The purpose of an interview seems straightforward: understand the person in front of you well enough to decide whether they can succeed in the role. But people are complex. And hiring decisions are rarely completely objective.
Even experienced interviewers can be influenced by first impressions, familiarity, confidence, communication style, or simply how much they connect with a candidate. Sometimes we recognize genuine potential. Sometimes we overlook it. And sometimes what feels like a strong fit is partly a reflection of ourselves.
So, before making an offer, there is an important question to ask: are we evaluating this person against what the role requires, or against our own idea of what a successful candidate should look and sound like?
Bias doesn't require bad intentions. Our brains naturally use shortcuts to process information and make decisions, and interviews give those shortcuts plenty of opportunity to influence us. We may warm more quickly to someone who communicates like us, shares a similar background, or has followed a familiar career path. Once we form an early impression, confirmation bias can encourage us to notice evidence that supports it.
The reverse can happen too. Someone who is quieter, communicates differently, or has taken an unconventional career path may have considerable potential that an informal interview doesn't reveal.
As SHRM reports in its examination of bias and structured interviewing, interviewers can unconsciously look for a version of themselves rather than focusing on the capabilities actually required for the role. It also cites research indicating that 48% of HR managers acknowledge bias can affect who they hire. And bias can have real consequences. HR Grapevine reported that Glassdoor saw a 133% year-over-year rise in job seeker comments about ageism during the first quarter of 2025.
The answer isn't to remove human judgment from hiring. It's to give that judgment better evidence.
Read more: How Unconscious Bias Sneaks Into Interviews
Before assessing a candidate, assess the role. Without a clear picture of what success requires, interviewers can easily hire against an imagined ideal rather than the reality of the job.
Ask:
A clear job benchmark gives everyone involved in the decision a common reference point. Instead of asking, Do I like this person? or Can I see them fitting in?, we can ask, What evidence do we have that this person can succeed in this role? That small shift can lead to a much more useful hiring conversation.
Discover: Define success before you hire with The McQuaig Job Survey®
A psychometric assessment can provide another perspective on a candidate, but only when the tool itself deserves your confidence. Look for evidence of reliability, meaning the assessment measures consistently, and validity, meaning there is evidence that it measures what it claims to measure.
This isn't about putting people into boxes or allowing an assessment to make the hiring decision. Human behavior is contextual, and everyone has strengths and opportunities to develop. A scientifically validated assessment can instead help interviewers explore how someone may approach areas such as communication, decision-making, pace, structure, or collaboration. Those insights can prompt better questions and help interviewers explore beyond their initial impressions.
Think of assessment as a flashlight, not a verdict. It can illuminate areas worth exploring, while the hiring team considers that insight alongside other relevant evidence.
Read more: Why Scientific Validation Matters in Psychometric Assessments
Experience can make “winging it” tempting. But if every candidate gets a different conversation, are they really getting an equal opportunity to demonstrate their potential? Structure doesn't mean making interviews robotic. It means asking candidates consistent, job-relevant questions and using clear criteria to evaluate their responses.
SHRM's 2025 reporting on skills-based hiring highlights structured interviews alongside work samples and job simulations as ways organizations are moving beyond resumes to understand real-world capability. As one talent leader quoted by SHRM explains, scientific methods help standardize the process rather than relying on gut feel.
More recently, SHRM highlighted the value of interview rating scales, noting that even structured questions can still leave room for subjectivity if interviewers don't have clear criteria for evaluating the answers. The goal isn't more process. It's better evidence.
Watch the webinar: Are You Hiring the Best Interviewee - Or the Best Employee?
No hiring process can predict the future perfectly. Nor should data replace human judgment. But we can create better conditions for that judgment.
Start with an accurate benchmark of what the role needs. Use genuinely validated assessment tools to add meaningful behavioral insight. Conduct structured interviews that give candidates comparable opportunities to demonstrate their capabilities. And stay curious when someone doesn't immediately look or sound like your idea of the ideal hire.
Because uncovering potential isn't about finding the person who feels most familiar. It's about looking beyond first impressions, asking better questions, and making sure you are seeing the candidate, not simply your reflection.
Ready to put these ideas into practice? Join our upcoming McQuaig webinar to explore practical ways to strengthen team effectiveness, build greater self-awareness and help people understand how different working styles shape collaboration. You’ll come away with ideas to help your teams communicate more effectively, navigate differences constructively and head into Q4 better prepared to work together.
Register here for Wednesday September 16 at 3pm BST \ 10am ET with Jo Emmerson and Danielle Ableman.
Register here for Tuesday September 29 at 3pm AEST with Teresa Romanovsky.