Are We Hiring the Best Candidate—or the Best Interview?

A strong interview does not always predict strong job performance. And a less polished interview does not necessarily indicate a lack of capability.

Across industries, organizations invest considerable time and resources in identifying the right talent. Yet important hiring decisions are often influenced by conversations lasting just 15, 30, or 60 minutes.

How much can we reliably conclude about someone’s capability from a short interview?

Interviews serve an important purpose. They help employers evaluate experience, communication, judgment, leadership approach, and alignment with organizational expectations. They also give candidates an opportunity to understand the role, its challenges, and the people they may work alongside.

But interviews have limitations.

Some professionals communicate exceptionally well in an interview setting. Others may need more time to explain complex experiences or demonstrate the depth of their expertise. Neither characteristic, by itself, determines how effectively someone will perform once hired.

The qualities that distinguish strong professionals often become visible through sustained performance.

How does someone respond when a project encounters unexpected obstacles? Can they make sound decisions with incomplete information? Do they take ownership when things go wrong? Can they build trust, support colleagues, resolve difficult problems, and deliver sustainable results?

These considerations are especially important in leadership, technology, engineering, and operational roles, where success depends on more than presenting compelling answers.

And the consequences of an ineffective hiring decision extend beyond the individual candidate. They can affect team effectiveness, project delivery, organizational culture, employee retention, and the ability to execute strategic priorities.

A stronger hiring process requires shared responsibility.

Candidates have a responsibility to communicate their experience clearly, provide relevant examples, demonstrate sound judgment, and explain how their capabilities align with the role.

Organizations, in turn, have a responsibility to create evaluation processes that allow those capabilities to be assessed consistently and meaningfully.

Structured interviews, practical assessments, demonstrated work outcomes, consistent evaluation criteria, and thoughtful reference discussions can provide a more complete picture than interview performance alone.

The objective is not to eliminate interviews or underestimate the importance of communication. Communication is essential, particularly in leadership positions.

Rather, it is to recognize that interview performance is one indicator of professional capability—not the complete picture.

Effective hiring decisions should consider not only how candidates describe their experience, but also what they have accomplished, how they approach challenges, how they work with others, and the value they can bring to an organization.

The strongest candidate is not necessarily the person who delivers the most polished interview. It is the person whose capabilities, judgment, experience, and potential are best aligned with the work that needs to be done.

Perhaps the most important question hiring leaders should ask is not simply:

“Who interviewed best?”

But rather:

“Who has demonstrated the ability to succeed in this role—and how do we know?”