Let’s talk interviews: a conversation with our expert Félix

Conducting an interview isn’t just about asking questions and checking boxes. It’s an art, a science, and above all, an exercise in active listening and strategic assessment. And who better to discuss it with than Félix, our resident expert in behavioural interviewing?

In this insightful conversation, he shares his thoughts on how company culture influences hiring, the common pitfalls recruiters should avoid, and the best practices for evaluating candidates beyond their résumés to make better hiring decisions.

Ready to sharpen your interviewing skills? Let’s dive in!

Félix, you’re our go-to expert on everything related to behavioural interviews and candidate assessment. Whenever we have questions, you’re the person we turn to. You’ve hosted several SourCinq@7 sessions on the topic, and you’re THE person we count on when it comes to improving our interviewing practices.

Let’s jump right in. How do you think a company’s values and culture influence its hiring process?

Félix: Great question! You can often get a pretty good sense of a company’s culture just by looking at its hiring process.

Let’s look at two extremes.

Some companies have incredibly long and complicated hiring processes. Multiple stages, countless stakeholders, complex assessments… The whole process becomes cumbersome, and making a decision takes forever.

What does that tell candidates? That they’re dealing with a bureaucratic organization where every decision takes an eternity.

On the other hand, some organizations, often more agile or fast-growing, have a much simpler process:

• A solid initial phone screening.
• An interview with the recruiter and hiring manager.
• A final meeting with the hiring manager’s manager to confirm the decision, without starting the entire process over again.

The problem with lengthy hiring processes is that candidates often end up repeating the same information multiple times.

A second interview shouldn’t be a carbon copy of the first. It should focus on validating specific points.

If your hiring process takes more than two months, there’s a good chance candidates will start wondering:

“If hiring takes this long, imagine how slowly decisions must get made internally…”

And it’s no surprise that some candidates turn down offers for exactly that reason!

So yes, the recruitment process can absolutely reflect a company’s culture. If it’s too long, overly bureaucratic, or poorly organized, it sends a message.

A good hiring process should be consistent with how the company actually operates while providing a positive candidate experience.

Best Practices for Interview Preparation

Let’s talk about preparation. We often work with several companies at once. How do you make sure you understand each organization well enough to represent it effectively during interviews?

Félix: This is genuinely one of the most important aspects of being a recruiter!

When you work in-house, you naturally know your organization pretty well. But in consulting, like we do at Sourcinc, we’re juggling several clients at once. That means we need to be even more thorough in our preparation.

First, understand the business operations. It’s not just about knowing the company’s mission and values. You need to understand how things actually work day to day.

Next, understand the department and organizational structure. Who reports to whom? What challenges is the team currently facing?

Then, dig into the position itself. Don’t settle for a generic job description. A proper intake meeting with the hiring manager should involve an hour of meaningful discussion, not a quick ten-minute conversation squeezed between meetings.

Why?

Because when I sit down with a candidate, I want to speak the company’s language, provide specific details, and confidently answer their questions.

It also prevents unpleasant surprises. Neither candidates nor hiring managers appreciate discovering later in the process that expectations weren’t clear.

Creating a Comfortable Interview Environment

We know that creating a comfortable environment is essential, both for the candidate experience and for helping people perform at their best during an interview. What do you do to put candidates at ease?

Félix: Whether the interview is virtual or in person, the principle is the same: candidates need to feel that we’re genuinely interested in them, their experience, and their skills.

Everyone is different.

An extroverted candidate might feel comfortable right away, while an introverted person may need a little more time to settle in.

But here’s the thing: we’re not hiring people based on their personalities.

My goal isn’t to assess how socially comfortable someone is. It’s to evaluate their skills.

An interview should never feel like a trap.

That’s why I follow a few basic rules.

Always be on time. It might seem obvious, but nothing makes a candidate more uncomfortable than a recruiter who appears rushed or distracted. Showing up late sends the wrong message and can immediately put someone on the defensive.

