Gut feel is out, structure is in: Why HR leaders are rethinking interviews

As talent markets tighten and hiring misfires become more costly, HR leaders are under growing pressure to move away from “chemistry tests” and toward rigorously designed, data-backed recruitment processes. The challenge is to do this without losing the human connection and candidate experience that still matter enormously to job seekers.

That balance between science and connection underpins new guidance from Anthony Belluccia, industrial-organisational psychologist at The Predictive Index, and Indeed career expert Sally McKibbin. Together, their perspectives suggest the era of hiring on instinct alone should be over, even as face-to-face interviews regain prominence in a post-pandemic world.

Moving beyond the 40-yard dash of hiring

Belluccia compares gut-based hiring to drafting an NFL player based on a single sprint at the combine. A 40-yard dash can reveal who is fast, but it says little about whether a wide receiver can catch under pressure, a quarterback can read defenses or a lineman can anticipate and react in real time.

Traditional, unstructured interviews work the same way. They capture how someone presents in the moment – their confidence, charm and ability to make small talk – rather than the behaviours, work styles and decision-making patterns that drive sustained performance in a specific role. The danger is that hiring teams may be seduced by polish while missing substance.

For HR leaders, this creates a double risk. On one hand, the organisation may end up with candidates who interview beautifully but lack the qualities needed to succeed day-to-day. On the other, high-potential talent can be overlooked simply because they do not “look the part” or dazzle in a single conversation, even though they could thrive once in the job.

Belluccia characterises gut hiring as a shortcut that feels intuitive but is often misleading. It can easily sideline people whose strengths are not immediately visible, especially those from nontraditional backgrounds or those who are less comfortable in a loosely structured social setting.

Why structured interviews and behavioural data change the game

Belluccia points to research showing that structured interviews predict top talent around two-thirds of the time. When behavioural data is combined with those interviews, that predictive power can climb to roughly four in five hires.

The difference lies in what is being measured and how. Structured interviews are built on a clear link between questions and what actually predicts success in the role. They introduce validity by tying prompts to job-relevant behaviours, reliability by ensuring candidates are assessed against the same criteria, and fairness by removing the variability that comes from each interviewer “doing their own thing.” They also bring efficiency, because a standardised process is easier to calibrate, train and defend.

Behavioural assessments add another dimension. Rather than focusing solely on how candidates answer questions in a high-stakes moment, they explore how individuals are naturally wired to work. This means gaining insight into preferred work pace, decision-making style, communication approach and response to pressure. According to Belluccia, organisations that rely on structured interviews alone are effectively leaving a significant margin of predictive accuracy untapped. Adding behavioural data closes much of that gap.

For HR leaders who are expected to improve quality of hire and reduce regrettable turnover, the implications are direct. A 15‑point improvement in predicting high performers does not just show up on a validation report; it translates into stronger teams, better engagement and fewer costly mis-hires that need to be quietly managed out a year later.

The high-potential candidates you are most likely missing

One of the most significant, and often invisible, costs of intuition-driven hiring is the kind of talent that never makes it through the process.

Belluccia notes that the candidates most frequently missed are those whose working style differs from the interviewer’s but aligns closely with the demands of the role itself. This often includes individuals from nontraditional educational or career paths, candidates who do not excel at casual conversation, and those whose strengths are more apparent in their work products than in spontaneous answers.

He describes a familiar scenario in many organisations: three interviewers meet the same software engineering candidate. One pays most attention to cultural alignment and alignment with company values. Another is focused squarely on technical problem-solving and coding ability. The third probes for leadership potential and future people-management capacity, even though the role currently has no direct reports.

If the final decision is guided primarily by gut feel or an amorphous sense of “fit,” the candidate’s fate can hinge on which dimension each interviewer happens to prioritise. A technically outstanding engineer who does not immediately mesh with the prevailing social style of the team might be rejected, even if their strengths are exactly what the role requires.

For organisations committed to diversity, equity and inclusion, this is not a small issue. Overreliance on intuition and “culture fit” often results in privileging sameness and penalising difference. Structured criteria and behavioural data refocus the lens on whether a candidate can excel in a clearly defined job, rather than whether they feel familiar or similar to people already in the room.

The single most impactful shift HR can make

For HR leaders looking to move beyond gut-based hiring, Belluccia argues that the most powerful first step is not a technology purchase but a discipline shift.

The starting point is to define success for each role in behavioural and outcome terms, rather than relying on generic competency lists or a loose sense of what a “strong candidate” looks like. This typically requires a rigorous job analysis that clarifies the behavioural and cognitive requirements of the role before any resumes are reviewed.

