Most hiring managers believe they're good at reading people. Research suggests otherwise.
Studies show that unstructured interviews, the kind where conversation flows freely and gut instinct guides the process, are among the weakest predictors of job performance. Yet they remain the default in many organizations, largely because they feel natural and confident in the moment. The problem is that feeling confident and making a good hire are two very different things.
For HR professionals, the interview is one of the most consequential tools in the talent acquisition process. Done well, it surfaces not just skills and experience, but the qualities that determine whether someone will thrive in a role and contribute to the team around them. Done poorly, it leads to costly mis-hires, early turnover, and teams that never quite gel.
Hiring is one of the highest-stakes decisions an organization makes, and HR professionals sit at the center of it. A single poor hire can ripple outward in ways that are difficult to measure and even harder to undo.
Skilled interviewers do more than screen resumes in real time. They create conditions where candidates can be genuinely evaluated, where both parties walk away with an accurate picture, and where the organization's culture and expectations are clearly communicated. That combination of assessment and communication is what separates a strong hire from a regrettable one.
Preparation is where great interviews are won or lost, and it starts well before the candidate walks in the door. HR professionals who invest time upfront in building a structured approach consistently make better hiring decisions than those who improvise.
A structured interview process means establishing a consistent framework that every candidate moves through, with the same core questions asked in the same order. Research consistently shows that structured interviews reduce bias and improve comparability across candidates, ensuring evaluation stays grounded in job-relevant criteria rather than rapport or first impressions.
Building that structure requires a few deliberate steps before any interviews take place:
Documentation is the part of the interview process most likely to be skipped and most likely to be regretted. Without consistent notes and scoring, hiring decisions drift toward subjective impressions rather than evidence, and patterns across candidates become difficult to evaluate.
Using a structured scorecard immediately after each interview keeps assessments grounded in specific observations rather than general feelings. Equally important: interviewers should complete their evaluations independently before comparing notes with colleagues. When people share opinions first, individual assessments tend to converge around the most vocal voice in the room.
Behavioral interviewing is built on a straightforward premise: past behavior is the best available predictor of future performance. Rather than asking what a candidate would do in a hypothetical situation, behavioral questions ask what they actually did in a real one.
The STAR framework (Situation, Task, Action, Result) gives candidates a structure for their answers and gives interviewers a consistent lens for evaluation. A candidate who responds with vague generalities to a behavioral question is telling you something, just as much as one who offers a specific, detailed account.
The best behavioral questions tie directly to the competencies that matter most for the role. For a position requiring conflict resolution, an interviewer might ask: "Tell me about a time you had to work through a significant disagreement with a colleague. What was the situation, and how did you handle it?" The goal is always to reach specific, verifiable behavior rather than polished claims about personality.
Rapport is not a soft add-on to the interview process. It is a functional requirement. When candidates feel comfortable, they give more honest, complete answers. When they feel evaluated or threatened, they default to rehearsed responses that reveal less.
Journalist and author Ken Auletta, who has spent decades drawing out candid responses from some of the world's most guarded subjects, described it this way in Morning Brew:
Begin with softer questions before moving into harder territory and let the person across from you know you are there to understand them, not to prosecute them.
Though Auletta was referring to journalistic interviews, the dynamic is the same in an interview context. Candidates who feel evaluated or interrogated close down. Candidates who feel heard open up, and that openness is where the most useful information lives.
A few minutes of genuine conversation at the start, a clear explanation of the interview format, and an unhurried demeanor all signal that this is a dialogue, not an interrogation.
Active listening matters just as much as the questions themselves. Staying present, following up on unexpected answers, and resisting the urge to fill every pause are marks of a skilled interviewer.
Silence is a particularly powerful tool. Candidates who sense that an answer hasn't fully landed will often elaborate on their own, sometimes revealing more than they initially planned.
Cultural fit is one of the most important and most misused concepts in hiring. At its best, it means assessing whether a candidate's values and working style align with how the organization actually operates. At its worst, it becomes a cover for hiring people who simply remind the interviewer of themselves.
