You want to get to know multiple candidates at once, observe teamwork skills, and save time in the process? The group interview promises exactly that. But reality often looks different: dominant candidates overshadow quieter talents, comparisons distort perception, and in the end, you're left with a vague gut feeling instead of a well-founded decision.

Current research shows that the type of interview has a significant impact on the quality of personnel selection. A meta-analysis by Sackett and colleagues (2022) demonstrates that structured interviews achieve a predictive validity of r=.42 – meaning they can predict approximately 18% of how successful someone will be in their job. Unstructured methods perform significantly worse. What does this mean for your group interview?

In this guide, you'll learn when group interviews make sense, what pitfalls to watch out for, and how to design them based on scientific principles. You'll receive a practical checklist, learn about typical bias traps, and discover how combining group interviews with objective aptitude assessment can improve the accuracy of your selection process.

What Is a Group Interview? Definition and Differentiation

A group interview is a personnel selection method where multiple candidates are questioned and observed simultaneously. Typically, two to eight candidates participate, working together on tasks, engaging in discussions, or answering questions. Recruiters can observe behaviors that remain hidden in one-on-one conversations: How does someone act in a team? How does the person communicate under pressure? Who takes responsibility?

The goal is clear: soft skills like teamwork, communication strength, and assertiveness become visible – qualities that don't emerge from resumes and cover letters. At the same time, the format allows for direct comparison – at least in theory.

Group Interview vs. Individual Interview: Key Differences

In an individual interview, one candidate sits across from one or more interviewers. The focus is on individual qualifications, career history, and personal fit. The conversation can flexibly adapt to the person, allows for in-depth follow-up questions, and creates a trusting atmosphere.

The group interview, on the other hand, relies on interaction between candidates. The focus shifts from individual competencies to social behavior within the group. Interviewers act more as observers and less as active conversation partners.

Panel Interview vs. Group Interview: Common Confusion

A frequent misconception: The panel interview is often equated with the group interview. In fact, they are fundamentally different formats.

In a panel interview, a single candidate faces multiple interviewers – for example, from HR, the relevant department, and management. The advantage: different perspectives feed into the evaluation. The disadvantage: the situation can be intimidating.

In a group interview, it's the opposite: multiple candidates are observed by one or a few interviewers. The candidates primarily interact with each other, not with the observers.

The Group Interview in Assessment Centers

Within an assessment center framework, the group interview is often one component among several. It's combined with individual interviews, case studies, in-tray exercises, and presentations. This combination of methods significantly increases the meaningfulness of results – a point we'll return to later.

According to studies, approximately 60% of larger companies in Germany (with more than 500 employees) use assessment centers in their recruitment process. Group exercises are almost always included.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Group Interviews

Before deciding on a group interview, you should carefully weigh the pros and cons. This method is not a cure-all – and in some situations, it's even counterproductive.

Advantages: Efficiency and Soft Skill Observation

Time efficiency: You can get to know multiple candidates simultaneously. In high-volume recruiting – for trainee programs or apprenticeships, for example – this saves considerable resources.

Observation of team behavior: Competencies like teamwork, conflict resolution, and communication become visible through interaction. A candidate who appears confident in an individual interview may display dominant or reserved behavior in a group setting.

Direct comparison: Theoretically, the group format enables immediate comparison of candidates. You see who takes responsibility, who contributes constructively, who holds back.

Cost savings: Fewer individual conversations mean less personnel deployment and lower costs per candidate.

Disadvantages: Bias, Comparability, and Data Protection

Bias susceptibility: Group interviews are prone to cognitive distortions. Contrast bias leads to candidates being evaluated in comparison to others – not against objective criteria. The halo-horns effect causes individual characteristics to overshadow the entire perception.

Limited comparability: Paradoxically, the "direct comparison" is often less objective than assumed. Interaction effects between candidates influence the outcome: whoever ends up in a group with particularly weak competitors automatically appears better – and vice versa.

Dominance behavior: Extroverted, articulate individuals assert themselves more easily in group formats. Introverted candidates with excellent qualifications are disadvantaged, even though introversion is not an indicator of lacking competence.

Confidentiality: Candidates see each other. This can be perceived as uncomfortable and violates the confidentiality of the application process.

No individualization: Individual questions, follow-ups on resumes, or deeper conversations are hardly possible in the group format.

When Is a Group Interview (Not) Appropriate?

