The Interview Process Is Broken—And What You Can Do About It
The job interview is a ritual so embedded in hiring culture that we rarely question its effectiveness. After years of observing hiring processes, I've come to understand an uncomfortable truth: traditional interviews are remarkably poor predictors of job performance, and companies routinely pass over highly qualified candidates. Understanding why this is—and how you can navigate this flawed system—can fundamentally change your approach to landing your next role.
The Fundamental Problem with Interviews
Most interviews are essentially elaborate conversations designed to answer one question: "Do I like this person?" I've seen hiring managers mistake rapport for competence and confidence for capability time and again. Research consistently shows that unstructured interviews—the conversational, "tell me about yourself" variety that dominates hiring—have only a modest correlation with actual job performance.
The reasons are deeply rooted in human psychology. I've watched interviewers fall prey to bias, making snap judgments in the first few minutes and spending the rest of the interview seeking evidence to support that initial impression. The halo effect causes one positive trait to color the entire evaluation. Interviewers pick candidates who remind them of themselves, who went to the same university, or who simply seem "likeable" – none of which predict whether the candidate will excel in the job.
Interviews also overrate skills that may be irrelevant to the job itself. Being articulate under pressure in a formal setting has little to do with being a skilled engineer, designer, or analyst. Yet we've created a hiring gauntlet that selects for performance in artificial scenarios rather than real-world capability.
The Myth of the Structured Interview
You might think, "Well, what about structured interviews?" Many organizations use them to avoid the problems with unstructured interviews, but I have found they do not entirely solve them. While research shows that structured interviews perform better than their unstructured counterparts, they're far from a panacea, and in practice, most "structured" interviews aren't really structured at all.
True structured interviews require standardized questions, consistent scoring rubrics, and trained interviewers who rigorously follow the process. What I've observed in most organizations is something far messier: a list of approved questions that interviewers modify on the fly, scoring systems that get applied inconsistently, and follow-up questions that veer into the same subjective territory as unstructured interviews.
Even when companies implement structured interviews appropriately, there's a fundamental tension. Interviewers resist them. Hiring managers often feel that structured interviews are rigid and impersonal, and don't allow them to "really get to know" the candidate. The irony is that this desire to "get to know" someone is precisely what introduces bias and reduces the interview's predictive value for candidate success in the job. But the resistance is real, and it means that even well-designed, structured interviews often get compromised in execution.
There's also the problem of what structured interviews can't capture. They're typically designed around specific competencies or past behaviors, which works reasonably well for roles with clearly defined responsibilities. But for creative roles, leadership positions, or jobs that require navigating ambiguity and complexity, the rigid format can miss crucial qualities. A candidate might ace the structured questions while completely lacking the judgment, creativity, or interpersonal savvy the role actually demands.
The Untrained Interviewer Problem
Perhaps the biggest issue is one that affects both structured and unstructured interviews: most interviewers have never been trained to conduct them effectively. I've sat in interview debriefs where hiring managers made decisions based on gut feelings, irrelevant small talk, or whether the candidate seemed "enthusiastic enough." These weren't bad people—they were smart, accomplished professionals. They just had no training in what actually predicts job performance or how to evaluate it.
Think about it: we require licenses to cut hair, but anyone can have the responsibility of evaluating job candidates with zero formal training. Most interviewers learn by watching other untrained interviewers, perpetuating the same mistakes across generations. They generally don't know how to probe beyond surface-level answers, distinguish genuine competence from polished storytelling, or recognize their own biases.
I've watched interviewers prioritize irrelevant factors—whether someone maintained eye contact, seemed "hungry," or had the "right energy," for example. I've seen them underweigh crucial information because they didn't know which questions to ask or how to interpret the answers. They confuse confidence with competence, mistake introversion for disinterest, and let awkward moments early in the interview color their entire assessment.
Even well-intentioned interviewers fall into predictable traps. They may ask hypothetical questions ("What would you do if...?") and take the answers at face value, failing to recognize that anyone can describe what they should do. They fail to dig into specifics when candidates give vague answers. They don't take notes, relying instead on memory, which research shows is notoriously unreliable and susceptible to recency bias.
And here's the thing: most organizations don't even know their interviewers are underperforming. There's rarely any systematic evaluation of whether interviewers' assessments correlate with subsequent job performance. The feedback loop is broken, so people continue using ineffective techniques year after year, convinced they're good at "reading people."
Why Companies Keep Using Ineffective Methods
If interviews are so flawed, why do they persist? The answer is simple: they feel right. Hiring managers want to believe they can assess someone through conversation. Interviews provide the illusion of control and the comfort of personal judgment. They're also relatively easy to implement compared to more effective assessment methods, such as work samples or structured assessments.
