Over the past 25 years, I have sat on both sides of the interview table, as a candidate and interviewer, across geographies, organisations and management levels. While every interview is different, certain patterns have consistently stood out to me.
When an interview leads to a job offer, we often assume we ‘nailed it’. When it does not, we may conclude that the interview went badly, or that another candidate was simply better. But what about the factors that shaped the interview before it even began? How much influence do the organisation’s needs, the interviewer’s expectations, recent experiences and hidden assumptions have on the outcome? This is where context matters. Are we truly unbiased in a 30- or 60-minute conversation? Do we balance questions and answers fairly?
We often compare the candidate with the person who has recently left
Bias is not inherently wrong. In many situations, our past experiences and instincts help us make faster decisions. However, it is worth pausing to recognise the patterns that can influence those decisions – especially in interviews, where judgment is often formed within a short window.
Recent events
When we interview candidates, it is usually either to replace someone who has recently left or to fill a new position created after the work has already started – for example, through the formation of a new department, company or product line. The image of the candidate may already have formed in the interviewer’s mind.
This is where the ‘recency effect’ comes in. We often compare the candidate’s skills, experience and achievements with the person who has recently left. If the outgoing employee was a star performer, we tend to remember their accomplishments and character traits, and look for the same qualities in the next candidate. If the outgoing employee did not leave behind good memories, we may be on the lookout for similar negative traits.
If the job is a newly created position, the image of the ideal candidate is often formed on the basis of their most recent relevant milestone. If the company is new, does the candidate have recent experience in start-ups? If it is a compliance role, have they carried out similar work recently?
Organisations may at times select for the problem of today
Perceptions of an ideal candidate naturally help with shortlisting and get us through the hiring process more quickly. Most hiring decisions follow a similar pattern; recruitment teams are tuned to this process flow.
A matter of urgency
Another behaviour pattern is the ‘urgency effect’. Yes, hiring is always urgent when a position opens – be it for a new role or a replacement. However, the common theme I see in successful candidates is not whether the candidate was available immediately but whether they fulfilled urgent needs.
Because urgency often stems from short-term gaps or challenges the organisation faces, organisational or departmental priorities matter a lot in shaping conversations and eventual selections. Whether the candidate is a fit for short-term priorities or for the longer-term path is often a tricky question and may influence the selection process. In the pressure to solve an immediate gap, organisations may at times select for the problem of today, while giving less weight to whether the candidate can grow with the role, culture and strategic direction over time.
Optimism overload
The candidate who makes it to the finish line may think life is fair and that they are the luckiest one of the lot. What about the one who did not? I have seen candidates who were even more confident than the interviewer about their abilities to do the job, while some doubted their own skills.
One type of behaviour I have seen among candidates is the ‘optimism effect’ where they might oversell their abilities. Yes, we should go into an interview with a positive mindset, but we also have to recognise that we do not have a magic wand. Candidates who try to fit solutions to every problem tend to generalise in their answers or cut interviewers off by adopting a ‘trust me, I will do it’ approach.
Everything gets noticed, consciously or unconsciously
It is okay to recognise in interviews that solutions may not be readily available, but the approach matters – and this should give the interviewer confidence. Interviewers are looking for practical examples but, at the same time, they are also seeking to understand the candidate’s management style, strategic approach to problem solving and adaptability.
Candidate communication
An interview is a performance, where the candidate is definitely in the spotlight, which brings me to the ‘communication effect’.
It is not only body language that can make a person appear less comfortable on difficult questions; it is also the tone and length of answers, leaning towards one interviewer more than others and the use of jargon to impress the room. Everything gets noticed, consciously or unconsciously, and interviewers may reflect on these points afterwards in their feedback.
Fair interviews require balance, self-awareness and preparation from both sides of the table. For interviewers, this means being clear on whether they are hiring for today’s immediate problem or tomorrow’s longer-term capability, while avoiding the temptation to compare every candidate with the person who recently left.
For candidates, the lesson is equally important: understand the organisation’s context, avoid overpromising, explain how you think and solve issues, and remain conscious of tone, structure, brevity and panel engagement.
An interview compresses years of experience, expectations and judgment into a short conversation. The more consciously both sides manage it, the fairer and more valuable the process becomes – regardless of the final decision.
Disclaimer: the views expressed by the writer do not necessarily reflect those of Standard Chartered Bank.
