The #1 Misconception About Interviews

"What’s the most common mistake people make when interviewing candidates?”

It’s a question I have been asked countless times in my 15 years as an exec assessor (CEO/CXO interviewer). While there are far too many to choose from, there is one fundamental misconception about interviewing that I believe leads to the greatest number of mistakes: treating an interview as a performance.

We speak of job interviews the same way we speak about sports, concerts or speeches. Candidates “crush” their interviews. They “put their best foot forward” and “impress” us. Like Simon Cowell on American Idol, we invite starry-eyed candidates to dazzle us and win their ticket to the next stage.

The moment you start to evaluate the candidate’s “performance” in real-time, you create all kinds of problems:

1. Hypothesis chasing. You form an early judgment about the candidate (positive or negative), which you then go about testing with leading questions. You subconsciously seek information that validates your hypothesis, and discount the rest.
2. Poor candidate experience. Your pleasure (and displeasure) is clear in your words, expressions and tone. The candidate rides your rollercoaster, leaving the interview feeling uneasy—and potentially grumbling about their experience on Glassdoor.
3. Unconscious bias. You are inevitably more “moved” by performances from individuals who look, think and talk like you do. You complain about a lack of diverse talent, when the real problem lurks deep in your own (and your team’s) subconscious.

So, if a great interview isn't supposed to be a performance, what is it supposed to be? An interview is a data-gathering exercise. Your goal is to engage a candidate in a rich dialogue. Dive into the relevant aspects of their unique professional journey, and take lots of notes.

When this is done by a skilled interviewer with high levels of rapport it makes the candidate feel heard and connected with in a way that the typical interview does not. (Thus resulting in both better data collection and higher levels of candidates accepting their offers.)

You will of course eventually judge the candidate. You will do that after the interview is complete, with the benefit of your notes and a structured document (we call it a "Target") that defines what success in the role looks like. This will free your cognitive bandwidth to be fully present during the interview, give the candidate a much better experience, and allow you and your team of interviewers to make more accurate hiring decisions.

You will invariably fall short at times. The “performance trap” is a powerful temptation. A few thousand interviews later, I can still hear my inner Simon Cowell beckoning me to fall in or out of love with a given candidate. But I’ve trained myself to replace that voice with deep curiosity, great follow-up questions, and lots of note-taking.