In a recent LinkedIn post, Rob Dance discusses how rigid interview processes can cause employers to overlook candidates who might thrive in a different role. This article reports on Dance’s argument and the example he shared, rather than presenting his post as an article written by him.
“I was trying to understand people through a checklist.”
When interviews become checklists
Dance says he spent years using a fixed set of questions, a set time slot and only a few minutes at the end for candidates to speak freely. In his view, that format narrowed the conversation: it encouraged interviewers to assess applicants against a predefined role instead of learning more about their abilities and preferences.
“It was a flawed process,” Dance writes, describing the result as finding “good people in the wrong roles.” His criticism is not that interviews should have no direction, but that a rigid format can make it harder to recognize a candidate’s broader potential.
A conversation revealed a better fit
Dance illustrates the change with a candidate who asked whether a particular job could be done remotely. The role called for close collaboration, he explains, so remote work might not have suited its requirements. Rather than ending the discussion there, Dance considered whether the candidate’s strengths might match another position.
“Instead of ending the conversation, I looked at what else they could do.”
According to Dance, the conversation led to another role that better matched the candidate, who later thrived. The example shows how a hiring discussion can uncover options beyond the opening that prompted the interview.
Hiring for a person as well as a role
Dance argues that a rigid process risks making the job description the sole measure of fit. His post suggests that a more conversational approach can give employers room to explore what a candidate can contribute, even when the original role is not suitable.
“You risk hiring for a job description rather than finding the right person.”
His account does not claim that structure is unnecessary; instead, it highlights the possibility that an overly fixed checklist can constrain what interviewers learn. Dance’s central point is that considering alternative roles during an interview may help organizations spot talent they would otherwise miss.
By sharing a specific hiring experience, Dance makes a case for interviews that leave room for genuine discussion. The post presents adaptability as a way to connect candidates with work that suits their strengths, rather than treating every interview as a pass-or-fail test for one predefined vacancy.
📝 About This Content
This article is based on insights shared by Rob Dance on LinkedIn.
📅 Originally posted on November 5, 2026 | View original post on LinkedIn →