How Interviews Can Mislead Resourcing Decisions

 

Interviews have always been an important part of hiring because they let employers learn more about candidates than what’s on their resumes. But interviews also have some problems that can make resourcing less fair and accurate. Aware on these issues is important for creating a hiring process that is more fair and inclusive.

The Halo Effect

As per the theory of attribution, it is tend to attribute others’ behavior to personality traits rather than situational factors, often influenced by the halo effect. Positive general impressions can lead to internal attributions for successes, and negative impressions can lead to external attributions for failures (Ross, 1977).

As HSBC UK focuses on fair and inclusive recruitment, the managers must complete training on how to deliver fair, bias free recruitment, before they can advertise new roles. Also, the HSBC UK states that they address potential bias if they identify it in their talent pipelines (HSBC, 2024).

Horn Effect

As per the Halo–Horn Effect Theory, the horn effect is the negative counterpart to the halo effect. If a recruiter notices one undesirable trait (e.g., poor first impression, weak handshake, nervousness), they may underrate the candidate’s abilities, dismiss positive attributes and evaluate them more harshly overall (Thorndike, 1920).

KLM Royal Dutch Airline stimulate inclusive leadership at all levels. Another focus point is to be aware of including all employees who bring their talent, expertise, and viewpoints to the table. Some actions here include strengthening KLM Diversity and Inclusion policy, looking into ‘unbiased recruiting’, and improving our talent succession (KLM,2025).

Comparing Candidates Instead of Evaluating Individually

According to the Social Comparison Theory, Individuals naturally evaluate themselves and others by comparing to peers. The interviewers, consciously or unconsciously, may compare candidates to see who stands out rather than assessing each candidate against objective criteria. This social comparison can introduce bias and inconsistency (Festinger, 1954).

The Dilmah Ceylon Tea PLC. focuses on merit-based hiring. The Recruitment Policy covers all employee categories, from executive, clerical and allied to casual workers (Dilmah Tea,2025).

 Premature Decision-Making

As per Thin Slice Judgment Theory, Humans make accurate, but often biased judgments based on very small samples of behavior, sometimes within seconds. Interviewers form strong impressions early (tone of voice, posture, handshake), which shapes the rest of the evaluation (Ambady & Rosenthal, 1992).

According to Etihad’s own recruitment process, they have multiple steps. (Application, screening, assessment (which may include reasoning tests, psychometrics, structured interviews) and finally offer (Etihad Airways, 2025).

The “Similarity Bias” and Its Impact on Diversity

As per the “Similarity Attraction Paradigm”, People are naturally drawn to others who share similar attitudes, values, and backgrounds. Interviewers may unconsciously rate “similar” candidates more favorably, assuming similarity predicts competence or compatibility. The impact will be reducing diversity because it privileges candidates who resemble the interviewer in demographic or psychological traits (Byrne, 1971).

The Coca Cola Company review their business, Human Rights and employment policies and practices to eliminate biases and inequities (Coca‑Cola, 2025).

Overvaluing Personal Traits

As per Social Identity Theory, people categorize others into in groups and out groups. Interviewers may unconsciously favor candidates who reflect their own social identity groups concerning communication style, demeanor and culture, leading to overemphasis on personal traits that feel familiar (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).

According to the Office of Human Capital of the U.S. Department of Interior, structured interviews allowed all candidates to “demonstrate competencies” under equivalent conditions (U.S. Department of the Interior,2022).

Ultimately, the interviews are important for resourcing. Further, biases like the halo effect, horn effect, first impressions, favoritism for similar people, and focusing much on personality can make interviews unreliable. Hence, the organizations are to be used tools such as skills tests, structured interview questions, and diverse interview panels to reduce these biases and to be fair with the decision.


References:

Byrne, D. (1971) The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

Coca‑Cola (2025) Diversity and inclusion. Coca‑Cola website. Available at: https://www.coca-cola.com/hk/en/social/diversity-and-inclusion?utm_source (Accessed: 24 November 2025).

Dilmah Tea (2025) Sustainability report 2023–24. Available at: https://www.dilmahtea.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/sustainability-report-2023-24.pdf (Accessed: 24 November 2025).

Etihad Airways (no date) Our Recruitment Process. Available at: https://careers.etihad.com/content/Our-Recruitment-Process/?utm_source (Accessed: 24 November 2025).

HSBC (2024) Inclusion and diversity brochure. [PDF] London: HSBC. Available at: file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/240410-hsbc-uk-inclusion-and-diversity-brochure.pdf (Accessed: 23 November 2025).

KLM‑D.I. statement (2025) *KLM‑D.I. statement*. Available at: https://img.static‑kl.com/m/56037b9d229b6538/original/KLM-DI-statement-engels.pdf (Accessed: 23 November 2025).

