Mark: A study found that resumes with white-sounding names got 50% more callbacks than identical resumes with Black-sounding names. The interview process is biased before you even walk in the door. Today, we're talking about how to fix it. Michelle: And that is the central, uncomfortable truth that author Anna Papalia tackles in her book, Interviewology: The New Science of Interviewing. She argues that the entire system we rely on to get jobs is fundamentally broken. Mark: Papalia is such an interesting figure to write this. She wasn't just an academic looking from the outside in; she was a Director of Talent Acquisition who openly admits she used to hire based on 'gut instinct.' She was part of the problem. Michelle: Exactly. And that's what makes her perspective so powerful. She had this crisis of conscience, left her corporate role, and spent over a decade at Temple University's Fox School of Business researching this. She collected data from thousands of students and professionals to build a new, scientifically-validated framework for interviewing. Mark: Wow, so she basically built a whole new system from the ground up after realizing the one she was using was flawed. Michelle: She had to. And before she could build that new system, she had to confront just how broken the old one was. Her own story is the perfect, and frankly, terrifying, place to start.

Michelle: As a director of talent, Papalia was successful. She was known for her great instincts. She’d meet a candidate, and within minutes, she’d feel a “click.” She trusted that feeling. It felt like a superpower. She hired people she connected with, people who were like her. Mark: I mean, that sounds like what every hiring manager says they do. They talk about "cultural fit" or just having a "good feeling" about someone. It sounds positive on the surface. Michelle: That’s the trap. One day, she was looking to hire an internal accountant. She was interviewing candidates and found herself thinking, "I just need to click with them." And then a question hit her like a lightning bolt: "Why? Why do I, the Director of Talent, need to 'click' with an accountant who will spend all day working with spreadsheets and other departments?" Mark: Oh, that’s a dangerous question to ask yourself. Michelle: It unraveled everything. She looked back at her hiring record and had a horrifying realization. She wasn't hiring the best people. She was hiring people who were like her. Her "instinct" wasn't a superpower; it was just implicit bias. She was building an organization that reflected her own personality, not a diverse group of the most qualified people. She asked herself the question that’s at the heart of this book: "Am I biased?" And the answer was yes. Mark: That is a brutal moment of self-awareness. And it’s terrifying because it means countless people are getting rejected not because of their skills, but because they didn't happen to "click" with the interviewer's personality. It’s a lottery. Michelle: It's worse than a lottery; it's a system rigged in favor of similarity. And it's often perpetuated by people who have no idea they're doing it. Papalia tells this other story about meeting a CEO at a restaurant. He was so proud of his "secret weapon" interview question. Mark: Let me guess, it was something like "If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?" Michelle: You're shockingly close. He asked every candidate, "If you were a crayon, what color would you be and why?" He was convinced this revealed their true personality and suitability for the job. Mark: Come on. That sounds like a parody from a TV show. Does that kind of thing actually happen? Michelle: All the time. And Papalia just looked at him and asked, "Is 'being a crayon' a required skill for this job?" Because if it's not, the question is irrelevant and just another opportunity for bias to creep in. The CEO is just hiring people whose crayon answers he happens to like. Mark: And this isn't just a few bad apples, right? The book points out that this is systemic. Michelle: Completely. The data she cites is staggering. Over 90 percent of hiring managers report that they were never formally trained to interview. We have untrained people using arbitrary, biased methods to make decisions that can cost a company upwards of $200,000 for a single bad hire. The whole process is built on a foundation of sand. Mark: Okay, so the system is a mess. It's biased, it's arbitrary, and it's costing everyone. I'm thoroughly depressed. How do we fix it? What's this 'new science' that Papalia promises?

