GROUP NOTES
Part 1 - General Information
Essay topic: Interview (topic 3)
Members' names: Phan Huy Phúc
Đào Thị Ánh Tuyết
Vũ Ngọc Diệu
Lê Phương Linh
Class code: 162085 (FL1158)
Part 2 – Notes
Main Idea Notes with Key Phrases or Information with in-text citations in APA 7th
format
I somewhat agree that interviews are not always a trustworthy way to choose employees.
Conventional interviews frequently depend on subjective assessments, with interviewers
potentially swayed by external factors and personal impressions rather than the actual skills of
candidates. According to Akumaa et al. (2016), the results of an interview may be influenced by
bias on the part of the interviewer or the timing of the conclusion, which could result in unfair
evaluations. Nonetheless, interviews can become more reliable and efficient when they are
standardized, with well-defined evaluation criteria and structured questions. Standardized
interviews play an important role in identifying critical characteristics that predict long-term
success in professions. Some other factors such as honesty, conscientiousness, and openness to
new experiences can also be taken into consideration during the process of the interview.
Therefore, using structured formats and personality-based assessments can make the selection
process more equitable and accurate in identifying qualified candidates, even though traditional
interviews alone may not be reliable.
In today's competitive talent landscape of 2024-2025, the conventional job interview is
increasingly revealing its limitations as a trustworthy selection mechanism. These often-
unstructured conversations can be overly reliant on a candidate's confidence and communication
style in the moment, rather than a genuine measure of their competencies or potential. This
reliance on subjective "gut feelings" is problematic, as it opens the door to significant bias, where
an interviewer's unconscious preferences can overshadow a candidate's true qualifications. This
is not a new issue, but it is a critical one in an era focused on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
(DEI). As research by Harel et al. (2023) confirms, unstructured interviews are poor predictors of
future job performance and often exacerbate demographic biases. The solution, however, isn't to
abandon the interview but to evolve it. The focus for forward-thinking organizations is on
standardization and structure. By implementing a framework of consistent, role-specific
questions with clear, pre-defined scoring criteria, companies can transform the interview from a
personality contest into a robust predictive tool. This structured approach, especially when
combined with situational judgement tests, allows assessors to more reliably identify crucial
attributes like problem-solving ability and ethical integrity, which are vital for success in
complex fields like technology and healthcare. Therefore, while the traditional interview alone
may be an unreliable artifact of the past, a deliberately structured and scientifically informed
interview process remains essential for building a skilled, diverse, and future-ready workforce.
Interviews are one of the most used selection methods, as they allow organizations to directly
assess candidates and gather more nuanced information than application forms alone.
Structured interviews are more reliable and valid than unstructured ones because they use
standardized questions and scoring criteria, reducing interviewer bias and increasing fairness.
Behavioral and situational questions are particularly effective in predicting job performance
because they focus on past behaviors and hypothetical problem-solving.
Interviewer training plays a crucial role in ensuring consistent evaluation. Untrained interviewers
are more likely to rely on subjective impressions and make less accurate hiring decisions.
Interviews serve multiple purposes: they assess candidates, communicate organizational values,
and strengthen employer branding. Common pitfalls in interviews include personal bias, the halo
effect, and first impression errors. These can distort the accuracy of evaluations and lead to poor
hiring outcomes. Using rating scales or scoring rubrics can improve the objectivity and
comparability of interview results, especially in large-scale recruitment.
I agree that the interview is not a reliable method of choosing whom to employ.
Similarity bias occurs when interviewers unconsciously favor candidates who share similar
characteristics or attributes, leading to serious group bias and reducing fairness in selection. Even
though structured interviews can partly address this problem, unstructured interviews often allow
such bias to persist.
Moreover, foamability in interviews further reduces reliability, as applicants can fake their
answers to appear more qualified. This weakens the validity of interviews, making it difficult to
truly assess a candidate’s competence. Although scholars have proposed structured or forced-
choice questions to reduce faking, these methods are still limited.
Therefore, both similarity bias and foamability demonstrate that interviews alone cannot ensure
an accurate or fair hiring decision.
References:
Harel, S., Sokolov, B., & Keren, G. (2023). Predictive Validity and Bias of Unstructured
Interviews: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(5), 781–799.
Picardi, C.A. & Lussier, K. (2019). Recruitment and selection: Strategies for workforce planning
and assessment. SAGE.
de Rock, F. S., & Harlech, B. P. (2018). Reducing demographic similarity effects: A quasi-
experiment using multilevel analysis. Research Consultation, 31, 345–354.
Bergelson, J., Tracey, C., & Takacs, E. (2022). Best practices for reducing bias in the interview
process. Urology Reports, 3(11), 319–325.