How to Interview Someone for a Job in 2026?

[Howard]

The most effective way to interview someone for a job is to use a structured interview format combined with behavioral and situational questions. This approach is far more reliable than casual conversation. Structured interviews mean every candidate is asked the same core questions in the same order, which directly reduces unconscious bias and allows for fair comparison. For the question content, you should focus on behavioral questions (asking how they handled past situations, like “Tell me about a time you had a conflict with a teammate”) and situational questions (asking how they would handle a hypothetical scenario, like “If you had a tight deadline and limited resources, what would you do?”). This method is backed by research showing it predicts job performance twice as effectively as unstructured interviews.

To make this practical, create a scorecard before you start. Define the key competencies for the role, such as problem-solving, communication, or technical skill. During the interview, take notes on specific examples the candidate provides, not just your general impression. Here is a quick comparison of interview effectiveness:

Interview Type	Predictive Validity	Key Drawback
Structured (Behavioral)	0.55 - 0.65	Requires preparation time
Unstructured (Conversational)	0.20 - 0.30	High bias, low reliability
Work Sample Test	0.50 - 0.60	Hard to standardize for all roles

Remember to allocate the first 5 minutes of the interview to rapport building to put the candidate at ease, but then stick to your script. Avoid leading questions like “You’re good at managing stress, right?” as they push the candidate toward a desired answer. Instead, ask for specific evidence. Active listening is crucial—probe their answers with follow-up questions like “What was your specific role in that project?” or “What was the outcome?” This ensures you get real, verifiable data, not just rehearsed stories. Finally, leave 5-10 minutes at the end for the candidate to ask questions; their questions can also reveal a lot about their priorities and understanding of the role.

[OJaxson]

I focus on evidence-based questioning rather than chemistry. I always start with the job description and break it down into 3-4 core skills. Then, for each skill, I prepare one behavioral question and one situational question. I write down their answers word-for-word in my notes. After the interview, I score each answer against a simple 1-5 scale before I even look at the next resume. This stops me from picking someone just because we had a nice chat about football.

[JakeFitz]

For me, the trick is to shut up and listen. I ask a question, then I count to ten in my head before I say anything else. Most interviewers talk too much and give away the answer. If you ask “How do you handle a difficult customer?” and they pause, don’t jump in to help them. The silence forces them to give a real example. Also, I always ask “What was your biggest professional mistake?” The ones who own it and explain what they learned are usually gold.

[VanWeston]

I think the best way is to simulate the actual work. If you are hiring a writer, give them a short editing test. If you are hiring a salesperson, ask them to pitch you a product for 60 seconds. Skills tests are more honest than talk. I also use a panel interview with two other team members. We each take notes separately and compare them after. This stops one person’s strong opinion from dominating the decision. It’s about getting multiple perspectives, not just one gut feeling.

[RileyRose]

My approach is all about candidate experience. I prepare a clear agenda and share it with the candidate 24 hours before the call. During the interview, I use a mix of behavioral questions and technical questions relevant to their resume. But I also ask one very specific question about their proudest achievement. Their energy and detail when they talk about that moment tells me more than any generic answer. I take structured notes, but I also record how they made me feel—enthusiastic, confused, or neutral. That emotional data is valuable, but it always comes second to the hard evidence.