The Hidden Pitfalls of Unstructured Job Interviews: Why Science-Based Hiring is the Future

In today's competitive, messy and expensive job market, organizations cannot afford to make poor hiring decisions. Yet many continue to rely on unstructured interviews and gut feelings when selecting candidates. As somebody who was taught to follow instinct in selection and subsequently learned not to be so foolish (and apply science instead), I've seen firsthand how average recruitment methods almost always lead to suboptimal decisions and all too often to costly mistakes. Here then, we explore why unstructured interviews fall short and how evidence-based hiring methods can dramatically improve outcomes.

Clue and spoiler alert: As so often, decent science is the answer.

?

The Problem with "Winging It"

Unstructured interviews, where interviewers ask a few from their selection box of favourite questions, plus a smattering of whatever else comes to mind, are still the commonest way of running a business interview. Who could forget such interview favourites such as:

“Alive or dead, who would you invite to your ideal dinner party?”

“Tell me about your last boss.”

“What influence have your parents had….?”

“What’s your favourite cartoon character and why?”

These and so many more pet questions proliferate. And while you're at it - as seems to be increasingly common - why not ask somebody for a personal statement as part of the application process? Knowing that somebody shares your political beliefs and loves the Baby Jesus will really let you know how good they're going to be in the role. While it won't (a) feed into selection bias or (b) put off some potentially great job fits, at all.

?

Trouble piled onto misalignment

These interviews often focus on assumed job knowledge – where the mediocre candidate with experience is given an interview, while the able candidate who could easily learn, misses out.

General impressions, those are the things! Eschew systematically assessing skills and gauging fit, because “it’s always best to rely on your gut.” This approach is terrific, all except that it is has many major drawbacks:

1. Inconsistency: Different candidates are asked different questions, making fair comparisons nearly impossible.
2. Bias: Without structure, interviewers are more likely to be swayed by irrelevant factors like appearance or shared interests.

For example, how many have heard “You should have seen what they wore to the interview! We won't be inviting that scruffy so and so back.”

Because, of course. you couldn't ask a brilliantly suitable candidate to wear a suit when they start a job, could you?

Trainers are an clear sign of ineptitude. Much better a brown-nosing dullard in a Boss suit.

3. Poor predictors: Research shows unstructured interviews have low validity in predicting job performance. So low in fact that you would save both time and expenses sticking a pin in the list of candidates. This largely because of…

4. …Missed information: Key competencies will be overlooked.

?

The Power of Evidence-Based Hiring

Fortunately, decades of psychological research have yielded far more effective hiring methods. A best practice approach includes:

1. Detailed job analysis: Systematically identifying the key knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics needed for success in the role. Proper job analysis takes an afternoon, sometimes an afternoon of argument, sometimes one of boredom. It is always worth the effort.
2. Psychometric ability tests: Objectively measuring abilities relevant to job performance. Because if somebody cannot do the job, what is the point of going any further?
3. Psychometric personality instruments: Assessing personality traits and work styles that align with job requirements and organizational culture. It is crucial to note that a business should never take an appointment decision based on a personality instrument.

Personality tools are a brilliant source of question material. It is the astute use of these questions that provide the insight,? not necessarily the personality tool itself. A personality tool, it is worth remembering, is a self-report instrument, not a black and white exercise of the correct or incorrect.

4. Semi-structured interviews: Using a consistent set of job behaviour-based questions linked to job competencies, which allow for follow-up probing.

?

Benefits of a Scientific Approach

Implementing these evidence-based methods offers numerous advantages:

• Higher predictive validity: These tools have been shown to more accurately predict job performance and retention.
• Reduced bias: Standardized processes and objective measures minimize the impact of unconscious biases.
• Legal defensibility: A consistent, job-related selection process is more legally defensible if hiring decisions are challenged.
• Improved candidate experience: A structured process feels fairer and more professional to candidates.
• Data-driven decisions: Quantitative measures allow for more informed comparisons between candidates.

?

Making the Shift

Transitioning to evidence-based hiring practices requires an initial investment of time and resources. However, the long-term benefits in terms of better recruitment, improved productivity, and reduced turnover far outweigh the costs.

As business leaders, we must recognize that our most important asset is our people. By embracing scientific hiring methods, we can build stronger teams, drive better results, and create a true competitive advantage.

Do you know anybody still relying on outdated hiring practices? It's time to evolve. Their organization's future may depend on it.

If you have any experiences to share, please do. It would be a pleasure to help you with any of this.

Thanks for reading, I hope it was useful to you. C