Ross, L. (1977) ‘The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process’, in Berkowitz, L. (ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 10. New York: Academic Press, pp. 173–220.

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C., 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: W.G. Austin & S. Worchel, eds. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, pp. 33–47.

Thorndike, E.L. (1920) ‘A constant error in psychological ratings’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 4(1), pp. 25–29.

U.S. Department of the Interior. (2022) Interview Bias Presentation. U.S. Department of the Interior. Available at: https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/interview-bias-presentation-final.pdf (Accessed: 25 November 2025).

 

Comments

  1. Hi Saliya,

    This is an incredibly insightful and well-structured post. The way you've broken down each type of interview bias from the Halo Effect to Similarity Bias and paired it with both a psychological theory and a real-world corporate example is brilliant. It makes these abstract concepts tangible and really drives home the point that unconscious bias is a real, measurable problem in hiring. A crucial read for anyone involved in recruitment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you so much for your kind words Rajitha! I’m glad the breakdown of biases and the real-world examples resonated with you. Making these abstract concepts tangible was exactly what I was hoping to do, and it’s encouraging to hear that it came across that way. Bias in hiring is such an important topic, and the more we can discuss it openly, the better we can make our recruitment processes fairer and more inclusive.

      Delete
  2. Thank you,Saliya,for your article. Thorndike’s “constant error” is an early but still deeply relevant insight: human evaluators often treat all traits as if they were one. From HR and leadership perspectives, the solution lies in designing rating systems and training that force differentiation, helping ensure that appraisals are accurate, fair, and strategically useful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your comment Laura! I completely agree on Thorndike’s insight on “constant error” really highlights how easy it is for evaluators to let one impression overshadow the full picture. I also like your point about designing rating systems and training to force differentiation; structured approaches like that can really help make evaluations more accurate and fair. It’s a great reminder that awareness of bias is just the first step putting practical tools and processes in place is what truly makes a difference in hiring and leadership decisions.

      Delete
  3. This is an excellent analysis that critically examines the inherent biases that undermine interview fairness and accuracy. This blog provides an insightful theory backed review of common interview biases proving that subjective resourcing decisions are inherently flawed. By linking the Halo/Horn Effects, Social Comparison Theory and Similarity Bias to leading research, the piece highlights the crucial need for vigilance. The focus on solutions such as structured interviews (U.S. Department of Interior) and unbiased manager training (HSBC) underscores that organizations must adopt data driven systematic methods to ensure their hiring processes are both fair and strategically accurate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Harshaka! My goal was to highlight not just the biases themselves, but also practical ways organizations can address them. It’s encouraging to see that the focus on solutions like structured interviews and unbiased manager training resonated with you. Ultimately, creating fairer and more accurate hiring processes is a team effort, and discussions like this help keep the conversation moving forward.

      Delete
  4. This is an excellent article. You have discussed the limitations and potential biases inherent in interviews, such as the halo and horn effects, premature judgments, similarity bias, and overemphasis on personal traits. And also, you have discussed these challenges to relevant theories and providing examples from organizations like HSBC, KLM, Coca-Cola, and Etihad, it demonstrates the need for structured, evidence-based, and inclusive recruitment practices.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Nadeesha! I wanted to highlight how common interview biases, like the halo and horn effects, premature judgments and similarity bias, can unintentionally affect hiring decisions, and to show that many organizations are actively taking steps to create fairer and more inclusive recruitment processes. It’s encouraging to see readers recognize the importance of structured, evidence based approaches in improving hiring outcomes.

      Delete
  5. This post makes some clear points about the hidden biases in job interviews. I like how it connects biases such as the halo effect, horn effect, similarity attraction, and thin-slice judgments to theories like Attribution Theory, Social Identity Theory, and Social Comparison Theory (Ross, 1977; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Byrne, 1971). The examples from HSBC, KLM, Etihad, and Coca-Cola show how some groups are working to fix these problems to make hiring fairer and more diverse. The conclusion, which talks about using structured interviews, skill tests, and diverse interview teams, does a good job of linking the theory to real HR practices. It's a helpful reminder that we need to design interviews carefully to avoid unconscious bias.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Nadeesha, for your kind reviews on my article! The point I wanted to highlight, how these well known psychological tendencies can subtly influence hiring decisions. It’s also encouraging to hear that the real-world examples resonated with you. I agree showing how companies like HSBC, KLM, and Coca-Cola are actively addressing these challenges really helps bridge theory and practice. And yes, structured interviews, skill assessments, and diverse panels can go a long way in making hiring more fair and objective.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Employer Brand as a Strategic Driver for Resourcing and Management

An Integrated Approach to Resourcing and Succession Planning

Optimizing Organizational Capability Through Integrated Psychological Assessment