Michelle: This is where it gets really fascinating. Papalia realized that the problem with all traditional interview advice—you know, "wear a blue suit," "give a firm handshake," "use these specific words"—is that it assumes there's one "right" way to interview. Mark: Which there obviously isn't. Michelle: Exactly. Her breakthrough came from a conversation with her aunt, a retired teacher, who suggested her students might have different learning styles. And a lightbulb went off for Papalia: What if people have different interviewing styles? This led her to develop the Interviewology Profile, which is essentially a personality test for how you behave in an interview. Mark: So it’s like finding your "interview love language." Michelle: That’s a perfect analogy! And the first thing she discovered is something she calls the "Interview Effect." It explains why our interview self is often a complete stranger. She tells the story of a student named Ryan. For three years, she knew Ryan as this super talkative extrovert, the kind of guy who would talk to anyone, anywhere. Mark: We all know a Ryan. Michelle: Right. So Ryan takes her Interviewology assessment, and the results come back: he’s a strong introvert in interviews. Papalia is baffled. She pulls him aside and says, "Ryan, this can't be right. You're one of the most extroverted people I know." And Ryan says, "Oh yeah, but in an interview? I shut right down. I get quiet, I just listen. I feel like I can't be myself." Mark: Whoa. So the high-pressure, artificial environment of an interview can literally flip your personality upside down. 'Interview Effect' sounds clinical, but that’s a very real experience. I've felt that. Michelle: It’s a core discovery of the book. An interview is an artificial event, and it makes us behave in artificial ways. Your interview style isn't necessarily your personality; it's your performance persona. And Papalia's research validated that there are four distinct performance personas, or styles. Mark: Okay, this is the heart of it. Let's hear them. What are the four styles? Michelle: They are the Charmer, the Challenger, the Examiner, and the Harmonizer. Each one is driven by a different core motivation. Mark: Can you give us the one-line summary for each? What's each one thinking when they walk into that room? Michelle: Absolutely. The Charmer thinks, "I want to be liked." They focus on building rapport and making a connection. The Challenger thinks, "I want to be me." They prioritize authenticity and being respected for their ideas, even if it means being blunt. The Examiner thinks, "I want to get it right." They treat the interview like a test, focusing on facts, precision, and correct answers. And finally, the Harmonizer thinks, "I want to adapt." They try to read the room and fit in, making everyone comfortable. Mark: Oh, I am 100% an Examiner. I over-prepare, I memorize my answers, and I probably come across like a friendly robot. I can see myself in that description so clearly. What about you, Michelle? Michelle: I definitely have some Charmer tendencies. I lean into storytelling and building a connection. But that's the point—once you know your style, you understand your strengths and your blind spots. Mark: Okay, so what happens when these styles clash? What happens when a Charmer candidate, who wants to be liked, meets an Examiner interviewer, who just wants the facts? Is it a total disaster? Michelle: It can be! The book gives a perfect, cringe-worthy example. A recruiter named Tyronne, a classic Examiner, is phone-screening a candidate for an IT job. Tyronne is all business. No small talk, just "Why are you leaving your current job?" Mark: Straight to the point. My kind of guy. Michelle: The candidate, however, is a total Charmer. He answers the question with a long, enthusiastic story about how he led a software deployment overnight, and then he tries to connect it to coaching his kid's soccer team. He’s trying to be liked, to show he’s a go-getter with a personality. Mark: And how does Tyronne the Examiner react to this? Michelle: With total confusion. He just says, "You wouldn't have to work at night here. It’s a traditional nine-to-five position." He completely misses the Charmer's attempt to show passion and instead just hears an irrelevant detail. The Charmer keeps trying to build rapport, and the Examiner keeps trying to get a straight answer. The interview ends with the Charmer thinking he nailed it because he was so friendly, and the Examiner thinking the candidate was unfocused and couldn't answer a simple question. No job offer. Mark: Wow. And neither of them did anything "wrong," they just spoke completely different languages. That one story explains so much about why interviews feel so random and frustrating. Michelle: It’s a fundamental mismatch of styles. And the book has received some mixed reviews online, with a few readers feeling the four styles might be a bit too simple. But I think that misses the point. Mark: What is the point, then? Is it just to learn your style and stick to it? Michelle: I don't think so. The real goal isn't just to get a label. It's about gaining self-awareness.

Mark: So if the big takeaway isn't just "I'm a Challenger, deal with it," what is it? What's the ultimate lesson from Interviewology? Michelle: The ultimate lesson is that self-awareness is the only real competitive advantage in interviewing. Papalia has this fantastic quote: "The key to great interview prep isn’t the right suit, it’s self-awareness." Mark: I like that. Michelle: For the job seeker, it’s about understanding how you are likely to be perceived. If you're an Examiner like you, Mark, you know your tendency is to be precise but maybe a little cold. So you can make a conscious effort to add a bit more warmth or a personal story without feeling inauthentic. You're not changing who you are; you're just turning up the volume on a different part of your personality. Mark: You’re managing your performance, not faking it. Michelle: Exactly. And for the hiring manager, it's even more critical. It's about recognizing that your preferred style isn't the only valid one. If you're a Challenger who likes direct debate, you need to realize that a Harmonizer candidate who is agreeable and adaptive isn't weak—they might be an incredible team builder. Self-awareness helps you dismantle your own biases. Mark: So it’s about expanding your definition of what a "good candidate" looks and sounds like. You stop hiring clones of yourself. Michelle: You stop hiring clones. You start building a truly diverse and effective team. The book is a tool to give us a common language to talk about these differences. It makes the invisible dynamics of an interview visible. Mark: It really makes you wonder, doesn't it? How many amazing opportunities have been lost—for both companies and candidates—all because of a simple, invisible style mismatch? Michelle: It's a staggering thought. And it’s a problem we can start to solve, just by understanding ourselves a little better. Mark: We'd love to hear what you think your interview style is. Find us on our socials and let us know if you're a Charmer, Challenger, Examiner, or Harmonizer. We're curious to see what our Aibrary community is made of. Michelle: This is Aibrary, signing off.