Hiring decisions shape far more than open headcount. In advertising, marketing, media, research, branding, and creative organizations, interviews influence team capability, client trust, workflow quality, institutional knowledge, and the professional development of everyone who joins. Yet many interviews are still run as improvised conversations. A candidate seems polished, a hiring manager feels a connection, a familiar employer appears on a resume, or a portfolio looks impressive at first glance, and the interview drifts toward instinct rather than evidence.

That approach is common, but it is not especially reliable.

Decades of personnel selection research have consistently found that structured interviews tend to predict job performance better than unstructured ones. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which publishes extensive guidance on assessment methods used in hiring, describes structured interviews as more reliable and defensible because they evaluate candidates against job-related criteria using consistent questions and rating methods. Industrial-organizational research has reached similar conclusions for years, including large-scale findings summarized by Frank Schmidt and John Hunter in Psychological Bulletin, which found that structured interviews are generally more predictive than unstructured interviews and become stronger when combined with work-sample approaches and other job-relevant assessment methods. The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology also recommends basing selection methods on job analysis and standardized evaluation criteria rather than intuition alone. These findings do not eliminate the need for professional judgment, but they do clarify where judgment should be applied: in defining the role well, asking better questions, and evaluating evidence consistently. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/assessment-and-selection/structured-interviews/ https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-10661-002 https://www.siop.org/Business-Resources/Employment-Testing/Test-Types

For hiring managers, better interviewing is therefore not about becoming more perceptive in the moment. It is about building a more disciplined process before the conversation begins.

Start with the role, not the candidate

Weak interviews often begin with an incomplete definition of the job. The hiring team wants “someone strategic,” “someone client-ready,” or “someone who can own projects,” but those phrases are too broad to support good evaluation. If the role is not clearly defined, interviewers will default to subjective proxies such as confidence, verbal fluency, résumé prestige, or personal similarity.

A better interview process begins by translating the role into capabilities that can actually be assessed. For a strategist, that may include framing business problems, working from incomplete research, writing clear briefs, and presenting recommendations to cross-functional stakeholders. For an account manager, it may include expectation-setting, scope communication, prioritization, client diplomacy, and follow-through under deadline pressure. For a media analyst, it may involve data interpretation, metric skepticism, communication of uncertainty, and collaboration with non-technical colleagues.

This does not require an elaborate competency model. It does require clarity. Before interviews begin, hiring managers should be able to answer several questions in concrete terms:

• What decisions will this person need to make independently?
• What kinds of work will they own in the first six to twelve months?
• What standards distinguish acceptable from strong performance?
• Which skills are essential on day one, and which can be developed after hiring?
• What evidence would convince us that a candidate has done this level of work before, or can grow into it quickly?

That preparation changes the interview from “Do I like this person?” to “What evidence do we have that this person can do this job well in this environment?”

What structured interviewing actually means

Structured interviewing is sometimes misunderstood as robotic interviewing. It is not. It does not require reading identical scripts in a monotone or eliminating all natural conversation. It means the interview is organized around a consistent set of job-relevant questions, evaluated against defined criteria, so that candidates are compared on evidence rather than impression.

In practice, a structured interview usually includes four elements.

First, the role requirements are identified in advance.

Second, interviewers ask a consistent core set of questions tied to those requirements. Follow-up questions can vary, but the underlying areas being assessed should remain stable across candidates.

Third, interviewers use a common scoring approach or evaluation framework. That may be numerical, descriptive, or both, but it should distinguish between weak, acceptable, and strong evidence.

Fourth, candidates are compared against the role criteria, not against whichever previous candidate happened to be especially charismatic or especially disappointing.

The value of structure is not bureaucratic neatness. It is improved signal quality. When all candidates are asked substantially different questions, by interviewers who are each using their own private standards, the final decision is often a negotiation among impressions rather than an evaluation of capability.

The problem with intuition, charisma, and “chemistry”

Most experienced managers believe they can spot talent in conversation. Sometimes they can. The problem is not that intuition is always wrong. The problem is that interviewers are poor judges of when intuition is well-founded and when it is merely reacting to confidence, similarity, or polish.

