For all the advances in data science, artificial intelligence, and behavioral assessments, one hiring ritual remains stubbornly unchanged: the job interview, where candidates are still subjected to awkward brainteasers about golf balls in airplanes, forced to disclose their “biggest weaknesses” to amateur psychologists, asked whether they would keep working after winning the lottery, or made to present to silent panels who seem less interested in evidence of competence than in observing how gracefully applicants endure a mildly humiliating social experiment.
Despite decades of research showing that traditional interviews are only moderately reliable predictors of performance, organizations continue to rely on them heavily. In fact, the typical interview still resembles what it looked like decades ago: a loosely structured conversation in which hiring managers form impressions based on intuition, chemistry, and gut feeling.
From a scientific standpoint, this is not ideal. Unstructured interviews are vulnerable to a long list of well-documented biases. Interviewers may favor candidates who resemble themselves (“similarity bias”), appear confident or attractive (“halo effects”), or simply fit the cultural stereotype of what a successful employee looks like (“culture fit”). First impressions loom large, even when they are based on thin evidence. Charisma often outperforms competence.
And yet, interviews persist. Why? Because hiring managers, like most humans, remain convinced they can “spot talent” when they see it. In other words, the interview is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.
The end game
Fortunately for candidates, this irrationality does not mean human behavior is unpredictable. As behavioral economist Dan Ariely famously put it, people are “predictably irrational.” That predictability matters, and you can use it to your advantage. Even if interviews are imperfect, there is a growing body of research on how interviewers evaluate candidates and what signals tend to shape their judgments. Understanding those signals does not mean manipulating the system. It simply means avoiding the common mistakes that cause many candidates to underperform, or ensuring that you come across as well as you can.
One of the most overlooked opportunities occurs at the very end of the interview, when the interviewer – at times without a proper underlying plan or deliberate strategy – asks a deceivingly simple question: “Do you have any questions for us?” Many candidates treat this moment as a formality. Some (usually the unprepared ones) say “not really.” Others improvise a question on the spot, which rarely has a significant positive impact. Indeed, both approaches are somewhat risky and could result in decreasing candidates’ ratings even after an overall good performance.
Studies on interview dynamics suggest that most employers expect candidates to ask questions, and they interpret this behavior as a signal of preparation, motivation, and interest. When candidates decline to ask anything, interviewers often interpret it as a sign of disengagement or lack of curiosity or preparation. At the same time, asking the wrong question (or too many of them) will likely backfire. The difference between leaving a strong impression and undermining one often comes down to a few subtle signals.
