The hiring process has never been simple.
HR leaders and hiring managers face constant pressure to choose the right candidate, which is why many rely on tools like assessment tests or multiple rounds of interviews before making a final decision.
Yet while recruiting tools and technologies have evolved, the underlying structure of the interview process has changed surprisingly little in last few decades.
At the same time, the hiring process can look very different from the other side of the table.
In this HR 411 analysis, we’ll take a closer look at the effectiveness of the modern interview structure, how candidates experience today’s hiring practices, and where the hiring process can be improved to keep pace with modern expectations.
The Interview Process Has a Unique Problem
Many leaders don’t realize that the interview process has gone largely unchanged since the 1960s.
So does the process still work or has it become the default because it’s the way hiring has always been done?
Sure, some aspects of the interview process have changed as new technology and social media platforms have come into play, but the core structure hasn’t evolved with the expectations of the modern interviewee.
Take the average hiring process structure: HR leaders post a job opening, collect applications, conduct interviews, make a decision, and then move to onboarding. This process of formal interviews was first used after World War I. Personality tests and assessments were used occasionally but didn’t become popular until 1962 with the publication of the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator.
Now, the traditional interview process has clearly worked over the last few decades — but does it still?
The answer is complicated.
Organizations are still able to identify and hire qualified candidates through traditional screening and interview stages, but results can vary depending on how the process is used.
Stay with me. We are about to get technical.
Studies show that informal interviews are relatively weak predictors of job performance. Their predictive validity — the measure of how effectively a method predicts future performance — often falls between 0.20 and 0.30 on a scale where 0 represents no predictive power and 1.00 represents perfect prediction of job success. In comparison, structured interviews paired with work-sample tests often score closer to 0.50 or higher.
Once an interview structure is decided, hiring efficiency and the candidate experience add another layer of challenges. As of 2025, timelines have steadily increased as more interview stages and evaluation steps have been added, with the average time to hire around 5-6 months across multiple industries. Plus, expectations around transparency, communication, and organization perception have also evolved significantly over the last few years.
So instead of asking “Does the traditional structure still work?” let’s take a different angle. Now the question is how can HR teams expand the interview process in a way that will adapt to the new expectations of today’s applicants without over-extending their resources?
Before we try to answer that question, we should examine what concerns job seekers are sharing about the current interview standards.
Candidate Concerns HR Should Address
When researching this article, I found most complaints lie within these categories: High number of interviews, poor use of assessments, lack of communication, and unclear hiring timelines.
How many interviews are too many?
In most hiring processes, job seekers typically expect two to four interviews before a decision is made. Once the process goes beyond four, interviewees often start questioning the efficiency of the organization and grow frustrated about wasted time invested in these interviews that rarely provide any extra insights about the role.
When skill tests are abused
It’s good to note that applicants don’t always view assessments negatively when they are clearly connected to the role and are designed to evaluate real skills.
The problem arises when assessments feel excessive, exploitative, or disconnected from the role itself. One of the most common issues is when assessments take a larger amount of time to complete or have vague instructions.
In discussion boards, applicants expressed that these situations could create the impression that the process is less about evaluating skills and more about extracting unpaid work.
Wasted time waiting for a decision
A lack of communication and unclear timelines are another major source of frustration for interviewees.
When searching for jobs, applicants invest hours preparing for interviews and completing assessments but often receive very little feedback or information about next steps. Sometimes, they don’t ever hear back at all.
In recent surveys, 26% of job seekers reported declining job offers due to poor communication or unclear expectations, while 54% said they abandoned hiring processes entirely and pursued other opportunities.
At the same time, long gaps between interview stages may lead interviewees to believe that the organization lacks clarity in its hiring decisions. Neither scenario puts the organization in a good position from the candidate’s perspective.
So, what can HR leaders and hiring managers do to improve the interview process?
How HR Leaders Can Improve the Interview Process
While the modern hiring process still serves its purpose, research and candidate feedback suggest that refinement is needed. Luckily, HR teams don’t have to completely rewrite the process, just make a few thoughtful adjustments that improve both hiring outcomes and the interview experience.
And some thought leaders have already gotten the process started.
One approach many organizations are considering is introducing more structure into interviews themselves. This could be through standardized questions, evaluation criteria, and clear scoring systems that improve consistency while reducing the influence of subjective impressions.
Another adjustment involves reconsidering how assessments are used. This way, interviewees can have better experiences with shorter, role-specific exercises that reflect real job responsibilities.
Some organizations are also experimenting with ways to reduce interview redundancy. One example would be through panel interviews or combining meetings to allow multiple perspectives to be gathered in a single session rather than spreading interviews across several weeks.
Finally, clear communication throughout the process remains one of the most effective ways to improve the interview experience. Providing applicants with an outline of interview stages, expected timelines, and evaluation criteria helps set expectations early and reduces confusion.
Final Thoughts
The interview process may not have changed dramatically over the last several decades, but the expectations surrounding it certainly have. As a result, organizations that take time to periodically reassess how their hiring practices operate will be better positioned to attract and retain strong candidates in an increasingly competitive job market.