Advertising and marketing workplaces are especially susceptible to this problem because many roles involve presentation, persuasion, relationship management, and verbal fluency. A candidate who speaks smoothly may seem more capable than one who thinks carefully but answers more slowly. A candidate from a well-known agency, platform company, brand, or graduate program may be assumed to be stronger before they have demonstrated anything specific. A candidate who shares the interviewer’s style, references, vocabulary, or professional background may feel like a safer choice.

None of those are reliable substitutes for evidence.

Charisma can matter in some roles, but charisma is not the same as judgment. A compelling speaker may still misread data, overpromise to clients, manage poorly, or rely on others for substantive thinking. Pedigree can signal exposure, but it does not prove contribution. Someone may have worked at a famous agency and still held a narrow execution role with little responsibility for decisions. An unstructured conversation may reveal rapport, but rapport alone does not show whether the candidate can navigate ambiguity, prioritize work, manage conflict, or improve weak deliverables.

Strong hiring managers treat these factors as context, not proof.

Ask for evidence, not self-description

A common interviewing mistake is asking questions that invite branding rather than substance. “Tell me about yourself.” “What is your leadership style?” “Are you strategic or executional?” “How do you handle pressure?” These prompts often produce polished narratives that are difficult to evaluate because they are abstract, self-interpreted, and lightly constrained by fact.

Evidence-based questions work better because they require candidates to describe actual situations, decisions, tradeoffs, and outcomes.

Instead of asking whether someone is collaborative, ask about a time they worked with a function that had different incentives or priorities. Instead of asking whether they are good with clients, ask how they handled a moment when a client wanted something they believed would weaken the work. Instead of asking if they can manage ambiguity, ask them to explain a situation in which the brief was unclear, the data was incomplete, or the stakeholders disagreed, and what they did next.

Good questions are anchored in work. They reveal how a candidate thinks, what level of responsibility they actually held, how they define success, and whether they can explain their judgment clearly.

For example, a hiring manager evaluating a mid-level strategist might ask:

• Tell me about a brief you helped shape when the original problem statement was too broad or unclear. What was wrong with it, how did you reframe it, and what happened afterward?
• Describe a time when research findings pointed in one direction but stakeholders wanted to move in another. How did you handle that tension?
• Walk me through a recommendation you made that was not adopted. Why was it rejected, and what did you learn from that?

These questions do not merely test storytelling. They surface reasoning, ownership, stakeholder awareness, humility, and standards of evidence.

Use follow-up questions to clarify contribution

One reason interviews produce misleading conclusions is that candidates often describe team outcomes in collective language. In advertising and marketing, that is not necessarily evasive. Much of the work is genuinely collaborative. Campaigns, product launches, brand refreshes, measurement plans, and client relationships are rarely owned by one person alone.

Hiring managers still need to understand the candidate’s actual role.

That means listening for vague claims and following up carefully. If a candidate says, “We repositioned the brand,” “We improved performance,” or “We built the client relationship,” the interviewer should ask what they specifically owned. Did they define the audience segmentation, write the brief, analyze the data, lead the client meeting, set the timeline, coordinate dependencies, or recommend the final course of action? What decisions did they make independently? What constraints did they face? What tradeoffs did they weigh?

This is not adversarial interviewing. It is responsible interviewing.

The goal is not to catch exaggeration but to distinguish proximity from contribution. Well-run interviews make it easier for candidates to accurately represent team-based work without inflating personal ownership.

Work samples are often more useful than more conversation

For many advertising and marketing roles, especially those involving writing, analysis, strategic thinking, creative development, planning, research interpretation, or presentation, a work sample can add far more value than another loosely structured interview round.

Work samples are useful because they assess behavior closer to the work itself. The candidate is asked to respond to a realistic task, analyze a problem, critique material, draft a recommendation, or present a point of view. Research summarized by Schmidt and Hunter has found work-sample methods to be among the stronger predictors of job performance when they are relevant to the job being filled. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-10661-002

That does not mean every role needs an elaborate assignment. Nor does it mean organizations should demand unpaid speculative work that resembles free client labor. A good work sample is limited, job-relevant, and proportionate.

