---
title: "Structure Is What Makes an Interview Actually Work"
date: 2026-05-29T18:47
author: Julien Reszka
description: "The study everyone cites to dismiss interviews has been corrected. The update is not that interviews work. It is that structure is what works."
keywords: ["hiring", "team management", "decision-making", "productivity", "startups"]
canonical: https://julienreszka.com/blog/structure-is-what-makes-an-interview-actually-work/
---

# Structure Is What Makes an Interview Actually Work

The study everyone cites to dismiss interviews has been corrected. The update is not that interviews work. It is that structure is what works.

The study most people cite when dismissing interviews, Schmidt & Hunter's 1998 meta-analysis, found that unstructured interviews explained about 14% of variance in job performance, while work samples explained about 54%. This became the empirical foundation for 'gut feel interviewing is junk.' The conclusion was reasonable. The numbers were not quite right.

In 2022, Sackett, Zhang, Berry and Lievens reanalysed the same literature in the *Journal of Applied Psychology*. The problem they identified was a statistical correction error: prior meta-analyses applied a direct range restriction correction when most hiring processes produce indirect range restriction: you select candidates on a bundle of factors, not the single predictor being studied. The correct correction changes the estimates across the board.

What the update does not do is vindicate unstructured interviews. The gap between structured and unstructured formats remains large, real, and the most consequential decision you make when designing a hiring process. Structured interviews, where every candidate is asked the same questions in the same order and answers are scored against a rubric before the hiring decision, predict performance roughly twice as well as unstructured conversations where the interviewer decides in the moment what to ask.

The mechanism is not subtle. An unstructured interview optimises for:

- confidence
- articulateness
- physical presentation
- how much the interviewer enjoys the conversation

None of those are job requirements unless the job is 'be likeable in conversations.' A structured interview forces the interviewer to evaluate the thing actually being hired for, because the questions are written in advance and tied to real requirements, and the scoring happens before anchoring bias sets in.

The practical version is simpler than it sounds: write five questions before the interview, tie each one to something the job actually requires, score each answer on a three-point scale before moving to the next, and ask every candidate the same questions in the same order. That is all. It does not require psychometric training or a formal assessment centre. It requires deciding what you are evaluating before you start.

---

**Actionable insight:** Before your next hire, write five questions tied to the job's hardest requirements, score each answer with a three-point rubric, and ask every candidate the same questions in the same order.

## Key figure

**2×** — Predictive validity of structured versus unstructured interviews for job performance

*Source: Sackett, Zhang, Berry & Lievens, Journal of Applied Psychology, 2022*

## Myth vs reality

**Myth:** A great hire is obvious after a good conversation

**Reality:** Unstructured interviews optimise for confidence, articulateness, and likability. None of those are job requirements unless the job is to be likeable in conversations.

*Source: Sackett, Zhang, Berry & Lievens, Journal of Applied Psychology, 2022*