decision-making, relying too heavily on ‘gut feel’ introduces unconscious bias and inconsistency.
He points out that research shows that unstructured interviews–where interviewers ask different questions and make subjective judgments–lead to poor hiring decisions, and they fail to measure actual skills or potential, increasing the risk of costly mistakes.
The fix, he says, is a fair assessment based on the skills that matter. “A structured approach, where every candidate is asked the same job-relevant questions and evaluated against consistent criteria, significantly improves hiring accuracy.”
Myth #2: If someone interviews well, they’ll perform well in the role. “Some candidates are naturally charismatic and can handle interviews with confidence and ease,” he insists. “Others, who may be equally or more qualified, might struggle with nerves or be less comfortable with self-promotion and selling themselves.”
Nelesen states that interviews tend to reward confidence and performance over job capability, adding that, “Interviewers may also favor candidates who remind them of themselves, reinforcing unconscious biases and limiting diversity.”
The fix is for organizations to prioritize skill-based, job-related questions that prompt candidates to demonstrate how they approach different situations and handle real-world scenarios. “By asking structured questions, interviewers get a much clearer picture of how an individual is likely to perform in the role, and be able to accurately compare responses from other candidates,” he declares.
Myth #3: Clever interview tricks reveal true character. “Some interviewers believe that unconventional questions or surprise tests–like the now-infamous ‘water test,’ where a candidate is judged on whether they return a glass after being offered a drink–reveal hidden traits about a person,” he declares.
“These techniques are often gimmicks. Not only can they create unnecessary stress and confusion for candidates, they are also extremely unlikely to predict an individual’s performance or potential in the job.” He believes the fix is assessing skills and cultural fit and using scientifically validated questions that are proven to predict job performance and align with evaluation metrics.
Myth #4: Candidates prefer relaxed conversations over structured interviews. “Many interviewers assume candidates prefer casual, free-flowing conversations over structured interviews,” Nelesen proposes. “While relaxed discussions might feel more natural, they lack consistency, making it difficult to fairly compare candidates or assess true job fit.”
He is convinced that when done correctly, structured interviews don’t have to be rigid or robotic, suggesting that if they feel purposeful and engaging, candidates have a fair opportunity to showcase their skills.
He cites research showing that candidates value professionalism, respect for their time and a well-organized process over an informal chat. The fix is setting clear expectations, optimizing speaking time and providing timely feedback to create an experience that candidates appreciate.
Myth #5: Interviewing is an art, not a science; a good interviewer doesn’t need to prep. “Some interviewers believe their experience and intuition are enough to guide an effective interview, preparing questions on the spot, listening to candidates’ responses and being in the moment,” Nelesen observes. “But without preparation, interviews become unfocused, resulting in unclear questions, missed opportunities to evaluate critical skills and a poor candidate experience.”
The fix, as he sees it, is to apply science to interviewing to deliver better hiring results. “As part of structured interviews, interviewers need to review the job requirements, use a structured question set and establish clear evaluation criteria before the interview begins,” he adds. “This ensures that every candidate is assessed fairly and that hiring decisions are based on objective insights.”
Myth #6: Interviewing doesn’t need data–it’s about human judgment. “Without insights backed by objective data, interviews and hiring decisions are highly subjective,” he insists. “HR teams are unable to track patterns, measure effectiveness, demonstrate the ROI or ensure consistency of their hiring practices. This lack of transparency not only increases bias but also results in missed opportunities to measure what’s working, what’s not and how to improve the interview process.
“By implementing structured interviewing, companies can track key metrics such as interview-to-hire ratios, candidate progression rates and interviewer performance,” he affirms. “These insights enable organizations to refine their hiring strategies, reduce bias, and ensure their interviews are truly predictive of job success.”
Aptitude Research mentions that the broken interview process is evident because half of companies lose quality talent to poor interview processes, less than half measure ROI and a third lack confidence in their interview process.