A poorly managed interview can damage more than a candidate’s chances of getting a job. New research highlights how inconsistent interviews, weak communication and a lack of feedback can affect employer reputation and future customer relationships.
The 2027 State of Interview Intelligence Report, from Textio and Kyle & Co, found a significant gap between how employers and jobseekers assess the hiring process. While talent leaders rated their organisations’ interview processes at +48.25 on a recommendation scale, jobseekers gave their actual experiences an average score of just +2.87.
The findings suggest that employers may be more confident in their recruitment processes than candidates’ experiences justify.
Candidates See a Different Side of the Hiring Process
Nearly half (48%) of jobseekers said their most recent interview process felt at least partly improvised, and 7% said the interviewer appeared to be “winging it”.
By contrast, 88% of employers said their interviews were usually or always structured.
This disconnect matters because interviews are a key opportunity for employers to demonstrate professionalism, explain a role and help candidates understand what working for the organisation might involve.
It has also become more relevant as employers reconsider interview practices amid concerns about AI-assisted applications, candidate misrepresentation and the growing volume of applications recruiters must assess.
However, adding more interviews or introducing additional checks will not necessarily improve hiring outcomes if the process remains inconsistent or poorly communicated.
What Matters Most to Jobseekers?
The report found that candidates judge the hiring experience on how they are treated throughout the process, not simply whether they receive an offer.
When asked what mattered most in judging a hiring process as good:
- 35% prioritised fairness and consistency.
- 31% said communication was the most important factor.
- 10% prioritised how quickly the process moved.
- 10% focused on being treated respectfully.
- 8% prioritised how honestly the role was represented.
- 6% said whether they got the job mattered most.
These findings suggest that candidates value a process they can understand and trust, even when the outcome is not in their favour.
Communication is particularly important. Candidates who receive no updates, unclear timelines or generic rejection messages may leave with a negative impression of the employer, regardless of how suitable they were for the position.
Poor Interviews Can Damage Employer Reputation
The consequences can extend beyond recruitment.
According to the report, 56% of jobseekers who experienced a poor interview process said they would not apply to that company again. Another 35% said they would both stop applying and stop buying from the company.
For employers, this creates a potential link between candidate experience, employer brand and customer perception. Applicants may also be customers, former employees or members of professional networks who share their experiences with others.
A frustrating hiring process can therefore undermine the reputation an organisation is trying to build through its careers website, employer branding and recruitment campaigns.
How HR Can Make Interviews More Consistent
Improving the candidate experience does not necessarily require a complete overhaul of the recruitment process. HR teams can start by establishing clear expectations and making interview practices more consistent.
- Use structured, role-relevant questions. Agree on the skills and competencies each interview should assess. Ask candidates applying for the same role comparable core questions so their responses can be evaluated fairly.
- Prepare interviewers properly. Provide hiring managers with interview plans, evaluation criteria and guidance on avoiding irrelevant or overly subjective judgements.
- Communicate throughout the process. Tell candidates what to expect, explain the stages involved and provide updates when timelines change. If a decision is delayed, let them know rather than leaving them without information.
- Give useful feedback. Where appropriate, provide specific, respectful feedback instead of relying entirely on generic rejection messages. This helps candidates understand the outcome and leaves them with a clearer impression of the organisation.
- Evaluate the process, not just the hire. Track candidate feedback, interview completion rates, withdrawal rates and time between stages. Reviewing these indicators can help HR identify where candidates encounter avoidable friction.
Better Interviews Require Evidence, Not Just Impressions
Matt Charney, principal analyst at Kyle & Co, highlighted the importance of turning interview conversations into structured, comparable evidence that can support hiring decisions and be reviewed against subsequent performance.
The distinction matters because an interview can feel positive without producing reliable evidence that a candidate meets the role’s requirements. Consistent questions, clear evaluation criteria and useful interviewer notes help teams make decisions based on demonstrated skills rather than general impressions alone.
For HR leaders, the objective is not simply to make interviews more efficient. It is to create a process that helps the organisation identify suitable candidates while giving applicants a fair, clear and respectful experience.
As hiring practices evolve alongside AI-assisted applications and new assessment tools, employers will need to ensure that changes improve the quality of decisions without making the process more confusing or impersonal for candidates.
Research source: 2027 State of Interview Intelligence Report
