> less than 10% of the companies that I've interviewed with have said that their interview process was designed to evaluate how effectively someone could do the

> less than 10% of the companies that I've interviewed with have said that their interview process was designed to evaluate how effectively someone could do the job that they're being hired for. I don't think an interview process can do this tbh. A good interview process can evaluate if they can do the job that they're being hired for, in most cases, but I would say only an actual trial/probationary period can evaluate how effectively they can do it. And even then, how effective they are may be environmental - completely external to their own internal competence. After concluding that a candidate can do the job, the secondary purpose of the interview process is filtering for people that will positively affect the work environment of their colleagues (and/or filter out those who may negatively affect others). As an interviewer, I would make some effort not to lean too heavily on my own biases and try and also consider how they'd get on with my colleagues that I know well, but there is unfortunately always going to be some implicit bias here.