The “Interview Performance vs Job Performance” Lie

Here's spilling some tea.
Some of the best employees I’ve seen were average interviewers. There I said it. And some of the smoothest interviewees? Struggled on the job.

Over the last 3 quarters, we hired 7 people for similar roles. 2 of them were the “obvious yes.” Perfect answers, confident, everything polished. We were so sure they’d be the top performers. And then there were the other 5. Not as smooth. A little nervous. Some answers were messy. But we liked their intent, their learning mindset, so we said, Let’s give them a shot.

Guess what? Those 5 are the ones outperforming. Faster ramp-up, better ownership, more consistency the actual stuff the job needs.

That’s when it really hit me Interviews don’t always measure competence.

We’ve built hiring processes that reward Confidence, Storytelling, Fast thinking

But the job often needs Consistency, Deep focus, Quiet problem-solving

Are we hiring for performance in a 45-minute conversation or performance over 3 years?

Recruiters & hiring managers have you ever hired someone who interviewed okay but turned out brilliant?

Maybe we’re measuring the wrong things.