Take a moment to break the ice. I always thank candidates for their time and briefly review the steps that brought them to the interview.

Explain the game plan. I take the time to walk candidates through the agenda at the beginning of the interview. This is essential for setting expectations and reducing anxiety. I explain what type of interview we’ll be conducting, which topics we’ll cover, and what criteria we’ll use to assess them.

Virtual interviews require a slightly different approach.

Many candidates squeeze interviews between meetings or schedule them at the end of their workday.

Sometimes, I can immediately tell that someone is still caught up in the energy of their previous meeting. They’re stressed, distracted, or rushing.

When that happens, I have no problem offering them a short break before we begin.

We sometimes forget that we’re simply humans talking to other humans.

Paying attention to nonverbal cues, giving candidates room to breathe, and creating a respectful environment are the foundations of a successful interview.

The Infamous “Culture Fit”

You said something interesting earlier: “We’re not hiring people based on their personalities.” We hear a lot about finding the right “fit” during interviews. What’s your take on that?

Félix: Ah, the famous “fit”!

Everyone wants to find that perfect candidate.

But whenever I hear a hiring manager say, “I just didn’t fall in love with this candidate,” that’s a red flag for me.

That kind of thinking opens the door to unconscious bias.

We need to be careful when talking about the “right fit” or the “right personality.”

Of course, candidates should share the company’s values and be able to thrive in its environment.

But making a hiring decision based on a subjective impression after a one-hour conversation? That’s risky.

An interview isn’t a first date.

You’re not looking for your new best friend. You’re looking for someone who will bring value to your team.

A candidate might seem less natural or outgoing during an interview but turn out to be an incredible asset once they’re on the job.

Conversely, someone who makes you feel like you could become best friends isn’t necessarily the most qualified person.

The danger is that we sometimes end up hiring people who are too similar to ourselves.

If everyone on the team thinks alike, has the same background, and shares the same interests, we lose diversity and complementary skills.

And a team that’s too homogeneous can actually hinder innovation.

So yes, we need to assess whether someone aligns with the company’s culture, but without falling into the trap of “I’ve got a good feeling about this person” or “We really clicked.”

Good hiring decisions should be based primarily on objective criteria and solid competencies.

Different Types of Interviews: Which Should You Use and Why?

Let’s explore the different types of interviews, because there are quite a few. We often talk about behavioural interviews since that’s your specialty, but what other approaches are there? Can you briefly walk us through them and explain their characteristics?

Félix: Absolutely! There are several types of interviews, and sometimes combining different approaches makes sense.

Technical interviews

These are particularly common in specialized fields like IT.

Their purpose is to confirm that candidates have the technical skills required for the position.

Behavioural interviews

This approach focuses on candidates’ past professional experiences.

The goal is to understand what they’ve actually done and how they’ve responded to specific situations.

For example, we might ask:

• Tell me about a major project you worked on.
• What made it challenging?
• What actions did you take?
• What was the outcome?

If someone can clearly explain their role in a project and the steps they took to achieve results, there’s a good chance they’ll be able to demonstrate similar performance in your organization.

Situational interviews

Unlike behavioural interviews, which focus on past experiences, situational interviews present candidates with hypothetical scenarios and assess how they would handle them.

This can be a useful approach for junior candidates who have limited professional experience.

For example, a recent university graduate might say, “In that situation, I would probably do this…”

It’s not ideal, but it still gives us some insight into their instincts and reasoning.

There’s a catch, though.

Someone who’s comfortable under pressure and communicates well might give perfect answers to hypothetical questions, but that doesn’t guarantee they’ll perform just as well on the job.

Another challenge is ensuring a fair comparison between candidates.

Someone with eight years of experience will naturally have more situations to draw from than someone with three years of experience.

That can skew the assessment.

Unstructured interviews

These are informal conversations without a predetermined structure.

