Multiple interviewers: preventing groupthink in the selection process

You’ll recognise the moment: everyone’s nodding along

The candidate has left the room, someone makes a definitive statement (“this is the one’), and before you know it, the rest go along with it. Not because everyone has seen the same thing, but because that first interpretation colours the conversation. That’s groupthink: a group converges on a single judgement, whilst the underlying observations often haven’t even been put on the table yet.

Using multiple interviewers actually allows for a more reliable assessment, provided you structure the process in such a way that individual observations are first recorded “unadulterated”. The aim is not to eliminate differences of opinion, but to use them as data: why did one person see risks whilst another saw potential?

Why having multiple assessors often leads to a loss of objectivity

Having more assessors would seem to be better by default. In practice, however, the likelihood of confusion increases if you do not agree on when to observe, when to mark and when to discuss the results.

Groupthink arises primarily through three mechanisms:

• Anchor effect: The first score or impression given becomes the benchmark for the rest.
• Status and dominance: The opinion of the most senior or most outspoken interviewer is given greater weight than the evidence.
• Social harmony: People tend to avoid conflict and subconsciously opt for consensus, particularly when under time pressure.

This is particularly evident when stakeholders have differing interests. Operations wants speed, HR wants process reliability, the manager wants “someone who’s a good fit”, and sales looks for persuasiveness. Without a set format, it becomes a negotiation rather than an assessment.

The basic rule that works: work independently first, then work together

The essence of Using multiple interviewers to prevent groupthink It’s simple: everyone scores and records their results independently first, without discussion. Only then do you compare your findings.

In practice, this only works if you make it specific. So not “everyone takes a moment to think”, but a set sequence with a fixed time limit.

Work with evidence, not opinions

Allow interviewers to take brief, factual notes during the interview. No labels such as “strong” or “doubtful”, just observations.

• What was the situation the candidate described?
• What actions did he or she mention?
• What specific results were achieved (figures, turnaround time, quality, safety)?
• Which follow-up question provided further detail?

This ties in with working using a fixed structure and questionnaire. If you don’t have one yet, start by How to conduct a structured interview in 8 steps, so that everyone assesses the same input.

Use a single, common benchmark (scorecard) before the panel meeting

Independent scoring is of little value if everyone has a different definition of a “4”. Use a short scorecard with behavioural anchors.

A practical approach is set out in Create a selection scorecard for hiring managers. Ensure that every interviewer uses exactly the same scorecard.

3 practical formats for panels and stakeholders

The formats below are intended for teams with multiple decision-makers. Choose one per vacancy and do not deviate from this for each candidate.

Format 1: Split-panel with fixed topics (45–60 mins)

This format is useful when stakeholders have different areas of expertise. You divide the interview into sections, each with a clear “owner”.

• Interviewer A (subject matter): 2 behavioural questions + 1 work-related case study.
• Interviewer B (collaboration/safety/quality): 2 behavioural questions, focusing on risks and standards.
• Interviewer C (manager/customer): 1 behavioural question + context questions (team, travel time, availability).

Rules to prevent groupthink:

• Everyone scores per block immediately after the answer (30–60 seconds’ silence).
• No discussion during the interview; only the owner of the segment may ask follow-up questions.
• Afterwards: 5 minutes for individual final scores and advice (continue/stop/unsure, subject to conditions).

Format 2: Sequential interview with “blind review” (2 rounds)

This format works well if you have a lot of internal opinions, or if one stakeholder often leads the group. You organise two interviews with different interviewers.

• Round 1: two interviewers, core competencies and a case study.
• Round 2: two other interviewers, an in-depth look at risks, collaboration and a realistic preview of the job.

Important: interviewers from round 2 will receive not the scores or impressions from round 1 – just the job requirements and the format. This prevents round 2 from unconsciously seeking confirmation.

If you find that your organisation often makes decisions “on a hunch” too quickly, make sure you also These 4 mistakes are costing you your best candidates as well. The section on jumping to conclusions, in particular, ties in directly with this.

Format 3: Score-then-share during the debriefing session (15–25 mins)

This is the minimum format for teams that are short on time but still want to involve several decision-makers.

• Step 1 (3 mins): Everyone completes the scorecard independently and selects a final recommendation.
• Step 2 (for each criterion): Each person briefly states their score and provides evidence, without pausing.
• Step 3 (5 mins): Only differences of 2 points or more will be discussed.
• Step 4 (2 mins): decision + setting out the risks and conditions for the next round.

This method keeps the conversation fact-based. You limit discussion time to the areas where it really matters.

Practical arrangements you can put into practice straight away

Regardless of the format, there are a few procedural rules that almost always yield positive results, even without a training programme.

Establish a decision-making rule in advance

Make it clear what constitutes a deal-breaker and what can be developed. Consider factors such as safety, certification, willingness to work shifts or minimum experience with certain machines.

By agreeing this in advance, you can prevent the team from raising the bar after a friendly first meeting.

Let the chairperson simply oversee the process

Appoint one person to act as the process facilitator during the panel discussion or debrief. That person should not summarise the content or offer an initial judgement.

The task is simple: keep an eye on the time, let everyone score, and make sure the evidence comes first.

Limit “cultural fit” to observable behaviour

“Fits into the team” is often a catch-all term for personal preference. Break it down into behaviour that you can assess: accepting feedback, collaborating during shift handover, dealing with conflicts, and taking ownership.

For bias-aware recruitment and selection, the ACAS guidance on recruitment and selection practical guidance, including the importance of consistent criteria and minimising bias.

A simple table to record your panel appointments

This table helps to clarify at a glance who does what, and when. This reduces the likelihood of the panel resorting to “free discussion” after all.

How to justify this to the candidate and the organisation

Having multiple assessors also raises a question regarding documentation: what should you record, and how should you handle application data?

The The Dutch Data Protection Authority on job application data provides clear guidelines on record-keeping, transparency and the handling of notes. Ensure that interviewers know what should and should not be included in their notes.

Next step: keep it simple and repeatable

If you want to do this better as early as tomorrow, choose one vacancy, one format and one scorecard. After interviewing 4–6 candidates, hold a brief debrief: where did the discussion seem to be based on gut feeling, and which questions provided the best evidence?

If you’d like to discuss a practical panel structure, scoring criteria and a streamlined debrief format suited to blue-collar, sales or maritime roles, FosFor often helps teams to design and refine their selection process based on data and practical experience. Please feel free to get in touch for an in-depth discussion.