Once that success profile is established, it becomes the backbone of the entire hiring process. Interview questions can be designed to elicit evidence of those specific behaviours. Evaluation rubrics can be built to ensure responses are scored consistently and fairly. Behavioural assessments can be selected to illuminate how closely each candidate’s natural work style aligns with what the role demands.

This approach, Belluccia says, transforms hiring from a chemistry test to a structured evaluation of fit-for-role. It reveals how candidates are likely to perform over time, instead of simply capturing how they present in one meeting.

Crucially, he emphasises that experienced hiring leaders do not need to suppress their judgment. Instead, judgment should be informed by data, not used as a substitute for it. When structured evidence and behavioural insights are in place, professional intuition can be applied more safely and powerfully.

Why in-person interviews still matter to candidates and employers

While recruitment becomes steadily more data-rich and technology-enabled, the human dimension of interviews remains central to both sides of the table.

McKibbin notes that many job seekers still value face-to-face interviews because they provide a stronger and more memorable way to stand out. In person, candidates can express their personality more naturally, build rapport with interviewers and use the full range of verbal and non-verbal communication that is often flattened on a screen. They can also experience the commute and the physical environment firsthand, noticing everything from how colleagues interact to the feel of the workspace. These cues help candidates decide whether a role, team and culture genuinely resonate.

For employers, in-person conversations offer richer insight into body language, energy and interpersonal style. McKibbin points out that this format often makes it easier to assess soft skills such as communication, adaptability and the ability to think on one’s feet. Candidates’ responses in real time, without the lag or awkward interruptions of video platforms, can give a more authentic sense of how they will engage with colleagues and stakeholders. In-person meetings also avoid the technical glitches – from unstable connections to audio issues – that can disrupt virtual interviews and leave both parties frustrated.

The new normal: hybrid and strategic use of formats

Despite the renewed appreciation for in-person contact, McKibbin is clear that virtual interviewing has become a permanent fixture in modern recruitment. It is now deeply embedded in early-stage screening, geographically dispersed hiring and high-volume processes because it is efficient, convenient and scalable.

What has changed is how organisations orchestrate the mix. The majority of employers, she observes, still favour in-person interviews, but they deploy them more selectively. Face-to-face stages are commonly reserved for final decision-making, critical roles or positions where strong interpersonal engagement is non-negotiable.

For HR leaders, this hybrid reality underscores the importance of consistency. The same success profiles, structured question sets and scoring frameworks should underpin both virtual and in-person interviews. Otherwise, a candidate’s experience – and the organisation’s ability to compare applicants fairly – can vary dramatically depending on format.

Designing a candidate experience that strengthens your employer brand

In a market where high-calibre candidates often juggle multiple opportunities, the recruitment experience itself has become a differentiator.

According to McKibbin, creating a positive experience starts with clear, timely communication and a well-structured process. Candidates should understand what will happen at each stage, who they will meet and how long decisions are likely to take. When interview questions are thoughtful and clearly connected to the role, candidates are more likely to feel that their time is respected and that the organisation knows what it is looking for.

It is equally important to remember that interviews are a two-way evaluation. Candidates are assessing the organisation just as carefully as the organisation is assessing them. McKibbin encourages employers to share meaningful insight into team culture, leadership style and opportunities for development and progression. When candidates leave with a clear, honest picture of what working there would actually be like, they are in a better position to make an informed decision.

A transparent, respectful hiring process does more than leave a good impression on individuals who reach the final stages. It also contributes to word-of-mouth reputation in the talent market. Even candidates who do not receive an offer can become advocates if they feel they were treated fairly and communicated with openly.

Taken together, Belluccia and McKibbin’s perspectives point to a clear direction for HR and talent leaders.

Hiring should be anchored in clearly defined success profiles, supported by structured interviews and behavioural data that meaningfully improve the odds of selecting top performers. Human judgment still matters but should be exercised within a framework that reduces bias and randomness. At the same time, the enduring value of in-person interactions, particularly at critical decision points and in people-centric roles, should be recognised and used strategically.

Most importantly, every interaction with a candidate, whether virtual or face-to-face, is a reflection of the organisation’s values and culture. The employers most likely to win and retain top talent in the coming years will be those that combine rigorous, evidence-based selection with a genuinely human and welcoming candidate experience – not those that continue to rely on “I’ll know it when I see it” as their hiring philosophy.