Welcome to the second post in our series.

The second skill we will discuss is critical thinking: Does the candidate have the ability to ask critical questions, look at things from different perspectives, play the "devil's advocate," and conduct meaningful analysis to make informed decisions?

Questions indicating high critical thinking:

  1. Asks deep or challenging questions about the information provided. For example: if you mention a culture of teamwork and collaboration, the candidate might ask, "How does that manifest in day-to-day operations?"
  2. When presented with a professional or technical challenge, asks follow-up questions to deepen their understanding of the information provided.
  3. Able to respectfully disagree with the interviewer. For instance, if the interviewer states, "We believe satisfying customers means giving them what they want," the candidate might respond, "Based on my experience, sometimes customers don't know what they want. Do you agree?"

Questions indicating low critical thinking:

  1. Asking generic questions easily found on the web, such as "Tell me about your culture."
  2. Repeating or reconfirming information already covered in the interview process or readily available in the job description, such as asking about the salary range or work model.
  3. Not asking any questions and simply repeating or confirming what the interviewer said, such as saying, "I really like your customer-centric approach."


Thanks to everyone who participated in our survey (link to survey results in 1st comment).

Here is a reminder of the CEO’s interview practice:
"I've been a CEO for over 2 years and I've finally cracked the code on hiring.
I look for just 3 things:
• Character
• Attitude
• Reliability
Anything else can be trained."

And here is our take on it…
We respectfully disagree with the CEO for 2 reasons:
1. Too broad definitions - what are “character” and “attitude” exactly? what do they contain? Imagine telling your recruiters or hiring managers to hire for great character and a positive attitude- you can be 100% sure that each of them will interpret this differently. In order to hire with accuracy we need to clearly define what are we looking for in terms of traits, behaviors, values and motivation. Broad definitions will just lead to people making their on subjective judgments and biases.

2. You should definitely hire for skills — although skills can be taught, some, particularly human skills (also known as “soft skills”) such as effective communication, emotional intelligence, and servant leadership. require considerable time to develop. When recruiting for a position, our goal is to efficiently onboard new hires and optimize the return on investment.

However, this does not imply that we exclusively seek out "perfect" candidates (if such individuals even exist). On the contrary, the skills-based approach to hiring encourages leaving our preconceived notions on what is the relevant experience and education at the door and to assess candidates on obtaining the relevant skills for the position.


Here is a quote from a CEO of a successful startup about the way he made a decision about a candidate during an interview. Tell us if you agree with this practice and share your thoughts in the comments.

”There was once a candidate I interviewed for a Junior Sales Development Representative position. During the interview I asked him to tell me about something he is great at. He said he is good at FIFA. I asked: “how good”, he replied “real good”. We went to the lounge, all the company is standing behind us, we went head to head and he tore me apart. We immediately signed him. If I would have found out that he doesn't know how to play, I wouldn't have signed him. If a person tells me that he likes to travel in Europe but then can’t mention names of European countries, then he is just making things up”.


Groupthink can be a major obstacle to making informed decisions during the interview process. Even if you are using a structured and standardized process, there is a good chance the interviewers are biasing each other without even noticing.

Here are three ways to avoid groupthink in your interview process:

1. Utilize multiple tools and perspectives: Information from multiple valid tools, such as simulations, dilemmas, and behavioral questions, as well as from multiple perspectives (different interviewers), aggregated quantitatively, has been found to out-predict a single interview tool or perspective.

2. Create a diverse panel of interviewers from different departments, professional backgrounds, genders and ethnicities. This will help ensure that a range of perspectives is represented, which can help to identify potential biases and blind spots in the hiring process.

3. Do not forward information from one interview stage to another - this will most likely create the confirmation bias (I am expecting the candidate to be flexible so I am paying more attention to the things that they say that confirm my initial hypothesis that they are flexible).

4. Refrain from exchanging impressions during or immediately after the interview - writing your co - interviewer your thoughts about the candidate during the interview? kicking them under the table? exchanging impressions immediately as the interview ends? That’s a good way to influence each other’s perspective and reduce interview accuracy that is generated by an integration of independent evaluations. It might be tempting to immediately start talking about the candidate, but evaluating the candidate separately first will result in a much more accurate, efficient and diverse process.

5. Focus on skills - we are all (falsely) impressed by specific academic credentials, previous employers and experience - focusing your interview process on assessing relevant skills can reduce the credentials bias most of us share and default to make decisions by.


By implementing these strategies, you can significantly reduce bias in your interview process and hire more qualified and diverse candidates.




“Walk me through your resume” is a fairly common interview question.

We believe the ROI on this question is low for these X reasons.

1. Been there, done that - By the time the candidate gets to an interview you have probably reviewed and even validated their CVs via phone screen and/or LinkedIn—why do the same again with the candidate?

2. Candidate experience -When you ask a candidate to walk you through your resume, it might appear that you haven’t taken the time to prepare for the interview. It might also paint you as unfocused and unsure of what you really want to know.

3. Focus, Please - It completely makes sense that you would like to drill down into a candidate’s specific and relevant experience, but we recommend doing so in a focused and skills-based manner. Instead of just reviewing the candidate’s experience in a chronological order, ask yourself:
1. What are the skills that are most important for the job that I have to assess in this interview?
2. What previous experience in the candidate’s CV implies that he might have that skill?

Then, you will be able to ask more focused questions with a higher diagnostic value.

For example, if developing and growing a team is a skill required for the job your are interviewing for and you find relevant, specific experience on a candidates resume, you can ask them: “You mentioned in your CV that in your last role you lead a team and grew it from 5 to 10 people. What is the biggest challenge you faced while doubling the number of team members? how did you deal with it? What is the recent activity you took in order to develop your team members”?



Here are 3 reasons not to ask “Why should we hire you?” in a job interview:

1. When you ask for slogans, don’t be surprised when slogans are what you get. You are basically giving candidates an opportunity to give you the speech they’ve rehearsed as to why they are the perfect match for the job. However, their speech is generally more about selling and pitching capabilities and less about their true, skills-based fit for the position.

2. Poor candidate experience - this question puts candidate under pressure to prove or sell themselves while, in fact, the interview should be a two-way process that allows both sides to assess each other.

3. Limited and biased information - this question only allows the interviewee to focus on their own qualifications, but does not allow them to discuss their fit for the company or how their skills and experiences align with the needs of the role.

What should you ask instead:

1. What is your key value proposition as a candidate for this job? what do you believe is your competitive advantage that will make you successful in this position?

2. What are the main areas of fit/alignment between you as a professional and a person and the company/position? What are the possible misalignments?


“Interviewer asked me what my worst trait was. I answered… Thinking of a quick response to unexpected questions. She snort-laughed. I got the job”.

*From the web.


“Interviewer asked me what my worst trait was. I answered… Thinking of a quick response to unexpected questions. She snort-laughed. I got the job”.

*From the web.