"Stop Hiring People Who Interview Well"

Here’s an uncomfortable truth: the best interviewees often make mediocre employees, and the best employees often interview poorly.

If your hiring process rewards polished interview performance above all else, you’re systematically selecting for the wrong skills.

The Interview Performance Trap

Interviews favour people who are:

Articulate and quick-thinking under pressure. Confident, even when they shouldn’t be. Skilled at reading what interviewers want to hear. Practiced at presenting themselves favourably.

These are useful qualities in some roles. But in many positions, they’re irrelevant or even counterproductive.

The brilliant software developer who struggles with spontaneous conversation. The meticulous accountant who needs time to think before speaking. The dedicated nurse who gets nervous in unfamiliar situations. These people often bomb interviews while excelling at their actual jobs.

Meanwhile, the charming candidate who lights up the room might be covering for a lack of substance with pure charisma.

What Interviews Actually Measure

Standard interviews primarily measure interview ability. That’s circular and not very useful unless you’re hiring professional interviewees.

They’re poor predictors of:

Technical competence (anyone can claim expertise). Day-to-day work ethic. How someone handles stress over time, not just in a single conversation. Cultural fit beyond first impressions. Ability to learn and grow.

Research consistently shows that unstructured interviews have low predictive validity for job performance. Yet most companies still rely heavily on them.

Better Approaches

If you want to predict actual job performance, you need to see actual work:

Work samples and tests. Have candidates complete tasks similar to what they’d do in the role. A trial project, a coding test, a writing sample—these reveal far more than interview answers.

Structured interviews with behavioural questions. “Tell me about a specific time when…” forces candidates to draw on real experience rather than hypothetical claims.

Job trials where possible. A paid trial day or week is the ultimate test. You see how someone actually works, not how they talk about working.

Multiple interviewers with diverse perspectives. One person’s “charismatic” is another’s “superficial.” Different viewpoints catch what individuals miss.

Reference deep-dives. Go beyond the standard questions. Ask referees about specific situations and behaviours.

Adjust for Interview Anxiety

Recognise that interview nerves affect different people differently. The anxious candidate who struggles initially might just need time to warm up.

Consider:

Starting with easier questions to help candidates settle. Allowing thinking time before responses. Being transparent about your process to reduce uncertainty. Following up after the interview if someone seemed nervous—sometimes a second conversation reveals a different person.

The Bottom Line

Interview performance and job performance are different skills. If you’re consistently disappointed in hires who interviewed beautifully, your process is optimising for the wrong thing.

Focus on evidence of actual ability to do the job, not ability to talk about doing the job.