For example:

• A copywriter might be asked to critique and revise a short piece of sample messaging.
• A strategist might be given a simplified brief and asked to identify missing information, likely risks, and possible reframing opportunities.
• A media candidate might review a small data set and explain what conclusions are justified, what is uncertain, and what additional questions they would ask.
• An account leader might be asked to respond to a scenario involving scope change, timeline pressure, and client expectations.
• A research professional might be asked to assess a flawed study design or interpret findings for a non-technical audience.

The point is not to test perfection under artificial pressure. It is to see how the person approaches the work, organizes thinking, and communicates decisions. Strong candidates may not always produce the “right” answer, especially when the task is intentionally ambiguous. But they usually make their assumptions visible, identify tradeoffs, and show discernment about what can and cannot be concluded.

Portfolios are valuable, but they need context

In creative, strategy, content, brand, and related roles, portfolios remain important. They show range, craft, thinking, and standards. But portfolios can also mislead when hiring managers evaluate polish without investigating authorship, constraints, or business context.

A finished campaign deck, beautiful design system, or award-winning video does not tell the interviewer what the candidate actually did. It may reflect exceptional contribution. It may also reflect the work of a much larger team, a specific mentor, unusually favorable conditions, or responsibilities very different from the open role.

A better portfolio discussion asks for case context. What problem was the work trying to solve? What was the candidate’s role? What constraints shaped the outcome? What alternatives were considered? What resistance or feedback changed the work? How was success measured, and what would the candidate do differently now?

These questions improve fairness for candidates whose strongest work was less visually glamorous but more professionally demanding. A person who has led difficult cross-functional decisions, rescued flawed projects, improved client trust, or built rigorous measurement practices may have more role-relevant capability than a candidate with more visually recognizable work but limited ownership.

Hiring managers should also remember that confidentiality limits what some candidates can show. Strong candidates from brand-side, consulting, research, or platform environments may not be able to disclose internal materials, proprietary findings, or sensitive client information. That should not count against them if they can still explain the work responsibly and concretely.

Consistency matters across interviewers

Even well-designed questions lose value if every interviewer is assessing something different, or if interviewers use the same words to mean different things. “Executive presence,” “strategic thinking,” “client readiness,” and “culture fit” are common examples. These phrases sound useful, but they often conceal subjective and inconsistent standards.

Before interviews begin, the hiring team should align on who is evaluating what. One interviewer might focus on analytical reasoning, another on cross-functional collaboration, another on role-specific craft, and another on management capability. Each area should have observable indicators.

For instance, if “strategic judgment” is important, interviewers should define what that means in the context of the role. Does it mean linking recommendations to business objectives? Distinguishing signal from noise in research? Understanding downstream execution implications? Making tradeoffs visible? Tailoring recommendations to stakeholder constraints?

Without that alignment, debriefs become muddled. One interviewer says a candidate seemed strategic because they spoke confidently about trends. Another says the candidate was not strategic because they gave vague answers about actual decisions. Both may be acting in good faith, but they are using different definitions.

Consistency also improves candidate experience. Interviews are more respectful when candidates are not forced to answer redundant questions from five different people or guess what each interviewer privately values.

Take notes, score promptly, and compare carefully

One practical discipline distinguishes strong hiring managers from casual ones: they document what they heard. Memory is highly vulnerable to recency effects, halo effects, and selective recall. The candidate who interviewed last, the candidate who made one especially polished remark, or the candidate who resembled a previous strong employee can become artificially advantaged if interviewers rely on memory alone.

The solution is not complicated. Interviewers should capture notes during or immediately after the conversation, tied to the criteria being assessed. Those notes should record evidence, not just conclusions. “Explained how she reframed the brief after identifying that brand awareness was being used to solve a distribution problem” is more useful than “smart, strategic, impressive.” “Could not clearly separate his own role from the team’s work on the launch” is more useful than “somewhat vague.”

Scoring should happen before debrief discussion whenever possible. If interviewers wait until after group conversation, stronger personalities in the debrief can distort independent judgments. Individual evaluation first, discussion second, usually produces better decisions.

