Job interviews really need an update

I don’t know anyone who likes job interviews. They’re stressful and uncomfortable, and the preparation is time-consuming. I’d always accepted them as a necessary evil, but are they? In an age where society is reexamining traditions that once seemed immutable, why don’t we do the same for job interviews?

The typical job interview structure attempts to determine competency and compatibility in under an hour. That’s no easy feat. But a traditional interview might not be the quick, reliable solution we think it is.

I’ve often been told to “sell myself” in an interview. Wear your nicest clothes, put on makeup (but not too much), smile often, sit up straight, make eye contact, exude confidence. These tips stem from the unfortunate fact that interviewers take appearance and nonverbal cues into serious consideration. 

“We automatically jump to all kinds of erroneous assumptions about a candidate from their appearance,” psychologist Ron Friedman said in an interview with the World Economic Forum. The way we determine competency in an interview is inherently flawed because we ignore the unconscious biases and assumptions of the interviewer.

“Studies show we view good looking people as more competent. We perceive tall candidates as having greater leadership potential. And we assume deep-voiced candidates are more trustworthy,” Friedman said. How we present ourselves outwardly is paramount in the current interview process, to the detriment of both the company, who could be unintentionally turning away the best hires, and the candidates, because their talents are overshadowed by their social competency. 

In-person interviews impose financial restrictions, too. Some job candidates cannot pay the travel expenses to commute to an interview location or afford expensive interview attire. The next Steve Jobs might not be able to wear that nice suit and tie an interviewer is looking for, yet judging one’s potential on their appearance is often step one in the in-person interview process.

In certain fields, like sales, the one-on-one in-person interview strategy makes more sense. But what about all the occupations that require little to no customer interaction? Confidence in social situations should not be the universal determining factor. Talent and experience should have the most weight in decision-making.

Adding onto the list of why job interviews are currently a terrible measure of one’s potential, the usual interview process discriminates against people with certain conditions, such as autism or social anxiety. Neurodiverse candidates might be overlooked for something inconsequential and completely outside of their control, such as not making eye contact with the interviewer.

According to the London School of Economics and Political Science writers Daniela Lup and Esther Canónico, “Ample research has demonstrated that applicants’ interpersonal attributes (e.g. warmth, confidence, flexibility) inferred during open interactions are highly correlated with the interviewers’ overall positive evaluation of a candidate. This raises the question how warm, confident or flexible are autistic individuals perceived.”

Both neurodivergent and neurotypical candidates have their weaknesses and flaws, but the current interview process disadvantages those with mental illnesses, neurological disorders and disabilities by having their supposed “flaws” judged more negatively. 

While companies all have their own methods of interviewing candidates, the question and answer model continues to dominate the hiring process. As Forbes writer Lisa Whealon states, “Traditional interviews do not give you a clear picture of success and will only set you up for failure. To know if someone will be a fit for the role and the company, you must disrupt your recruiting process and implement non-traditional ways to encourage authenticity.”

I don’t have the perfect alternative to the typical job interview, and I don’t think there should be just one, either. The main problem is the one-size-fits-all approach of the current interview structure. Interviews today prize confidence and charisma no matter the role, and that’s a problem. Interviews should be tailored to the role the company is hiring for.

For example, if hiring for a writing job, ask for writing samples or give a writing assessment. If it’s a web design position, ask them to create a landing page. An assessment or audition is job-specific, easier to operationalize and doesn’t automatically discriminate against applicants. An interview restructuring is sorely needed, because as of right now, the best interviewee is not necessarily the best employee.