Today I want to talk about something that recently happened to myself that, while it may seem minor, can have a profound impact both on candidates’ experience and on hiring quality: excessive standardization in recruitment processes, often used as the wrong response to high candidate inflow. In an effort to handle large volumes of applications, it’s increasingly common for the early stages of the process to be in the hands of minimally specialized screeners, guided by stock answer manuals.
I recently had an experience that made me reflect. During a technical interview, I faced very general questions—some at a basic level. Naturally, I answered thoroughly, aiming not only to address the question, but also to add context, best practices, and real-world experience.
The subsequent feedback was curious: “the answers weren’t clear.”
This made me wonder: at what point does a complete answer become “unclear”? I believe the answer lies in this tendency to evaluate based on rigid patterns rather than on the actual quality of thinking or the experience behind the responses. When an interview process is overly standardized, interviewers (or screeners) tend to look for “stock answers” instead of evaluating the depth and relevance of the content. We lose the ability to recognize that an experienced professional doesn’t respond just to “give the right answer,” but to connect the question with real scenarios, practical nuances, and added value.
In such a system, answers that don’t fit exactly into the reference manual may be seen as confusing, even though they are richer, deeper, and more useful than a memorized response.
The problem isn’t a lack of clarity in the answer. It’s the lack of judgment in interpreting more elaborate responses.
What are we losing?
When standardization and answer manuals replace professional judgment, the following happens:
- Candidates who think critically and strategically are rejected.
- Those who give mechanical, superficial answers are favored.
- Creativity, analysis, and context are discouraged.
- The possibility of building teams diverse in thought and real capability is eroded.
The end result is worrying: organizations that hire to fit processes, not to build truly high-impact teams.