Comparison also matters. Candidates should be compared to the requirements of the role, not to the most charismatic person in the pool. A “less exciting” candidate may be a better hire if their evidence is stronger where the job actually demands strength.

Be careful with “culture fit”

Few hiring concepts are as overused and as poorly defined as culture fit. Sometimes it means something legitimate: the ability to work productively within a team’s pace, communication norms, accountability standards, or client environment. More often, it becomes a proxy for familiarity, comfort, or social resemblance.

That is risky and professionally limiting. Teams that hire for resemblance often reproduce the same blind spots, communication habits, and decision errors. They may also filter out strong candidates who bring different forms of expertise, stronger standards, or more useful challenge.

A better approach is to replace vague fit language with specific questions about working style and operating conditions. If the role requires fast iteration with incomplete information, ask for examples of that. If the team depends on direct feedback and frequent revision, ask how the candidate gives and receives critique. If the role requires translating technical or research-heavy material for executives or clients, ask for examples of that communication.

This moves the conversation from “Would I enjoy having coffee with this person?” to “Can this person work effectively in the conditions this role actually involves?”

Interviewing is also a management skill

Many organizations treat interviewing as a side obligation rather than a core managerial responsibility. That is a mistake. Running a good interview requires the same managerial capabilities that improve team performance more broadly: defining expectations, identifying evidence, listening carefully, evaluating work against standards, and making decisions that can be explained.

In that sense, interview quality reflects management quality.

Managers who cannot define what success looks like in a role will struggle to coach once someone is hired. Managers who confuse confidence with competence in interviews may do the same in performance reviews. Managers who rely on vague impressions when hiring often create vague expectations on the job.

Improving interviews therefore has a second benefit. It forces organizational clarity. Teams become better at naming what they value, what good work looks like, and what levels of ownership different roles require.

Where unstructured conversation still has a place

A structured interview process does not require eliminating all open conversation. Some flexibility is useful. Candidates should have space to ask questions, explain context, and discuss career decisions that may not fit neat templates. Interviewers should be able to pursue surprising but relevant areas when a candidate reveals unusual experience.

The key is proportion and discipline. Open conversation should supplement structured evaluation, not replace it.

For example, after the core role-based questions are complete, it may be useful to spend time discussing how the candidate has navigated agency-to-brand transitions, managed hybrid teams, built relationships with skeptical stakeholders, or developed their craft across adjacent disciplines. Those discussions can add depth, but they should not become the sole basis for the hiring decision.

A useful test is simple: if two candidates had equally pleasant conversations, would the team still be able to explain, with evidence, why one is better suited to the role? If not, the process is still too dependent on impression.

What strong interviewing looks like in practice

Strong interviewing is rarely flashy. It is organized, fair, evidence-seeking, and professionally specific.

A strong hiring manager prepares role criteria before posting or interviewing. They coordinate interviewers so each person is evaluating defined areas. They ask questions that surface real decisions and real contribution. They probe vague claims without becoming performative or combative. They use work samples when they provide better signal than another conversational round. They respect confidentiality boundaries in portfolio discussions. They document evidence and evaluate candidates against the work, not against pedigree, chemistry, or personal similarity.

Weak interviewing often looks more natural in the moment. It feels fluid, instinctive, and conversational. But afterward, the evidence is thin. Notes are sparse. Standards shift from candidate to candidate. Debriefs revolve around confidence, polish, prestige, or general impressions. The organization then acts surprised when a seemingly strong hire struggles with scope management, collaboration, writing, analysis, or judgment under pressure.

That is not usually a talent shortage problem. It is often an assessment problem.

Better interviews do not guarantee perfect hiring decisions. Human performance is too complex, and roles change after people are hired. But structured interviewing gives managers a better basis for judgment. It helps organizations hire on demonstrated capability rather than narrative appeal. It improves fairness for candidates whose value is not captured by pedigree or charisma. And it strengthens the larger professional discipline of management by forcing clearer standards, better listening, and more accountable decision-making.

In an industry that often prides itself on intuition, taste, and interpersonal chemistry, those disciplines matter. Good hiring is not the triumph of instinct. It is the careful evaluation of evidence in service of better work.