A candidate's struggle in an interview doesn't always tell you what they'll be like in the job. Sometimes, it tells you more about the interview process than it does about the person.
I remember dreading one question more than almost any other when I was interviewing for jobs:
"What's your name?"
It sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?
It's probably the easiest question anyone can ask you. You don't need to prepare for it. You don't need to think about the answer. You have been answering it your entire life.
But when you have a stutter, suddenly finding the words to say your own name can feel like the hardest thing in the world.
My stutter appeared almost overnight when I was nine. I moved schools, was nervous on my first day, and that nervousness turned into a stammer that I couldn't seem to shake for years.
Growing up with it changed the way I approached situations where I had to speak. And nowhere was that more obvious than interviews.
The interview wasn't just an interview
As I got older, I learned how to manage my stutter. I did the courses. I read the books. I learned breathing techniques and ways to slow everything down and manage the anxiety that could come with speaking.
Eventually, I became pretty good at it. Most people wouldn't know I had (or still have) a stutter.
But that didn't mean the fear disappeared. Interviews could still send me into a cold sweat.
Panel interviews, group interviews, assessment centres. And perhaps the worst of all: the dreaded ice breaker. I'd sit there trying to look confident while internally thinking:
"Please don't pick me first."
"Please don't ask me to introduce myself."
"Please don't make me read something out."
There was a lot of masking, a lot of acting confidently when I was anything but. And a huge amount of mental energy went into something that had absolutely nothing to do with whether I could actually do the job. That is something hiring managers should think about.
Because the person sitting nervously in front of you may not be nervous about your company, your role or your industry. They may simply be fighting something that you can't see.
Then came Barclays
I applied for a graduate scheme at Barclays.
It was highly competitive, and by the time I reached the panel interview, I had convinced myself that this was probably where it would all fall apart.
One of the interviewers noticed my stutter almost immediately.
But instead of carrying on with the interview as planned, they changed tack.
Completely.
We started talking about music. Then cars. Then rugby. Then other things.
Anything, seemingly, except the Barclays graduate scheme - and something important happened.
I relaxed.
I stopped worrying about whether I was going to get my words out.
I stopped thinking about the next question.
I started talking to the person rather than performing for the interviewer.
And once I relaxed and began to trust them, I performed really well.
I was offered a place on the graduate scheme, and I accepted it.
Looking back, I've always thought that the interviewer made a huge difference.
They didn't make the interview easier. They didn't lower the standard. They didn't give me an advantage.
They simply recognised that the way I was initially presenting wasn't necessarily representative of what I could actually do - and they gave me the opportunity to show them.
Hiring managers can do exactly the same thing.
What if the interview is hiding the candidate you actually want to hire?
This isn't just about stuttering.
A candidate might have autism.
They might be neurodivergent.
They might have anxiety.
They might struggle with eye contact.
They might have a physical disability.
They might process questions differently.
They might need a little longer to formulate an answer.
They might be brilliant at their job but terrible at being put on the spot.
Or they might simply be nervous.
And here's the important bit:
None of those things necessarily tell you how they will perform once they are doing the job.
Yet recruitment processes can sometimes unintentionally reward people who are good at interviews rather than people who are good at the work. Sales people are notoriously brilliant at interviews, polished, confident, well presented. They are the biggest failed hire when they then join & can't actually sell anything.
That doesn't mean interviews aren't valuable. They absolutely are.
But hiring managers should ask themselves: "What am I actually trying to assess here?"
If you're hiring a salesperson, do you need to know whether they can build relationships, understand a customer's problems, influence stakeholders and close business?
Yes.
Do you necessarily need to know whether they can confidently introduce themselves to ten strangers around a table in thirty seconds?
Probably not.
If you're hiring a developer, do you need to understand how they solve problems, communicate technical concepts and approach complex challenges?
Absolutely.
Does their ability to immediately answer an unexpected question in front of a panel tell you everything you need to know?
Probably not.
Small changes can make a huge difference
You don't need to completely redesign your recruitment process. Sometimes, it's the small things that make the biggest difference.
Give candidates some context
Tell them what the interview will look like.
Who will be there?
How long will it last?
What areas will you cover?
Will there be a presentation?
Will there be technical questions?
Will there be an exercise?
Removing some of the uncertainty can significantly reduce unnecessary anxiety.
Don't mistake nerves for lack of ability
Some of the best candidates I've interviewed have been nervous. Particularly when the opportunity matters to them. A nervous first ten minutes shouldn't necessarily define the next hour. Give people the opportunity to settle.
Listen to the answer, not just how it is delivered
This is particularly important. A candidate who pauses before answering may be thinking. A candidate who struggles to get a word out may be managing a stutter. A candidate who avoids eye contact may still be completely engaged in the conversation. A candidate who appears uncomfortable in a group setting might thrive in a one-to-one customer environment.
Look beyond the initial 10 minutes of presentation.
Don't create unnecessary pressure
I'm not convinced every interview needs an ice breaker. I'm even less convinced that every candidate needs to be put on the spot. If an exercise is genuinely relevant to the role, absolutely use it. But ask yourself whether every part of the process is actually testing something you need to know.
Good recruitment isn't about making candidates uncomfortable to see how they cope. It's about creating the conditions where you can accurately assess them.
And recruiters have a role to play too
As recruiters, we can sometimes become so focused on finding the "perfect candidate" that we forget there is a person behind the CV. We should prepare candidates properly. We should explain the process. We should understand any concerns or requirements they have.
And where appropriate, we should help hiring managers understand that a particular candidate may perform better with a slightly different interview approach. Not because we're asking for preferential treatment. Because we're trying to make sure the client gets an accurate assessment of the person they're considering.
That's ultimately in everyone's interests.
The best interview I ever had wasn't really an interview
The irony of my Barclays experience is that the interviewer probably got
