Interview advice often focuses almost entirely on the candidate: arrive on time, research the company, prepare thoughtful answers and make a strong first impression.
Yet an interview is a two-way assessment.
While the employer is deciding whether the candidate is right for the role, the candidate is also evaluating the organisation, its leadership and its workplace culture. An interviewer who appears distracted, unprepared or disrespectful can undermine the entire recruitment process—regardless of how attractive the opportunity may initially have seemed.
We recently ran a LinkedIn poll asking candidates which interviewer behaviour they considered the biggest red flag.
The results were revealing:
These behaviours may appear relatively minor, but each communicates something important about how the organisation values people.
Candidates notice whether interviewers are engaged, prepared and respectful. They also recognise when an employer is simply going through the motions.
A poor interview does not only risk losing one candidate. It can damage the organisation’s reputation across the wider talent market.
The most common concern in our poll was an interviewer using their phone.
Checking messages, replying to emails or repeatedly glancing at a screen suggests that the conversation—and the candidate’s time—is not a priority.
Candidates may have spent hours researching the organisation, preparing examples and arranging time away from their current role. An interviewer who appears distracted can undo that effort within minutes.
Unless there is a genuine emergency, phones should be silenced and laptops should only be used when clearly relevant to the interview.
The candidate deserves the same attention and professionalism the employer expects from them.
Almost a third of respondents selected repeated interruptions as their biggest interview red flag.
An effective interviewer should guide the conversation without dominating it. Constantly cutting across answers can make candidates feel rushed, dismissed or unable to present their experience properly.
It may also prevent the interviewer from discovering valuable information.
Strong interviewing depends on active listening. Ask a clear question, allow the candidate to respond fully and use follow-up questions to explore anything that requires more detail.
The purpose of the interview is not to demonstrate the interviewer’s authority. It is to gather enough meaningful evidence to make a sound hiring decision.
Occasional delays are unavoidable, but how they are handled matters.
An interviewer who arrives late without acknowledging it can create an immediate impression of poor organisation or double standards. Candidates are expected to be punctual, so employers should demonstrate the same courtesy.
When a delay occurs, the candidate should be informed as early as possible and given a realistic revised start time.
A brief apology and explanation can preserve goodwill. Silence or indifference rarely does.
An interview should provide enough privacy for an open and professional conversation.
Busy cafés, hotel lobbies and public areas can create confidentiality concerns, particularly when candidates are discussing their current employer, salary, responsibilities or reasons for considering a move.
Noise and interruptions can also make it harder for the candidate to concentrate and perform at their best.
Where an interview cannot take place in a private meeting room, a secure and professionally managed video call is often more appropriate than an informal public setting.
Candidates can usually tell very quickly when the interviewer has not reviewed their CV or fully understood the vacancy.
Repeatedly asking for information already contained in the application is not always a problem, particularly when the interviewer wants further context. However, appearing completely unfamiliar with the candidate’s experience can suggest that the process is poorly organised.
Interviewers should understand:
Preparation creates a more focused conversation and allows the interviewer to ask questions that genuinely distinguish between candidates.
Challenging questions can be useful. Hostility is not.
Some interviewers believe that creating pressure will reveal how a candidate responds in difficult situations. In practice, aggressive questioning may simply create an artificial and unnecessarily confrontational environment.
There is a clear difference between testing someone’s judgment and attempting to unsettle or embarrass them.
A respectful interviewer can still challenge assumptions, explore mistakes and ask for evidence. The objective should be to understand how the person thinks—not to see how much discomfort they will tolerate.
The recruitment process can reveal a great deal about an organisation’s management culture.
Interviewers who deliberately attempt to assert control, belittle candidates or demand that they “prove their worth” may believe they are testing confidence. More often, they are demonstrating how power is exercised within the workplace.
The strongest candidates are unlikely to be impressed by unnecessary confrontation. They are more likely to withdraw and pursue opportunities with employers that treat them professionally.
Authority does not need to be performed. A well-run interview should feel structured, purposeful and respectful.
Few experiences are more frustrating than attending an interview when the employer has already selected another candidate.
There may be legitimate reasons for continuing a process, particularly where a preferred candidate has not formally accepted. However, inviting candidates purely to satisfy an internal requirement wastes their time and damages trust.
Every person invited to interview should have a genuine opportunity to secure the role.
Where circumstances change, the employer should communicate openly rather than conducting an artificial process.
Culture should be assessed through values, behaviour, communication and working preferences—not through pressure to socialise, drink alcohol or conform to a narrow personality type.
Inviting someone to an informal setting can sometimes create a useful conversation, but candidates should never feel that declining alcohol or participating in a particular social activity will count against them.
Employers should also be cautious about using “culture fit” as a vague justification for subjective decision-making.
A stronger question is whether the candidate can contribute positively to the organisation’s culture while bringing their own perspective and experience.
Practical assessments can be valuable, particularly when they are directly connected to the responsibilities of the role.
Problems arise when candidates are asked to complete substantial projects that require many hours of unpaid work or could be used commercially by the employer.
An appropriate assessment should be:
Where a task requires significant work or creates genuine value for the organisation, the candidate should usually be compensated.
Panel interviews can provide a balanced assessment, but only when each interviewer understands their role.
Candidates quickly notice when panel members contradict one another, argue openly, appear disengaged or communicate different expectations for the position.
This can suggest wider problems with leadership, decision-making and internal relationships.
Before the interview, panel members should agree:
The panel should present a coordinated and professional experience, even where different perspectives are represented.
Candidates should know what type of assessment they are attending.
Unexpected group exercises, presentations or role-play activities can place people at an unfair disadvantage, particularly when they have prepared for a one-to-one interview.
Assessment methods do not need to be predictable in every detail, but candidates should receive enough information to prepare properly.
Clear communication helps create a fair process and allows employers to assess actual capability rather than how well someone responds to an avoidable surprise.
A badly managed interview can have consequences beyond one unsuccessful appointment.
It may lead to:
In specialist and candidate-led markets, the best professionals often have several opportunities available to them. Their interview experience can become the deciding factor.
A strong interview does not need to be elaborate.
It should be organised, relevant and respectful.
Interviewers should prepare thoroughly, start on time, explain the process and give the candidate space to answer. They should provide an honest account of the role, ask consistent evidence-based questions and leave sufficient time for the candidate to assess the opportunity.
Communication after the interview matters too. Candidates should know the expected timetable and receive an update when delays occur.
Even unsuccessful applicants should leave feeling that their time and experience were valued.
Candidates often regard the interview as a preview of what it would be like to work for the organisation.
A distracted interviewer may suggest poor communication. An aggressive interviewer may indicate an unsupportive management culture. A disorganised process may raise concerns about how the wider business operates.
Conversely, a thoughtful and professional interview can strengthen a candidate’s interest—even when they were initially uncertain about the role.
Employers invest considerable time and money in attracting talented people. The interview should reinforce that effort, not undermine it.
The best recruitment processes recognise a simple principle: respect should never be conditional on which side of the interview table someone occupies.
We publish resources for hiring managers preparing to run a search.