Appropriate for:

• High-volume recruiting (many candidates, similar profiles)
• Positions with high team relevance (sales, customer service, project work)
• Trainee and apprenticeship programs
• Pre-selection before individual interviews

Not appropriate for:

• Leadership positions (individual depth is more important here)
• Sensitive positions with high confidentiality requirements
• Few candidates (below 4 people, group dynamics become limited)
• Highly diverse candidate profiles

The Group Interview Process: How to Conduct It

A successful group interview begins long before the actual appointment. Preparation determines whether you gain meaningful insights or just collect vague impressions.

Preparation: Requirements Profile and Evaluation Criteria

Before inviting candidates, clarify the following questions:

1. What competencies do you want to observe? Define a maximum of five to six competencies that can be made visible in the group format: communication skills, team orientation, assertiveness, problem-solving ability, stress resistance.

2. What tasks are suitable? The task should require interaction and fit the position. A group discussion on a controversial topic shows argumentation skills. A case study tests problem-solving. A quiz about the company checks preparation and knowledge.

3. Who observes and evaluates? Deploy multiple observers who evaluate independently. Each observer should intensively observe a maximum of one to two candidates. More is not realistic.

4. How is documentation done? Create a structured evaluation form with the defined competencies and a scale (e.g., 1-5). Note specific behavioral observations, not interpretations.

Typical Process: From Welcome to Evaluation

Phase 1: Welcome and Introduction (10-15 minutes)

• Introduction of interviewers and the process
• Creating transparency: What is being observed? How is evaluation done?
• Brief company presentation

Phase 2: Self-Presentation (15-20 minutes)

• Each candidate introduces themselves in 2-3 minutes
• Gathering first impressions, but not yet evaluating

Phase 3: Group Exercise (30-45 minutes)

• Group discussion, case study, or simulation
• Observers document behavior
• No intervention, except for rule violations

Phase 4: Reflection and Conclusion (10-15 minutes)

• Brief reflection round: How did candidates experience the exercise?
• Farewell and information about next steps

Phase 5: Evaluation (after the appointment)

• Independent evaluation by all observers
• Only then: Joint discussion and comparison
• Decision based on structured criteria

Example Questions and Exercises for Group Interviews

Group Discussion:

• "Should our company switch completely to remote work? Discuss the pros and cons and agree on a common position."
• "An important customer is dissatisfied. What measures do you take as a team?"

Case Study:

• "A competitor has launched a cheaper product on the market. Develop a strategy in 20 minutes."

Prioritization Task:

• "These 10 measures are available. You have budget for three. Agree as a group."

Company Quiz:

• Questions about products, history, values – tests preparation and motivation.

Bias in Group Interviews: Why Your Gut Feeling Is Misleading

Here's where it gets scientific: Group interviews are a gateway for cognitive distortions. If you don't know these mechanisms and actively counteract them, you'll systematically make suboptimal decisions.

Contrast Bias: The Comparison Effect

Contrast bias describes the tendency to evaluate a person in comparison to others – instead of against objective criteria.

Specifically: An average candidate suddenly appears outstanding after two weak applicants. Conversely, a good candidate seems weaker when speaking after a brilliant competitor.

The problem: The evaluation depends on the composition of the group, not on actual suitability for the position.

Halo Effect and Dominance Behavior

The halo-horns effect causes a single positive (or negative) characteristic to overshadow the entire perception. A likeable, eloquent candidate is also considered more professionally competent – even though there's no evidence for it.

In group interviews, this effect is amplified by dominance behavior: Those who talk a lot, actively moderate, and assert themselves leave a stronger impression. However, this says little about actual job performance.

Research shows that affinity bias – the preference for similar people – also plays a role: Interviewers unconsciously rate candidates better when they are similar in background, education, or interests.

How Objective Assessment Helps

Research is clear: Structuring and objectification improve the quality of selection decisions. Professor Uwe Peter Kanning examined the practices of German HR departments in 2016 and reached a sobering conclusion: While 60% of companies report having guidelines, only about 10% use a fixed question catalog. A mere 3% assign points in advance and have a uniform evaluation framework.

This means: Most companies are wasting potential. The solution lies in combining structured interviews with scientifically validated selection methods – more on this in the next section.

Structured Group Interviews: Science-Based Selection

What distinguishes a good group interview from a bad one? The answer is: structure. The more standardized the process, questions, and evaluation, the more meaningful the results.

What Research Says (Schmidt & Hunter, Sackett et al.)

The meta-analysis by Schmidt and Hunter (1998) is considered the gold standard for evaluating personnel selection methods. The key finding: Structured interviews achieve a validity of r=.51, unstructured ones only r=.38. Aptitude tests score with higher validity.