They can help establish a natural connection with candidates, but they have limitations when it comes to objectively assessing competencies.

Unstructured interviews don’t guarantee a consistent, repeatable evaluation process across candidates.

They can still be useful for assessing interpersonal skills and cultural alignment, but they shouldn’t be the only selection method.

Interview Bias: Common Pitfalls to Avoid

Let’s talk about bias in interviews. It’s an important topic because we all have biases, whether we’re aware of them or not. How do you minimize their impact when you’re sitting in the interviewer’s chair?

Félix: We could talk about this for hours!

But if I had to sum it up, my first rule would be simple: avoid personal questions at all costs.

Not only is it bad practice, but asking certain personal questions is also illegal.

You shouldn’t ask candidates about:

• Their family life.
• Their relationship status.
• Their religion.
• Any other aspect of their private life.

Even if candidates voluntarily share something personal, you shouldn’t pursue that topic.

The interview needs to remain strictly professional.

Focusing on competencies and job requirements is one of the best ways to minimize bias.

But we also need to remember that positive biases can be just as problematic as negative ones.

Here’s an example.

Let’s say you’re passionate about skiing, and you notice that a candidate enjoys skiing too.

Naturally, the conversation shifts toward that shared interest, and you start building a connection.

The result? Your objectivity is compromised.

Studies have shown that when recruiters feel a personal connection with candidates, they tend to be more lenient and ask fewer challenging questions.

The same principle applies to the cultural fit we discussed earlier.

A hiring manager might say, “I don’t know, something just feels off…”

Or, on the flip side, “I had such a great feeling about her!”

In both cases, there’s a risk of biased evaluation.

A good recruiter isn’t looking for someone they’ll get along with perfectly.

They’re looking for the most qualified and competent person for the job.

And couldn’t we unintentionally influence candidates as well?

Félix: Exactly!

Recruiters also need to be careful not to trigger biases in candidates.

For example, displaying photos of your children, a sports team flag, or other highly personal items can influence how candidates behave.

They might unconsciously adjust their answers to match what they believe you’re expecting.

Personally, even though I’m a pretty expressive and colourful person outside of work, I try to remain neutral during interviews.

Friendly and approachable? Absolutely.

But without going overboard.

Some people think behavioural interviews are boring.

I completely disagree!

I find it fascinating to talk about people’s professional achievements, see how they’ve evolved, and understand how they’ve overcome challenges.

These conversations are incredibly rewarding.

And they allow us to assess candidates without falling into the traps of unconscious bias.

Potential vs. Experience: How Do You Make the Right Choice?

Let’s talk about choosing between potential and experience. How do you evaluate a candidate’s potential compared to their experience? And when you have two candidates who look equally strong on paper, how do you decide?

Félix: The key is to always come back to the actual needs of the position and the hiring manager.

There are situations where experience is absolutely essential.

For example, if a company is going through a critical period, whether it’s restructuring, an operational crisis, or an urgent project, it needs someone who already understands the challenges and can deliver results quickly.

That’s often the case in manufacturing or engineering environments, where you need someone who’s already been through similar situations.

But other circumstances call for a different approach.

Maybe a company has lost several experienced employees, or it’s trying to build its next generation of talent.

In those cases, it needs fresh perspectives, people with potential who learn quickly and can grow within the organization.

As a recruiter, I’m always trying to find the next superstar.

But sometimes, that’s not what the organization needs right now.

When a hiring manager is dealing with a crisis, they’ll naturally lean toward the more experienced candidate because that feels like the safer choice.

But experience alone doesn’t guarantee performance.

Here’s another trap to avoid: assuming someone with ten years of experience is automatically better than someone with five.

It’s not about how many years you’ve worked. It’s about what you’ve accomplished during those years.

We shouldn’t just look at how long someone has held a position.

We need to understand how their responsibilities have evolved and whether they’ve demonstrated an ability to adapt.

