Blogs

Few issues in talent acquisition carry as much weight as fairness in interviewing. Bias isn’t just an ethical concern; it has tangible consequences for candidate experience, brand reputation, and legal compliance. For organizations competing for talent in today’s rather unpredictable market, the stakes are high, so ensuring interviews are consistent, equitable, and legally defensible is no longer optional.

This was the focus of the latest CXR Research Panel, co-facilitated by myself and @Johnny Campbell (Founder, SocialTalent and CXR Community member) who generously sponsored the administrative costs of this quarter’s research. TA leaders from a wide range of industries came together to examine how companies are attempting to mitigate bias in interviewing - what works, what falls short, and what new opportunities and risks are emerging.

Four notable themes surfaced from this week’s conversation: the limits of training and structure, the role of oversight and technology, the mixed outcomes of assessment tools, and the legal risks that continue to shape employer practices.

Training and Structure: Necessary but Not Sufficient

For many organizations, structured interviewing and behavioral training are the first lines of defense against bias. Panelists shared examples of widespread initiatives: behavioral interviewing courses, BBI guides, unconscious bias training, and hiring manager workshops. Some companies even reported requiring managers to complete formal certification before participating in interviews.

Yet a consistent thread emerged: training and structure alone rarely deliver lasting impact. Several leaders noted that initial enthusiasm often fades, particularly when programs are not reinforced or monitored over time. Hiring managers who interview infrequently may forget the principles altogether.

“This is so hard unless you have a team that can consistently monitor and audit OR you have it engrained in the culture from the top down.” - @Cathy Henesey, Vice President of Extended Workforce, AdventHealth

Henesey’s point resonates with many in TA and throughout our membership: without cultural reinforcement, even the best-designed guides and training programs will simply gather dust. Others in our research group emphasized that fairness cannot be guaranteed and is instead aspirational. As @David Crosby of Gilbane Building Company noted, acknowledging bias and calling it out in debriefs can be powerful, but perfection is elusive.

Organizations that succeed in this space often focus on making fairness a cultural expectation rather than a compliance exercise. But sustaining that expectation across geographies, departments, and years of leadership turnover remains one of the most stubborn challenges in talent acquisition.

Oversight, Auditing, and the Role of Technology

If training provides the foundation, oversight is what holds interview quality accountable. Several companies are taking steps to move beyond guides and into measurable monitoring.

At EY, for example, Risk Management has begun reviewing a random sample of recorded HireVue interviews. The initiative aims to identify interviewer behaviors that could put the firm at risk, providing coaching or, if necessary, removing interviewers from the process.

“Our Risk Management team recently implemented a review of a random sample of recorded interviews, identified interviewer behavior that puts the firm at risk, and followed up with individual interviewers for training or removal from future interviews.” - @Megan Goeltz, TA Futurist and Head of Transformation, EY

Other panelists are experimenting with accountability at scale. Spectrum’s Recruiting Health Scorecard tracks which leaders have completed interviewer training and whether interview rating forms are being used, then shares those metrics with executives. New-hire surveys now ask candidates about hiring manager preparedness, giving leadership direct feedback on where improvement is needed.

Technology offers additional promise. Several leaders discussed the potential for AI tools to review interview recordings or transcripts, flagging patterns of bias that human auditors could then investigate more deeply. At the same time, panelists were cautious and discussed challenges around how AI may enhance monitoring, but by itself just can't guarantee fairness. And as one participant noted, oversight continues to be, at best, an “evolving process” rather than a solved problem.

The consensus was clear: without measurement and accountability, fairness efforts fade. Oversight, whether human, technological, or both, is becoming the next frontier in bias mitigation.

Assessments and Tools: Mixed Outcomes, Hard Lessons

Another major theme was the use of candidate assessments and structured tools. Panelists described a range of experiences, from promising to problematic.

At one healthcare company, a custom “values-aligned” assessment was intended to improve hiring decisions. In practice, it became a stumbling block. Leaders used the tool as a hard filter rather than one data point, and the assessment itself reflected organizational assumptions more than actual predictors of success. The result was frustration and eventual abandonment.

By contrast, Assurant recently implemented Paradox’s Traitify assessment for high-volume roles. Early validation showed strong correlation between assessment scores and performance/retention outcomes, giving recruiters a consistent benchmark for evaluating large candidate pools.

Ryann Wingeier, who has long been skeptical of assessments, described cautious optimism after rigorous testing:

“We went through an extensive validation process prior to developing our scoring criteria, evaluating current employee assessment scores to their retention and performance metrics on the job. This validation has shown very positive early results that we hope will allow our recruiters to spend more time digging deep with less candidates.” - @Ryann Wingeier, Sr. Talent Optimization Consultant, Assurant

These contrasting experiences clearly highlight a key tension: tools can standardize decisions, but without validation and clear usage guidelines, they may introduce new bias. Many panelists agreed that structured interview guides remain the most reliable tool, even as organizations continue to explore assessments and AI.

Legal Risk and Compliance: The High-Stakes Backdrop

The final thread in this week’s discussions centered on the legal and compliance risks of bias in interviewing. While most organizations conduct some form of adverse impact analysis, these reviews often focus on outcomes (hiring, promotion, compensation) rather than the actual interviews themselves.

At one company, audits of hiring demographics and compensation analyses rarely reveal anomalies, though occasional EEOC complaints do arise. These, however, have generally been unsubstantiated thanks to thorough documentation. Another participating organization enforces the use of approved interview guides and requires ratings to be completed before offers are extended, a practice that panelists agreed was essential for reducing risk.

A manufacturing company shared that compliance costs have arisen in the past, but the organizational response was simply to add more training without tackling the root behaviors. A new team has been tasked with reimagining a more structured and sustainable risk-mitigation strategy.

Spectrum’s @Laura Fields (she/her), an I/O psychologist and the Sr Director of Recruiting Operations, Selections & Assessment, added important context: high-volume roles carry the greatest compliance exposure, since larger sample sizes invite statistical scrutiny from regulators. Although recent regulatory changes have shifted the landscape, Title VII claims remain a real possibility.

The discussion underscored a reality that all TA leaders recognize legal risk may be difficult to quantify, but it is always present. Bias in interviews is not only a reputational concern but also a potential liability. Organizations that proactively structure, validate, and document their processes are best positioned to defend against challenges.

Conclusion: A Shared Responsibility

The CXR Research Panel reinforced what many TA leaders already suspect: achieving fair and unbiased interviews is not a one-time initiative but an ongoing, multi-faceted commitment.

• Training and structure are essential, but culture determines whether they endure.
• Oversight and accountability are critical for sustaining fairness, with technology offering new opportunities to scale.
• Tools and assessments can help, or hinder, depending on how they are validated and applied.
• Legal and compliance risks remain significant, demanding vigilance and documentation.

Fairness in interviewing is a shared responsibility across recruiters, hiring managers, and leaders. While perfection may not be attainable, continuous improvement is both possible and necessary.

For those who want to dive deeper, we encourage you to explore multiple reports and volunteer to join future panels at cxr.works/research.