Job interviews are a weird business – but what’s the alternative? | Emma Beddington

A recent personal experience highlights how arbitrary and biased job interviews can be, with the author, Emma Beddington, sitting on the hiring side for the first time in fifteen years and observing the absurdity of the process. She notes that decisions are often made within minutes—25 % of interviewers form an opinion in five minutes and 60 % within fifteen, according to a 2015 study—based largely on vague “vibes” rather than objective criteria. The anecdote about an acquaintance being told she was “perfect for the role” while the interviewer spent forty‑five minutes vaping and monologuing underscores how superficial impressions can outweigh actual qualifications.

The article argues that the interview’s silliness is merely the tip of a larger problem: alternative selection methods are no better. Traditional “assessment centre” exercises, such as building Lego towers with strangers, fail to measure meaningful skills, while the growing reliance on AI screening tools introduces a depersonalised, potentially biased layer that can be as prejudicial as human judgment. Beddington points out that these automated systems, which her younger son and his peers now face, function like “a prejudiced glorified self‑check‑out machine,” offering little transparency and reinforcing existing inequities.

Even when a candidate clearly outshines the interviewer, the process often collapses into a rapid, chemistry‑based read that leaves little room for genuine assessment. Beddington recounts a moment where she instantly recognised a candidate’s superior knowledge yet felt compelled to continue the interview, illustrating how interviewers may still cling to their initial, snap judgments. The piece concludes that while the 45‑minute chat is likely to persist, it should be acknowledged for what it truly is: an awkward, subjective encounter rather than a reliable predictor of job performance.

⚡ Effects Interpreter