The Intuition Trap: Rethinking the Interview Process

Interviews for skill-based roles are intended to objectively assess capabilities, including “soft skills,” but it’s common to hear stories of “gut feelings” being the deciding factor in the hiring process. If intuition is guiding hiring decisions, it’s a sign that the interview process may need improvement. The ultimate responsibility of an interviewer is to lead an effective, structured assessment. Although candidates should present their best selves and try their best to have a smooth interview, interviewers must guide the process, take the lead, and refine their approach. Below are my thoughts on ways to improve interviews for the benefit of both candidates and the long-term health of the company.

When Interviews Rely on Intuition

Ideally, interviews are objective, but there are many reasons why interviewers might deviate from structured questions, relying instead on the interviewer’s feelings or “gut instinct.” This approach can lead to inconsistent assessments where one candidate may shine while another falters—not due to skill, but due to subjective judgment. Without clear metrics, intuition becomes a stand-in, introducing variability that can lead to errors in evaluation. For instance, one candidate may excel at persuasive storytelling, impressing the interviewer with their personality, while another provides concise, technical answers that are less engaging but equally competent. When intuition becomes the deciding factor, assessments can shift from “Can this person do the job?” to “Do I like this person?” This undermines objectivity and consistency, turning evaluations into subjective judgments that can’t be replicated.

Why Interviews Miss the Mark

Standard interview techniques, such as coding challenges or hypothetical scenarios, often fail to capture a candidate’s full potential. Modern workplaces demand collaboration, adaptability, and creative problem-solving, yet these skills are rarely objectively assessed in traditional interviews. Additionally, the cost and time associated with interviews often lead companies to take shortcuts, resulting in brief assessments that overlook essential qualities. A 45-minute technical test might demonstrate a candidate’s coding ability but miss their capacity for teamwork or adaptability to new challenges. In some cases, responsibility then shifts to the candidate, with interview advice like “talk while you’re solving a coding problem” or “explain your code solution.” While quick interviews may seem efficient, they contain blind spots that prevent interviewers from truly understanding a candidate’s full range of capabilities in a real-world scenario.

The Pitfalls of Intuition-Based Hiring

Relying on intuition is often a symptom of interviewers trying to improvise due to a lack of clear, objective interview steps and goals, especially in the face of unexpected candidate behavior. While intuition-based decisions may sometimes bring in high performers, they are just as likely to result in misaligned hires. Stories of candidates hired based on “gut feelings” reveal inconsistencies in the process that fail to reliably assess a candidate. Such subjective decisions don’t create a repeatable process, and they risk damaging team cohesion or overlooking valuable talent. Perhaps more notably, a flawed process can harm a company’s reputation if high-potential candidates are routinely rejected or if misaligned hires negatively impact team dynamics. By relying on an interviewer’s intuition or personal experience, companies risk missing out on top talent and limit themselves from creating a repeatable process.

Building a New Process to Recognize Potential

--“How would you report this problem?”, “How do you know this is a problem?”, “Is this a front-end or back-end error?”, “Which department would handle this bug?”-- A refined interview process should combine technical assessments with evaluations of collaboration, adaptability, and problem-solving skills. This could include pairing coding tasks with real-world scenarios or collaborative exercises to showcase a candidate’s strengths. For example, a candidate could spend time working through a real problem alongside an existing team member, allowing interviewers to observe teamwork and problem-solving firsthand. While a week-long interview process may seem daunting, its already commonplac in the tech industry, spreading it over multiple shorter sessions could provide better insights without overwhelming resources. Additionally, implementing a feedback loop with post-hire evaluations three to six months later helps refine the interview process. By revisiting interview notes and identifying which questions best predicted success—and where further clarification was needed—companies can continuously improve and more accurately recognize exceptional hires. Although this approach requires investment, imagine the advantage of having an interview process that reliably identifies top performers regardless of who conducts the interview.

Implementing a structured, thoughtful hiring process allows companies to strengthen their teams with each new addition. Moving beyond intuition enables businesses to attract top talent while maintaining fair and reliable hiring practices—ultimately building a strong, cohesive workplace culture.