Why Great Candidates Sometimes Underperform in Interviews

Every recruiter has been there.

You review a CV that’s near-perfect. The experience is spot-on. The track record is strong. You walk into the interview expecting fireworks… and instead, it’s flat. Awkward pauses. Nervous energy. Answers that don’t reflect the candidate’s actual capability.

It’s tempting to write this off as “not interview-ready.” But in reality, great candidates underperform in interviews all the time, and often for reasons that have nothing to do with competence.

Here’s why it happens, and what hiring teams can do about it.

Interview Stress Is Real (and It Hits High Performers Hard)

Interviews are high-pressure, artificial environments. For many candidates, especially conscientious high achievers, the stakes feel enormous.

• They’re being judged by strangers

• They’re hyper-aware of every word and pause

• They’re trying to “perform” rather than think naturally

  
  

Stress can hijack working memory, making even well-prepared candidates struggle to articulate ideas they use daily at work. This is especially common with:

• Introverts

• Neurodivergent candidates

• Candidates returning to the market after a long tenure

  
  

The result: knowledge is there, but access to it is blocked by pressure.

What helps:Create psychological safety early. Set expectations, slow the pace, and remind candidates it’s a conversation, not an interrogation.

Personality ≠ Performance (But Interviews Often Confuse the Two)

Many interview formats unintentionally reward:

• Confidence over competence

• Speed over thoughtfulness

• Charisma over consistency

  
  

Some of the best performers are reflective, analytical, or quietly decisive, traits that don’t always shine in a fast-paced interview setting.

Meanwhile, highly articulate candidates may excel at storytelling without necessarily being the strongest operators once hired.

The risk: hiring for “interview personality” instead of on-the-job impact.

What helps:Ask fewer hypothetical questions and more evidence-based ones. Allow time for thinking. Normalise pauses. Evaluate how someone works, not just how they talk.

The Interview Format May Be the Real Problem

Not all interviews measure the same things, and not all roles should be assessed the same way.

Common mismatches include:

• Panel interviews overwhelming otherwise capable candidates

• Rapid-fire questioning that disadvantages thoughtful decision-makers

• Abstract questions that don’t reflect real job tasks

  
  

If the format doesn’t mirror the actual role, you may be testing the wrong skills entirely.

What helps:Use job-relevant assessments:

• Work samples

• Case studies

• Take-home tasks

• Structured, consistent scoring criteria

These often reveal strengths that traditional interviews miss.

Cultural and Communication Differences Matter

Directness, eye contact, self-promotion, and storytelling styles vary widely across cultures and backgrounds. A candidate may be highly capable but unfamiliar with the unspoken “rules” of interviewing in your market or organisation.

When those differences are mistaken for lack of confidence or clarity, strong talent gets screened out unnecessarily.

What helps:Train interviewers to separate communication style from capability, and to probe deeper before forming conclusions.

The Recruiter/Hiring Manager Takeaway

A weak interview doesn’t always mean a weak candidate.

As hiring teams, the question isn’t just “Did they perform well in the interview?” but “Did our interview allow them to perform at all?”

By reducing unnecessary stress, broadening assessment methods, and designing interviews that reflect real work, organisations don’t just become fairer, they hire better.

Because sometimes, the best people aren’t the best performers under a spotlight. And that’s not a flaw, it’s a signal to rethink the spotlight.