Judgments in Interviews and the Risk of Superficiality

Marcela Peterson

Job interviews often carry an aura of objectivity. We tend to believe that by talking with a candidate, it is possible to grasp their essence, predict their performance, and even anticipate their future behavior. But evidence suggests that this confidence may be overstated. Research by Barrick, Patton, and Haugland (2000) highlights exactly this limitation: interviewers’ judgments about candidates’ personality traits are not as accurate as one might assume.

This finding raises an important reflection. If interviews cannot reliably capture individual traits, what happens to fairness in the selection process? Often, equally qualified candidates are judged unequally—not by their abilities, but by the impression they manage to convey in a short amount of time. This fragility in evaluation can lead to distortions that affect not only hiring decisions, but also the motivation of those involved in the process.

On a deeper level, the risk is to mistake charisma for competence, or apparent confidence for real preparedness. I have seen talented professionals rejected because they did not match the “profile” the interviewer had in mind, while others, more skilled in self-promotion, advanced. These judgments, even when unintentional, can undermine the credibility of HR practices and erode trust in organizations.

On the other hand, acknowledging the limitations of human judgment opens space for more balanced systems. Complementing interviews with structured instruments, objective metrics, and multiple assessment sources can reduce bias and promote a greater sense of fairness. When the process is perceived as fair and transparent, it not only increases candidate satisfaction but also strengthens employees’ trust in the organization.

Ultimately, interviews are not neutral: they shape trajectories, define opportunities, and directly influence company culture. Leaders and HR professionals must recognize that every judgment carries weight — and that without clear criteria and complementary tools, we risk confusing impression with reality. And it is precisely this confusion that can be costly in terms of engagement, performance, and, ultimately, organizational justice.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/marcela-peterson-984255a_julgamentos-em-entrevistas-e-o-risco-da-superficialidade-activity-7392322214781673473-9dkp?utm_source=social_share_send&utm_medium=member_desktop_web&rcm=ACoAAAHQ9DQBFN6gzuvGdHa4t9503Wctci5O1ac