According to Harvard Business Review, dozens of studies have found that unstructured interviews consistently introduce bias, with evaluators unconsciously favoring candidates who seem similar to them. Structured interviews largely neutralize this effect by keeping the focus on job-relevant criteria.
When assessing cultural fit, HR professionals should be able to articulate specifically what they mean by "company culture" and what behaviors they are actually measuring.
Questions about how a candidate handles feedback, navigates ambiguity, or works through disagreement reveal genuine alignment far more reliably than a gut feeling about chemistry.
Even experienced interviewers fall into predictable patterns that undermine the quality of their hiring decisions. The most common include:
When interviewers spend more time explaining the role than listening to the candidate, they collect less information and unconsciously fill gaps with favorable assumptions.
Phrasing that signals the desired answer ("We value collaboration here, so how do you work with teams?") invites candidates to tell you what you want to hear rather than what is true.
A strong first impression or an impressive early answer can color the evaluation of everything that follows.
Asking different questions of different candidates, or probing more deeply with some than others, makes fair comparison impossible.
Questions about age, family status, religion, or national origin are not just ethically problematic, they create real legal exposure.
Career coach Laura DeCarlo, quoted by SHRM, says that “probably 70 percent of people who do interviewing do it off the cuff.” Addressing these habits through structured preparation and periodic calibration sessions with other interviewers can significantly improve outcomes across the hiring team.
The impact of a well-conducted interview extends far beyond the hiring decision itself. Organizations that select candidates based on genuine role fit see lower turnover, and that stability has downstream effects on team morale and productivity.
Gallup research identifies poor fit to the job as one of the top five predictors of voluntary turnover. When employees feel that the role they were interviewed for doesn't match the reality of the job they were hired into, trust erodes quickly, often long before a resignation letter gets written.
Candidates also carry impressions of the interview experience with them. A well-run interview, even one that ends in rejection, leaves candidates with a positive view of the organization. In a competitive talent market, how an organization conducts its interviews is part of its employer brand, whether it intends that or not.
Hiring well is only the beginning. Once a strong candidate joins the organization, the factors that drive long-term success shift from selection to support, and this is where Employee Assistance Programs play a meaningful role.
EAP services give employees access to confidential counseling, coaching, and support resources that help them navigate personal and professional challenges before those challenges affect their work.
For new hires still deciding whether the job lives up to what was promised in the interview, that support infrastructure sends a clear signal about the kind of organization they have joined.
Ulliance EAP gives HR professionals a practical resource to support employees from day one.
Through face-to-face counseling, life coaching, and management consultation services, Ulliance helps organizations build a support structure that complements strong hiring practices and strengthens new-hire success through the critical early months of employment.
When you partner with Ulliance, our Life Advisor Consultants are always just a phone call away to teach ways to enhance your work/life balance and increase your happiness. The Ulliance Life Advisor Employee Assistance Program can help employees and employers come closer to a state of total well-being.
Investing in the right EAP or Wellness Program to support your employees will help them and help you. Visit https://ulliance.com/ or call 866-648-8326.
The Ulliance Employee Assistance Program can address the
following issues:
• Stress about work or job performance
• Crisis in the workplace
• Conflict resolution at work or in one’s personal life
• Marital or relationship problems
• Child or elder care concerns
• Financial worries
• Mental health problems
• Alcohol/substance abuse
• Grief
• Interpersonal conflicts
• AND MORE!
References:
The Art of Interviewing: How to Conduct a Good Interview; Morning Brew; Sabrina Sanchez https://www.morningbrew.com/stories/art-of-interviewing-work-life
Interviews That Work; SHRM; Steve Bates https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/hr-magazine/interviews-work
Transform Interviewing into Strategic Talent Selection; SHRM https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/tools/toolkits/transform-interviewing-into-strategic-talent-selection
How to Take the Bias Out of Interviews; Harvard Business Review; Iris Bohnet https://hbr.org/2016/04/how-to-take-the-bias-out-of-interviews
Turning Around Employee Turnover; Gallup; Jennifer Robison https://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/106912/turning-around-your-turnover-problem.aspx