Some candidates are really good in interviews. Of course, that could be because they spent a lot of time preparing polished answers to standard—and, frankly, overused—interview questions. Sometimes, though, it’s simply because they’re confident, articulate, and knowledgeable.
Unfortunately, being good at interviews is not the same as being good at the job.
Meanwhile, another candidate may be less polished and more nervous, but still have the judgment, work ethic, curiosity, coachability, and problem-solving ability you actually need. In other words, your best candidate may not be the best performer in the interview. And if your hiring process does not account for that, you may keep choosing the person who interviews best instead of the person who will work best.
Here are some examples of people who may not interview well, but who might still be good candidates.
1. The Introvert
Introverts are not automatically shy, awkward, or bad communicators. I just want to clear that up before I get angry comments—and because I myself am an introvert. Many of us, in fact, communicate very well. We simply prefer time to think before answering, especially when the question is broad, vague, or unexpectedly phrased.
Now, if you were to ask me a question like, “Tell me about a time you overcame a challenge,” I might pause. Not because I lack experience, but because I’m thinking. A more talkative candidate may start speaking immediately and find the answer as they go. An introverted candidate may prefer to find the answer first and then speak. Neither approach is automatically better. They are just different.
The risk is that interviewers sometimes mistake quickness for competence. A fast answer can sound confident, while a pause can look uncertain. But in many jobs, the better candidate is not the person who responds instantly. It is the person who thinks carefully and avoids making decisions with the energy of someone buying a flashlight-putter-radio combo from a 2 a.m. infomercial.
How to get the best out of them during interviews:
You can get better information by giving candidates a moment to think. Say, “Take a minute if you need to.” Ask clear, specific questions instead of huge, open-ended ones, like “If you were an animal, what animal would you be and why?”
2. The Anxious Candidate
Some candidates get nervous in interviews because interviews are, well, nerve-wracking. This is particularly true if the person has been unemployed for several months and desperately needs a job. That would make plenty of normal people nervous.
Anxious candidates may speak too quickly, over-explain, lose their train of thought, or undersell themselves. They may need a little time to settle in before their actual ability shows up. Their anxiety may make them look less confident, but less confident does not necessarily mean less capable.
Of course, this depends on the role. If the job you’re hiring for requires frequent high-pressure presentations, high-stakes negotiations, or live crisis management, then interview composure may matter quite a bit. But even then, nervousness in an interview is not automatically proof that someone cannot handle the job. It may simply mean they care, or that the interview format is not the best setting for them to demonstrate their strengths.
Sometimes the anxious candidate has prepared thoroughly, wants to do well, and is painfully aware of every word coming out of their mouth. Meanwhile, the overconfident candidate may be winging it beautifully. Be careful not to confuse calm with competence. A candidate can be nervous and excellent. A candidate can be confident and tremendously wrong.
How to get the best out of them during interviews:
You can help by making the interview feel like a professional conversation, not a stress test. Ask one question at a time. If a candidate loses their train of thought, let them return to the question. If they give a vague answer, ask for a specific example instead of silently judging.
3. The Career Changer
Career changers are often underestimated because their resumes may not have the exact title you expected. They may not come from your industry. They may not know every tool or acronym. Their career path may look zigzaggy instead of vertical, which can make hiring managers nervous.
But career changers often bring something valuable: transferable skills. They may have solved complex problems, trained teams, handled pressure, worked across departments, analyzed data, coordinated projects, or communicated with really difficult clients. Those skills count.
For example:
- A candidate moving from hospitality into customer service may understand the importance of conflict resolution, emotional regulation, and difficult conversations.
- A teacher moving into corporate training may understand the importance of learning design, group facilitation, motivation, and behavior management.
How to get the best out of them during interviews:
Uncover their strengths by asking about transferable skills directly. Instead of focusing only on what they have not done, ask what they have done that plays into the role.
“What parts of your previous experience do you think are most relevant here?”
“What skills from your past roles would help you succeed in this one?”
“What would you need training on, and where could you contribute quickly?”
These questions help separate serious gaps from trainable ones.
4. The Non-Self-Promoter
Some people are excellent at their jobs and terrible at talking themselves up. They may downplay their accomplishments, say “we achieved this” when they should say “I.”
These candidates may not know how to package their achievements. They may describe major contributions as if they were everyday tasks. A candidate might say, “I just helped improve the reporting process,” when what they actually mean is that they created a system that saved the team ten hours a week, reduced errors, and trained three coworkers.
The risk is that hiring managers reward candidates who are best at self-promotion, not candidates who have done the best work. Some people—and people from some cultural backgrounds—have been taught not to brag. Others are so used to being reliable that they do not realize how much value they bring.
How to get the best out of them during interviews:
You can draw out impact by asking follow-up questions that help candidates clarify their role. Ask:
“What was your specific contribution?”
“What changed because of your work?”
“How did you know it was successful?”
“What part of that project are you most proud of?”
These questions help uncover impact without making the candidate feel like they are being arrogant.
5. The Nonlinear Candidate
Not every strong candidate has a clean, uninterrupted career path. Some people took time off for family responsibilities, health reasons, relocation, education, burnout, layoffs, or simply realizing that their previous career path felt more suffocating than inspiring.
A nonlinear resume does not automatically mean a candidate is unreliable. Sometimes it means life happened. Of course, patterns matter. If someone has repeatedly left roles without a clear explanation, or cannot explain their career decisions at all, that is worth exploring. But gaps and pivots should not automatically push someone into the “no” pile.
A candidate with a nonlinear path may be adaptable, resilient, and clear about what they want now. They may have learned from past experiences. They may be more intentional because they have already made hard decisions. That can be valuable.
How to get the best out of them during interviews:
Ask questions that are respectful and focus on relevance.
“What led you to this field?”
“What are you looking for in your next role?”
“How do your past experiences connect to this position?”
“What helped you decide this is the direction you want to pursue?”
You do not need to interrogate them about the gaps or job changes in their resume. You need to understand whether they can do the job and whether their direction now makes sense.
Look for Evidence, Not Polish
Of course, a poor interview can still reveal real concerns. Vague answers, blame-shifting, lack of preparation, unrealistic expectations, or no clear connection to the role are red flags worth paying attention to. My point, however, is to stop treating interview polish as the same thing as potential.
If you want better hiring decisions, build an interview process that gives different types of candidates a fair chance to show what they can do. Use better interview questions. Ask for specific examples. Give candidates time to think. Look for patterns across the resume, interview, and references. Use assessments. Separate trainable gaps from skill gaps that are way too wide to bridge.
Most importantly, define what success in the role actually requires. If the role involves public speaking, persuasion, or quick thinking under pressure, then interview performance may tell you something useful. But if the role requires careful analysis, reliability, technical skill, problem-solving, or independent execution, the smoothest interviewee may not be the strongest candidate.
So yes, pay attention to how someone interviews, but don’t confuse the performance with the person.