Is It Time to Throw Out Interviews? Poll Results and Insights

This is #IncreaseDiversity, a weekly newsletter series + Increase Diversity Toolbox sharing best practices for employers who want to learn how to… well, increase diversity. To see previous editions, visit JenniferTardy.com. | IG: @IncreaseDiversity | Increase Diversity - YouTube

In last week’s article, “The Story of Job Interviews and Assessments,” we dug into the history of interviews and the biases they can introduce. This sparked an important question, so we took it to you in a poll: Do you think the system of interviewing should be thrown out completely? After 267 votes and insightful comments, here’s what we found:

• Yes – 47%

• No – 44%

• Other – 9%

While opinions varied, one thing was clear from the comments: change is necessary. Whether that means a complete overhaul or a focused revamp, most agree that traditional interviews, as they stand, are riddled with bias and don’t always reflect a candidate’s true skills. The comments dug deeper into the reasons behind this split, revealing frustrations and constructive ideas on what needs to change.

What People Had to Say

Many respondents agreed: the current interview system just doesn’t work for everyone. It’s rigid and often focuses on superficial cues, such as eye contact, body language, and quick thinking. These factors introduce interview performance bias and give certain types of candidates an edge, while leaving others, just as qualified, at a disadvantage.

It’s like running through an obstacle course, where you’re constantly trying to figure out, “Who do I need to become to get this job?” Even those who seem to fit the traditional mold—non-disabled, white, cisgender males—aren’t immune to the system’s flaws. They may face fewer hurdles, but these obstacles are still there, quietly undermining the process for everyone.

At the end of the day, interview bias affects us all, and it’s time we rethink how we’re assessing real talent. 

Here are the key points raised by our community when we ran the poll:

1. A Revamp, Not a Revolution

Many commenters felt that interviews need a refresh rather than a total replacement. They suggested shifting away from the traditional “rapid-fire question” approach and focusing on a candidate’s broader skill set, experiences, and potential.

One commenter shared, “Most people go into interviews nervous. Maybe we should ask questions that make you think, like ‘What was your biggest failure?’ That question reveals a lot about a person and forces them to decide if they even want to work for you.”

The consensus was clear—make interviews more conversational, designed to draw out personality and character rather than penalizing a candidate for nerves. Another popular suggestion was to let candidates prep by giving them the questions ahead of time. After all, we don’t ask for a presentation at work without some prep—why do it in interviews?

Many agreed that a revamp should aim to reduce bias. “There’s unconscious bias all over the process,” one commenter said, highlighting how factors like eye contact and body language can unfairly influence decisions. They suggested shifting toward more structured interviews or standardized assessments that allow candidates to showcase their skills in a controlled environment.

2. Complete Overhaul: Tear It Down and Rebuild

On the other side of the debate, some respondents called for a complete reset. For them, the traditional interview system doesn’t just need tweaks—it needs to be thrown out and replaced with something entirely different.

One participant said the traditional interview focuses too much on canned answers and doesn’t reveal the person’s true self. They suggested we should assess real-world skills rather than relying on dull, predictable questions.

Another respondent said that too many interview questions seem designed to catch candidates off guard or, worse, to get them to say something that disqualifies them. “Sometimes it feels like interviewers are looking for reasons not to hire you,” they said.

3. Focus on Authenticity

The call for more authentic interactions was a common thread, regardless of where respondents stood on the overhaul versus revamp debate. Some suggested moving away from the “performative” aspects of interviews, where candidates feel like they’re putting on a show.

Many commenters wanted a process that allowed candidates to show who they really are, both in their work and in how they approach problem-solving. Work samples and skills-based assessments were frequently cited as better alternatives to traditional interviews. “Let’s assess what they can do, not just what they can say,” one commenter wrote.

How to Avoid Bias in an Interview

At Jennifer Tardy Consulting (Team JTC), we believe interviewing is a necessary tool for assessing talent. However, we fully agree with the respondents who said it’s riddled with bias. As it stands, the system rewards those who can navigate the obstacle course but not necessarily those who have the right skills or potential for the job.

That said, we believe the solution isn’t to throw out interviews entirely—it’s to reframe how we approach them. The focus should shift toward creating an equitable and inclusive hiring process that mitigates bias. This means moving toward:

• Structured interviews: Using standardized questions helps level the playing field. If everyone is asked the same set of well-thought-out questions, it’s easier to compare candidates based on the answers they give rather than personal biases or interpretations.

• Interview panels: Having multiple perspectives in the room reduces the likelihood of one person’s unconscious bias shaping the outcome.

• Skills assessments: Work samples or practical tests provide a far more accurate picture of what a candidate can do rather than what they say they can do.

It’s critical to assess candidates for skills, but we need to focus on how we assess and what counts as a skill. Too often, we rely on proxies—things like education level or job titles—that don’t tell the full story. Instead, let’s assess real-world abilities that candidates will use on the job.

Highlights: Let’s Answer the Big Questions

Should we throw out the traditional system entirely?

Not necessarily. While it’s flawed, the interview is still a useful tool for assessing value add to a department and organization. The issue lies in how we conduct interviews and the unconscious biases baked into the process.

What’s wrong with traditional interviews?

They’re rigid and overlook individual differences. Candidates who are less charismatic or nervous often get passed over. This is interview performance bias—where those who “perform” well get rewarded, while others who are equally qualified but may not perform well are overlooked.

How can we make interviews better?

By revamping the process to be more inclusive. Structured interviews, skills-based assessments, and interview panels all help remove bias and give candidates a fairer chance to shine. Candidates should be given the tools and time to showcase their true skills, not just their ability to perform under pressure.

Moving Forward

The traditional interview system may not need to be thrown out, but it definitely needs a rethink. At Team JTC, we’re committed to pushing for a hiring process that’s more equitable, more inclusive, and better at revealing a candidate’s true skills. Structured interviews, work samples, and more holistic assessments can help reduce bias and create a fairer process for all candidates.

If you’re ready to take the next step in revamping your recruitment strategy, check out our newly updated Qualified Diversity Recruitment (QDR) Program. With improved content, flexible learning, and a focus on both diversity and retention, it’s designed to help you build a more inclusive hiring process. Explore the program today!