It’s hard to think of a more universal hiring ritual than the interview. Nearly every school uses one, and nearly every hiring committee has a sense that it “went well” when the conversation feels easy and the candidate seems likable. Yet research makes it clear: likability does not guarantee strong performance.

The good news is that better questions lead to better interviews and better outcomes. With a bit of structure and intention, we can turn interviews from casual chats into powerful tools for gathering the data that really matters. Here are three guiding principles, plus a bonus tip, for building interview questions that help identify the right candidate, no matter the position you are trying to fill.

 1. Ask about what matters.

Every interview question should reveal evidence about what truly matters for success in the role. The strongest questions are anchored in a rubric, a straightforward tool that clarifies what to measure and what strong or weak evidence sounds like.

When a committee agrees that qualities like providing differentiated instruction or leading through ambiguity are essential, the rubric helps everyone listen for the same indicators. This approach turns a subjective conversation into a more disciplined assessment.

And those indicators should focus on what the candidate can do, not what they merely have. Instead of asking whether someone is “collaborative,” ask for an example that demonstrates collaboration in action. A good guiding question is: What data will this question give us about the person’s ability to succeed in this job? If you can’t answer that, the question probably doesn’t belong in the interview.

Structure transforms an interview from a conversation into a meaningful assessment. When committees identify key skills in advance, ask consistent questions, and use a shared rubric to score responses, they gain clearer insight into each candidate’s strengths. This approach not only improves accuracy but also builds fairness, transparency, and trust in the committee’s recommendation.

2. Make it behavior-based.

Committees sometimes try to make interviews more “real” by posing scenarios:

“We’re in the process of becoming an IB Diploma school. What would you do as a new faculty member to help ensure the transition goes smoothly?”

It’s an understandable impulse, but this kind of situational question is both too hard and too easy. It’s too hard because the candidate lacks the full context to respond meaningfully, and too easy because every theoretical answer can sound good in the abstract. Without the anchor of real experience, you learn little about what the candidate will bring to your school. A behavior-based question, by contrast—“Tell us about a time you helped navigate a major change”—elicits evidence rather than speculation.

That simple shift from “What would you do?” to “What have you done?” dramatically improves predictive power. Behavioral questions fit naturally with a structured approach. They are repeatable, comparable across candidates, and grounded in evidence that can be verified through reference work. When committees take the time to craft and score these questions carefully, interviews become true assessments of potential, not popularity contests.

3. Don’t answer your own question.

It’s tempting to tip your hand about what “good” looks like:

“Tell us about a time you dealt with a difficult parent and used your empathy and good listening skills to help diffuse the situation.”

This kind of question teaches the candidate what to say. Instead, strip away the hints:

“Tell us about a time you dealt with a difficult parent.”

Now, the committee can listen for empathy and good listening as they appear naturally in the story. The goal is to observe authentic behavior, not to see if the candidate can fill in the blanks you have provided.

Bonus: Keep it short.

Long, complex questions confuse candidates and make it harder to gather useful information. Clear, concise prompts help everyone focus. Consider how the following question improves when simplified:

Before:

“Can you describe a time when you had to navigate a complex conflict between colleagues while also maintaining team morale and demonstrating transparency in your communication?”

After:

“Tell us about a time you resolved a conflict on your team.”

The second version is clear and direct. It targets a critical skill, asks for a real example, and avoids giving away the answer.

Bringing it together

A well-constructed interview need not feel mechanical. In fact, when committees use purposeful, behavior-based questions and evaluate them against a clear rubric, the conversation often feels more natural. Candidates reflect on real experiences, allowing the committee to see who they truly are as professionals, not just how they’d like to appear.

Interviews are here to stay, but their effectiveness depends on how thoughtfully we use them. Ask about what matters, record data, don’t give away the answer, and keep questions short. In a process that shapes the future of your school, those small design choices can make all the difference.