[wppick]

An interview is decided in the first several seconds. First impressions are a real thing. Most interviewers will decide based on how you look, act, and talk whether you are going to pass the interview, and they will confirmation bias you into their predetermined decision. Of course with an amazing interview performance you can switch a predetermined no into a yes, and with a very poor interview you can turn a predetermined yes into a no. Why do you think the first question most interviewers ask is something vague and useless like "tell me about yourself"? That question is the real interview.

There is also the reality that when companies need to fill a role, and when first start interviewing they will set the bar way too high and reject some perfectly qualified candidates. After the interview process has dragged on for some time they will eventually decide that enough is enough and will hire the next candidate that shows basic competence (or just hire someone's friend).

BTW, one solution to this I recall being suggested by Eric Schmidt is to use a hiring committee among other things

[nemo44x]

> An interview is decided in the first several seconds.

I've hired hundreds of people and this is just not true. A first impression matters a bit, sure - but it has hardly any effect on the decision.

> There is also the reality that when companies need to fill a role, and when first start interviewing they will set the bar way too high and reject some perfectly qualified candidates

This is a very poor hiring practice. You should what you're looking for and what you are willing to pay for it. And then you should recruit a candidate pool that meets this criteria and go from there.

Hiring is literally the most important job a manager has in any fast growing company. It should be taken very seriously and systematically.

[wppick]

> I've hired hundreds of people and this is just not true. A first impression matters a bit, sure - but it has hardly any effect on the decision.

The thing about confirmation biases are that they are at the subconscious level and you likely wouldn't be able to detect them. It's possible that you have an impartial and immune to confirmation bias interview process, but it's also possible that you are indeed deciding (skewing) most of your interviews in the first several seconds.

> Hiring is literally the most important job a manager has in any fast growing company. It should be taken very seriously and systematically

I agree. Which is why, if it is found that hiring committees are more effective, and your company isn't using them, then are you taking them seriously? The same with bonuses and promotions. These should not be decided by a single person (manager).

[handoflixue]

> it's also possible that you are indeed deciding (skewing) most of your interviews in the first several seconds.

Not the original commenter, but I've had interviews where I was feeling pretty negative about a candidate in the first 5-10 minutes, but ultimately recommended them (sometimes even quite enthusiastically).

Given that empirical evidence to the contrary, it seems like a pretty incredible claim to insist that I'm deciding primarily based on the first few seconds. Do you actually have anything to back up your claim? That would suggest that, for instance, performance on a coding exercise has absolutely no bearing on my recommendation, since it usually takes a few minutes to get the coding rolling.

[wppick]

Sure here is an article from a candidate screening startup, Plum: https://www.plum.io/blog/the-issue-with-the-interview-confir...

A confirmation bias is not a conclusion, it's a skewing/filtering of how you see something. Read the book "A Thousand Brains" by Jeff Hawkins. The way your brain works fundamentally is that it makes predictions and assumes that the prediction is what will happen (the book explains this better). That's why in my original comment I said " Of course with an amazing interview performance you can switch a predetermined no into a yes, and with a very poor interview you can turn a predetermined yes into a no."

[bawolff]

> Why do you think the first question most interviewers ask is something vague and useless like "tell me about yourself"?

Because people are anxious in interviews, and a lot (but not all) people calm down a bit if you give them a few minutes to talk about themselves.

[To be clear: Not disagreeing with your main point]

[foobarian]

I don't know what line of work you are in, but this is decidedly not true in mine. It's skewed toward candidates making an excellent first impression but then failing, instead of the other way around.

[wppick]

I can't find the original article that discussed the confirmation bias effect, but this one is close: https://www.plum.io/blog/the-issue-with-the-interview-confir...

[foobarian]

Gotcha. I think I was mostly objecting to the first several words of your comment saying an interview is decided in the first several seconds :-)

I'm familiar with that feeling though. I've had several interviews where I really (subjectively) liked the candidate, and really wanted them to succeed - but having a prepared interview plan ended up doing its job and helped determine that the candidate was not a good match for the role.

[smus]

Does this apply for technical interviews though?

[moneywoes]

> An interview is decided in the first several seconds

What if they get the technical questions wrong afterwards?

[ClumsyPilot]

Certainly both phenomena you describe are real, but we do try to keep them in check, especially because 'first impression' is heavily influenced by class, sex, race, physical appearance, nationality, etc.