Another common mistake is comparing candidates to one another instead of comparing them to the requirements of the position.

When a hiring manager is torn between two candidates, they might start combining their strengths in their mind and imagining a perfect candidate who doesn’t actually exist.

I like to joke that I’m not locked away in my shed building Frankenstein!

To avoid that, we need to go back to the original requirements:

• What was the purpose of this hire in the first place?
• Which competencies are truly essential?
• What type of profile best matches the role, the team, and the organization’s business objectives?

The best approach is to evaluate each candidate against the ideal profile defined for the position rather than against another candidate.

That’s how you make an informed decision.

The Future of Interviews in the Age of AI

I have one last question. AI is everywhere these days. We know that tools like ChatGPT can be programmed to introduce or remove biases, analyze data, and much more. How do you see interviews evolving with these new technologies?

Félix: That’s a great question!

We shouldn’t be resistant to technology.

AI isn’t just a passing trend. It’s here to stay, and it’s going to play an increasingly important role in our lives and workplaces.

How far will it go? I honestly couldn’t tell you. I’m not an expert in that field.

What I do know is that we need to remain open to tools that can help us.

Our understanding of AI has already evolved tremendously over the past few years, and the technology is advancing at an incredible pace.

That said, I don’t think we’re at the point where a robot can conduct interviews for us.

AI adoption in recruitment needs to happen gradually and, above all, thoughtfully.

I’m convinced that preserving the human element of recruitment is essential.

That’s what builds trust and engagement between candidates and employers.

But that doesn’t mean AI can’t help!

Ideally, AI should free us from administrative tasks so we can be fully present during conversations with candidates.

I want to listen, understand, and interact, not spend the entire interview buried in my notes.

Where things get more complicated is candidate acceptance.

If an interview is being recorded to facilitate note-taking, or if an analytical tool is being used to support decision-making, candidates absolutely need to be informed.

But what happens if someone refuses to have their interview recorded?

Suddenly, you’re using a different process for different candidates, which could introduce bias into the evaluation.

That raises broader questions about ethics and fairness in recruitment.

There isn’t necessarily a right or wrong answer, but it’s definitely something we need to think carefully about.

Conclusion: Never Stop Learning and Evolving

Before we wrap up, is there anything else you’d like to add?

Félix: Yes. I think it’s essential to never be afraid of learning or questioning your own practices.

When I look back at my early days in recruitment, I realize how many mistakes I made.

For example, if a candidate mentioned hockey or basketball among their hobbies, I’d start talking about it to make them feel comfortable.

But without realizing it, I was creating a positive bias that affected my objectivity.

It’s normal to make those mistakes early in your career.

What matters is recognizing them and evolving.

And that doesn’t stop once you gain experience.

Even as an intermediate or senior recruiter, you need to keep challenging yourself.

When I joined Sourcinc, I was already an experienced recruiter.

But I’d spent my career in the corporate world.

I wanted to learn consulting, explore sourcing, and push myself outside my comfort zone.

It’s never easy, but it’s necessary.

And this applies to every aspect of recruitment best practices, not just interviews.

The job I do today looks nothing like the one I was doing 15 years ago.

Recruitment is probably one of the HR functions that has evolved the most.

That’s why people outside the industry don’t always understand what we do. Our role has changed dramatically.

But that’s no reason to resist change.

Recruitment is becoming increasingly complex.

And that’s exactly why those of us working in talent acquisition need to embrace change.

Whether that means:

• Exploring sourcing and new talent attraction techniques.
• Leveraging AI and optimizing our processes.
• Constantly challenging and improving our interviewing practices.

We need to focus on the strategic side of our profession.

We can’t recruit the same way we did 20 years ago, in a completely different environment, and expect to succeed.

Yes, stepping outside your comfort zone can be stressful.

Yes, it can be uncomfortable, sometimes for months.

But I can guarantee you one thing: you won’t regret it!