There's also significant organizational inertia. "This is how we've always done it" is a powerful force, and I've rarely seen companies with the infrastructure or appetite to overhaul their entire hiring process. Training interviewers takes time and money. Implementing properly structured interviews requires upfront work developing questions and rubrics. Using work samples or assessments means designing them, which involves expertise most HR departments don't have.
And frankly, there's ego involved. Senior leaders and hiring managers don't want to admit they are not naturally gifted at evaluating talent. The idea that a systematic process or standardized test might outperform their judgment feels threatening. So they continue trusting their instincts, despite mountains of evidence that those instincts are unreliable.
What You Can Do About It
While you can't change the system, you can work within it more strategically. Here's what I've learned about navigating ineffective interviews and improving your chances:
Recognize what interviews actually evaluate. Since most interviews assess likeability and polish as much as competence, prepare accordingly. It isn't about being inauthentic—it's about recognizing that you need to be both competent and compelling.
Control the narrative early. Those crucial first minutes matter enormously. I always recommend preparing a concise, confident opening that frames who you are and what value you bring. Don't wait for the perfect question to showcase your strengths; weave them into your responses throughout.
Bring evidence, not just answers. When asked about your experience, don't just describe what you did—share concrete results and specific examples. Better yet, bring a portfolio, case studies, or samples of your work. Transform the abstract conversation into something tangible.
Structure your own responses. If the interviewer isn't using a structured approach, you can. I've found that using frameworks like STAR (Situation, Task, Action, Result) to give organized, compelling answers makes your competence more visible and memorable.
Compensate for untrained interviewers. Since you're likely facing someone who doesn't know how to interview well, make their job easier. When they ask vague questions, provide specific answers anyway. When they ask hypothetical questions, ground your response in actual examples. If they're not taking notes, pause at key moments to let important points land. Think of yourself as guiding the interview toward the information that actually matters.
Ask for the real work. Where possible, suggest providing a work sample, taking a technical assessment, or working on a trial project. This shifts evaluation away from conversation and toward actual capability. I've seen many candidates shy away from this, particularly because it feels like providing free labor. However, it can be your strongest card if you're genuinely skilled but interview poorly.
Address the likability factor strategically. Since rapport matters, prepare to build a genuine connection. I always research the interviewer, look for common ground, and ask thoughtful questions about their experience. Mirror their communication style subtly. This isn't manipulation—it's meeting people where they are.
Provide your own structure when it's missing. If you're in a rambling, unstructured interview, you can impose some order by summarizing key points periodically: "So I've shared how I handled X and Y—would it be helpful if I spoke to Z as well?" This helps untrained interviewers process and remember your relevant qualifications.
Follow up with substance. After the interview, I recommend sending a note that doesn't just thank the interviewers, but adds value. Reference a problem discussed and offer a relevant insight or resource. Remind them of your specific fit for the role with examples. Doing so provides another impression point when the initial interview may have been muddled.
Play the long game when possible. The most effective way I've found to bypass the interview lottery is to not rely on it. Build relationships in your industry before you need them. Contribute to communities, share your work publicly, and get known for your expertise. Referrals and direct outreach from hiring managers face dramatically reduced interview hurdles.
Know when to walk away. A chaotic, unstructured interview process may signal a chaotic, unstructured organization. If a company can't hire effectively, what does that suggest about how they operate? Sometimes the best response to a broken system is to find a better one.
The Bigger Picture
The ineffectiveness of most interviews represents a massive inefficiency in the labor market that I find deeply frustrating. Talented people are passed over because they don't perform well in the artificial scenarios that most interviews are. Companies miss out on great hires because their selection process filters for the wrong qualities. Everyone loses.
The situation is particularly absurd when you consider that decades of research show what actually works—structured assessments, work samples, cognitive ability tests, and ob-specific knowledge tests—yet most organizations ignore this evidence in favor of trusting untrained interviewers' gut feelings. It's as if we know the building code but keep constructing houses that collapse.
But as an individual candidate, your goal isn't to fix the system—it's to succeed within it. I've learned to recognize interviews for what they are: an imperfect, human process conducted by people who are often winging it, evaluating a mix of skill, presentation, and chemistry. Prepare for all three dimensions, not just the first. Bring evidence that transcends conversation. Make up for the interviewer's lack of training by providing structure and clarity yourself. And remember that every "no" may have less to do with your abilities than with the fundamental limitations of how hiring works and who's doing the evaluating.
The interview process is broken, and your interviewer may be untrained, but it's still the game companies are playing. In my experience, the candidates who succeed are those who play it well, play it strategically, understand the limitations they're working within, and recognize when they're simply dealing with bad luck in a deeply flawed system.
