I don’t know about you, but interviews have got a lot more intense.
It feels as though the stakes are somehow higher now.
We are one month into 2026, teams are already running close to capacity, and there isn’t much slack if someone doesn’t work out. When a role stays open for too long, or a new starter leaves early, the knock-on effect is immediate.
For those I have been speaking with so far this month, interviews have become the pressure point of the hiring process. What was once a bottleneck is now like those bottles of fizz you were ready to open at New Year's.
You want to feel confident that this person can do the job, handle the pace, work well with the people around them, and still be there in twelve months.
Most candidates, understandably, show up prepared. They talk through examples, highlight their strengths, and present themselves in a way that fits what they think the role needs. On the surface, that can feel convincing. You think we have a winner here!
Until six months into the role, and your new star that you hand-picked is walking out the door.
The difficulty is that interviews on their own rarely tell you how someone is naturally wired, where they will thrive, and where they will need to stretch once the job starts.
This month’s edition looks at why interviews have become that pressure point, and how a small change in how you use them can quickly take a lot of that weight off.
Why do interviews end up carrying so much pressure?
For most teams, the hiring process still follows a familiar order. CVs get screened first. Interviews come next. Assessments sit further down the line, if they are used at all. By the time someone completes an assessment, the interview has already shaped most of the decision.
That sequence matters more than people realise.
When interviews come before any behavioural data, they turn into a discovery exercise. You are trying to work out how someone thinks, how they make decisions, how they deal with pressure, and how they will show up in the role. All of that gets inferred from examples and answers, most of which are delivered confidently and with good intent.
Around 95% of people believe they are self-aware. Research consistently shows the real figure sits much closer to 10–15%. That gap shows up very clearly in interviews. Candidates talk about what they think they do well, what they believe the role needs, and how they see themselves performing. As interviewers, we naturally respond to that. We fill in gaps. We connect dots.
Very few people can accurately explain how they are naturally wired, where that wiring helps them, and where it will work against the demands of the role. Without something objective to anchor the conversation, interviews reward familiarity, confidence, and how closely someone matches what we already have in mind.
When you interview without that context, you end up relying on judgement calls. You ask broader questions. You listen for reassurance. You leave the room with a feeling, good or bad, and struggle to explain exactly where it came from.
That’s when interviews start to feel heavy. They are carrying decisions that should never sit on instinct alone.
This is where the order of things starts to matter.
When you introduce behavioural assessment before the interview, the whole conversation changes. You walk into the interview already knowing how someone is naturally wired, how they tend to approach decisions, pace, structure, and people, and where the role is likely to ask them to stretch. You are no longer trying to uncover everything from scratch.
That shift alone takes a lot of pressure off the interview.
Instead of searching for signals, you arrive with context. You know which parts of the role will feel natural for this person and which parts will require conscious effort. That gives you something real to explore. You can ask about situations where they have had to adjust their style, how that felt, and what support helped them sustain it over time.
This is especially important when you factor in self-awareness. If only 10–15% of people can accurately describe how they show up at work, interviews without behavioural insight rely heavily on how well someone can talk about themselves. Behavioural data gives you a reference point. It turns the interview into a conversation about reality, not aspiration.
I often see this play out very quickly. Interviewers stop asking broad, open questions designed to cover everything. They start asking specific questions linked to the demands of the role and the way the candidate naturally operates. Candidates respond differently too. Some recognise the stretch immediately and talk openly about it. Others struggle to explain it, which tells you just as much.
At that point, the interview does what it is supposed to do. It tests awareness, judgement, and adaptability, rather than confidence alone.
Starting with assessments
When assessments sit at the front of the process, interviews stop being general conversations and start becoming much more targeted.
You already know how the role needs someone to operate day to day. You know the pace it demands, the level of structure involved, the amount of influence required, and the kind of decisions the role asks someone to make. With that defined, the behavioural assessment gives you an early view of how closely a candidate’s natural drives line up with those demands.
That changes the interview dynamic straight away.
Instead of working through a standard list of questions, you can focus on the areas that matter most. You can explore how someone manages a faster pace than they prefer, or how they cope in a role that needs more structure than they naturally lean towards. You can talk about situations where they have had to work against their instinct, how long that adjustment was sustainable, and what support made the difference.
This is also where interviews start to surface risk in a useful way. Some candidates recognise the stretch and explain it clearly. They can talk about trade-offs, energy, and what helps them stay effective over time. Others struggle to articulate it or default to broad assurances. That gap is important. It tells you how well someone understands themselves and how realistic they are about the demands of the role.
Nothing about this removes the human side of interviewing. If anything, it strengthens it. You are still listening, still building rapport, and still assessing how someone communicates. The difference is that the conversation stays anchored to how the work actually gets done.
At that point, interviews become a place to validate fit, not guess at it.
What happens once someone is hired
If interviews feel heavier than they used to, it’s usually because they are doing too much work too early.
When you change the order and bring behavioural insight in before the interview, the conversation shifts. You go in with context. You know what the role asks of someone and where a candidate is likely to feel at ease or under pressure. That makes interviews more focused and more honest, for both sides.
Most teams do not need more stages or longer processes. They need better information sooner. Small changes in sequence can reduce uncertainty, surface risk earlier, and take pressure off the people who feel the impact most when a hire does not work out.
If you’re reviewing how you hire this year, start with that. Look at what you know before the interview begins, and what decisions you expect it to carry.
As always, happy to compare notes if this is something you’re thinking through right now.
Best of luck with your next hire.
Dave Crumby
Founder at360 Talent Solutions
Certified PI Practitioner