The process of hiring has long been criticised for its reliance on subjective judgement. While organisations have developed increasingly sophisticated methods to evaluate applicants, decisions often remain heavily influenced by interviewer perceptions, instincts, and personal preferences.
Evidence from Research
Empirical studies have consistently demonstrated the risks of subjectivity. Campion et al. (1997, Personnel Psychology) found that unstructured interviews produced extremely low levels of inter-rater reliability, with significant variation in candidate ratings across different interviewers. Similarly, Moscoso (2000, International Journal of Selection and Assessment) documented systematic patterns in interviewer behaviour, whereby certain individuals consistently rated candidates more harshly or more leniently irrespective of actual performance. Schmidt and Hunter (1998, Psychological Bulletin) provided further evidence that structured assessment methods are significantly more predictive of job performance than unstructured ones, underscoring the limitations of subjective approaches. Taken together, these findings confirm that subjectivity undermines both fairness and accuracy in recruitment.
Consequences of Subjectivity
The organisational consequences of subjectivity in hiring are substantial. Inconsistent evaluations create difficulties in establishing uniform hiring standards. Overreliance on intuition reduces the transparency and defensibility of decisions. Comparisons across candidates become problematic when no shared benchmarks exist. Most critically, subjectivity reduces predictive accuracy, increasing the risk of selecting candidates who underperform while excluding those who could have excelled. For applicants, the perception of inconsistency diminishes confidence in the fairness of the hiring process, which in turn affects employer branding.
Why It Matters
Subjectivity in hiring is not only a matter of fairness but also of organisational efficiency. By tolerating processes that produce inconsistent results, organisations expose themselves to higher turnover, reduced productivity, and elevated recruitment costs. From a human capital perspective, the inability to reliably identify high-performing candidates undermines workforce quality and weakens long-term competitiveness.
Towards Greater Objectivity
Reducing subjectivity requires the institutionalisation of structured, standardised, and transparent methods of assessment. While human judgement remains essential, it must be guided by evidence-based frameworks that improve reliability and comparability across candidates. Organisations that invest in such approaches enhance not only the fairness of their recruitment but also the accuracy of their talent selection.
Conclusion
Subjectivity remains one of the most significant weaknesses in contemporary hiring practices. The evidence suggests that organisations which continue to rely heavily on impression-driven decisions compromise both fairness and performance outcomes. By adopting structured, research-backed approaches, organisations can move towards recruitment systems that are more reliable, more defensible, and better aligned with strategic objectives.
