Beyond First Impressions: The Role of Structured Interviews
- rgpro3
- Jul 21
- 6 min read
Updated: Jul 22
How Organizations Can Make Better Hiring Decisions
A candidate has the skills. They have the experience. Their background looks impressive. Yet someone says, “I’m not sure we should hire them. They may be overqualified.” But how do we know?
Are we identifying a legitimate hiring concern or are we making an assumption?
Hiring decisions require judgment. Experienced hiring managers develop instincts based on years of experience, previous hiring decisions, and lessons learned from situations that worked well and those that did not.
Those instincts have value.
The challenge is ensuring that instincts guide better questions rather than become conclusions before the evidence has been gathered.
When a Concern Becomes a Conclusion
Comments such as these may point to legitimate concerns:
“They have too much experience for this role.”
“They will probably get bored.”
“They won’t want to do the day-to-day work.”
“They will leave as soon as another opportunity comes along.”
However, these comments are not evidence by themselves.
The same challenge can appear in many other situations:
An outgoing candidate may be viewed as a stronger communicator than someone who is more reserved.
A candidate with a traditional career path may appear to be a safer choice than someone with transferable experience.
Someone with a different educational background may be overlooked despite having demonstrated capability.
A candidate who interviews confidently may be perceived as stronger than someone who takes more time to reflect before answering.
These assumptions may sometimes be accurate. The challenge is that they may also be inaccurate.
A structured interview helps organizations explore these questions more objectively and assess what actually matters for success.
How Structured Interviews Improve Hiring Decisions
A common response to a more structured approach is: “But I have been through this before. I hired someone who said all the right things during the interview, and it ended up exactly how I thought it would.”
That experience is understandable. Hiring managers are responsible for decisions that affect their teams and organizations, so previous experiences naturally influence how they evaluate future candidates.
However, the lesson is not that assumptions should always be trusted. The lesson is that concerns should be explored more effectively.
A structured interview does not ask hiring managers to ignore their experience or intuition. Instead, it helps transform concerns into questions that can be objectively assessed. Following are some examples of concerns and examples of evidence-based questions.
Concern 1: “They Have Too Much Experience”
Evidence-based question: “Given your experience, what interests you about this opportunity, and what are you looking for in your next role?” |
The concern may be valid. Some candidates with significantly more experience than a role requires may be looking for something different from what the organization can offer.
However, the conversation may reveal something else. The candidate may be intentionally seeking a role where they can:
focus more on the work they enjoy;
apply their expertise without the demands of a larger leadership role;
mentor and support others;
contribute in a different way at this stage of their career; or,
achieve better alignment between their strengths and the work they want to do.
The question is not whether someone has “too much” experience. The question is whether their experience, goals, and expectations align with the opportunity.
Concern 2: “They Are Confident but Do Their Answers Have Depth?”
Evidence-based question: “Can you walk me through a specific example where you applied this skill? What was the situation, what actions did you take, and what was the outcome?” |
Some candidates are naturally comfortable in interviews. They communicate easily, think quickly, and present themselves confidently.
That confidence may be valuable, but it does not automatically demonstrate capability. A structured follow-up may reveal that the candidate can provide specific examples, explain their approach, and demonstrate meaningful results. Alternatively, it may reveal that their answers are broad and lack evidence.
The purpose is not to reward confidence or penalize it. The purpose is to assess whether the candidate demonstrates the behaviours and capabilities required for success.
Concern 3: “They Are Quieter. Will They Work Effectively With Others?”
Evidence-based question: “Tell me about a time you had to build a relationship with someone who had a different perspective from yours. How did you approach it?” |
Personality style and workplace effectiveness are not the same thing. An outgoing person is not automatically a better communicator, and a quieter person is not automatically less effective with people.
Effective communication involves listening, adapting, building trust, and understanding others. A structured interview helps assess those behaviours rather than relying on personality impressions.
Concern 4: “They Do Not Have the Background We Normally Hire From”
Evidence-based question: “Tell me about a situation where you had to learn something new quickly or apply your skills in an unfamiliar environment.” |
Organizations often use previous hiring patterns as a guide. Experience in a similar environment can be valuable. However, relying too heavily on a traditional background can result in overlooking candidates who bring transferable skills, different perspectives, and strong potential.
The question is not, “Have we hired someone exactly like this before?” The better question is, “What evidence do we have that this person can succeed in this role?”
Hiring Decisions Require More Than One Piece of Information
A common challenge in hiring is allowing one factor to dominate the decision. A candidate may have impressive experience, excellent communication skills, a strong educational background, enthusiasm for the role, or a confident interview style.
However, no single factor determines whether someone will succeed. A stronger approach is to assess the complete picture:
What has the candidate done?
What can the candidate do?
What does the candidate want to do?
What Have They Done?
This looks at past experience and accomplishments:
What responsibilities have they managed?
What challenges have they faced?
What results have they achieved?
How have they approached problems?
Past behaviour can provide valuable evidence about how someone has performed in similar situations. However, experience should be evaluated in context.
Having more experience than expected does not automatically make someone the wrong fit. Having less traditional experience does not automatically mean someone cannot succeed.
The key question: “What evidence does their experience provide about their ability to succeed in this role?” |
What Can They Do?
This assesses the skills, knowledge, and behaviours required for success:
Can they apply their knowledge in practical situations?
Can they solve problems?
Can they communicate effectively?
Can they collaborate with others?
Do they demonstrate the behaviours needed in the role?
A candidate’s confidence, personality style, or ability to interview well should not replace evidence of capability.
What Do They Want to Do?
This is an area that is often overlooked. A candidate may be qualified for a role, but is this the type of work they actually want to do?
Understanding motivation, expectations, and future direction helps organizations assess alignment. Useful questions include:
“What interested you about this opportunity?”
“What are you hoping your next role will provide?”
“What aspects of this position are most appealing to you?”
“What would make this role a successful next step for you?”
However, motivation is only one part of the assessment. A candidate’s enthusiasm does not replace the need to demonstrate the skills and behaviours required for the role.
The goal is not to find the candidate who gives the most impressive interview answer. The goal is to gather enough evidence to make an informed decision.
Structured Interviewing Does Not Remove Judgment; It Improves It
Hiring will always require professional judgment. The goal of structured interviewing is not to remove human decision-making. It is to improve the quality of those decisions.
A better hiring decision considers:
what the candidate has done;
what the candidate can do;
what the candidate wants to do; and,
whether the opportunity aligns with both the organization’s needs and the candidate’s goals.
No single qualification, answer, personality trait, or first impression should determine the outcome. Better decisions come from evaluating the complete picture.
Better Hiring Decisions Start With Better Questions
Every interview is an opportunity to learn more about a candidate. Not only whether they can perform the work, but whether this is the right opportunity for both sides.
That is the purpose of structured interviewing: helping organizations make more informed, consistent, and fair hiring decisions.
Ready to Put This Into Practice Recognizing assumptions is an important first step. Building a structured interview process, and applying it consistently, is where the practical work begins. In Better Hiring Decisions: A Practical Guide to Structured Interviewing, participants learn how to identify what should be assessed, develop effective interview questions and follow-up probes, evaluate candidate evidence, and use consistent scoring criteria to make more informed hiring decisions. The live development series includes practical exercises, guided discussion, and tools participants can apply to their own hiring situations. |
Comments