The updated analysis by Sackett and colleagues (2021/2022) confirms and differentiates these findings: Structured interviews have the highest average validity among interview methods (r=.42). Crucially, combining multiple methods significantly increases predictive power.

Levels of Structure: From "Free" to "Highly Structured"

There are different levels of structure:

Unstructured: No set questions, free conversation, no standardized evaluation. Validity: low.

Semi-structured: Guideline with topics, but flexible order and follow-up questions. Validity: medium.

Fully structured: Fixed question catalog, same questions for everyone, standardized evaluation framework with pre-defined points. Validity: high.

For group interviews, this means: Define clear tasks, observe based on established criteria, and evaluate with a uniform framework.

Creating an Evaluation Form: A Checklist

A structured evaluation form might look like this:

Competency: Communication Skills

• Presents arguments clearly and understandably (1-5)
• Listens to others and responds to their points (1-5)
• Adapts communication style to the situation (1-5)

Competency: Team Orientation

• Actively includes others (1-5)
• Supports constructive problem-solving (1-5)
• Accepts other opinions (1-5)

Competency: Assertiveness

• Represents own position confidently (1-5)
• Remains objective when challenged (1-5)
• Finds compromises (1-5)

Important: Note specific behavioral observations, not interpretations. "Interrupted others three times" is more objective than "is dominant."

Combining Group Interviews with Aptitude Assessment

Research shows: Combining multiple selection methods significantly increases validity. When you combine a group interview with objective aptitude assessment, you reduce bias and measurably improve the quality of your decisions.

Why Combination Increases Validity

Each individual selection method has strengths and weaknesses. The group interview shows social behavior but is susceptible to bias. Aptitude tests objectively measure cognitive abilities but without team context. Structured individual interviews allow depth but no group observation.

Sackett and colleagues (2021) emphasize: Three of the five best predictors of job success show significant differences between different applicant groups. Combining multiple methods can offset the limitations of individual approaches and increase fairness.

Game-Based Assessments as a Pre-Selection Tool

A modern complement to the classic group interview are scientifically validated aptitude tests – such as game-based assessments. These playful test methods objectively and standardly measure cognitive abilities, personality traits, and soft skills.

The advantage: Pre-selection already occurs based on valid data before the group interview takes place. This ensures that only candidates whose profiles match the position make it to the shortlist. The group interview then serves to deepen insights and observe team behavior – no longer for basic selection.

Objective aptitude assessment tools like Aivy enable exactly this: Scientifically validated methods, developed in collaboration with the Freie Universität Berlin, measure relevant competencies independently of resumes and first impressions. The platform uses game-based assessments that are both engaging and scientifically sound.

Practical Example: How Companies Select More Objectively

Practice shows: Companies that combine objective assessment with structured interviews achieve measurably better results.

Lufthansa uses scientifically validated assessments to objectify pre-selection. The result: a 96% accuracy rate in predicting candidate suitability compared to their own in-house assessment – with 81% candidate satisfaction. Time saved in testing amounts to over 100 minutes per applicant. Susanne Berthold-Neumann from Lufthansa puts it succinctly: "We look at the documents late because they only show a small part of the person and say little about whether someone has the competencies for future challenges."

MCI Germany also reports measurable successes: 55% faster time-to-hire and 92% lower cost-per-hire through the use of objective diagnostics. Director People & Culture Matthias Kühne emphasizes that the process has been "strongly professionalized through the more objective evaluation basis."

These examples show: The combination of objective pre-selection and structured interviews leads to better hiring decisions – while simultaneously saving time and costs.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

How many participants should take part in a group interview? Four to eight participants is optimal. With fewer than four people, group dynamics become limited; with more than eight, individual observation becomes difficult. Each observer should evaluate a maximum of one to two candidates.

What competencies can I observe in a group interview? Particularly visible are teamwork, communication strength, assertiveness, group problem-solving ability, and behavior under pressure. Technical competencies, on the other hand, are difficult to assess in a group format.

How do I reduce bias in group interviews? Structure the interview with defined tasks and evaluation criteria. Use a standardized evaluation form. Deploy multiple observers who evaluate independently. Combine the group interview with objective aptitude assessment as pre-selection.

Can I combine group interviews with other methods? Yes, and it's actually recommended. Research shows that combining multiple methods increases meaningfulness. A sensible sequence: objective aptitude assessment for pre-selection, then group interview for observing team behavior, finally individual interview for deeper questions.

What is the difference between a group interview and a panel interview? In a group interview, multiple candidates are observed simultaneously by one or more interviewers. In a panel interview, a single candidate faces multiple interviewers. The terms are frequently confused.

Are group interviews suitable for all positions? No. Group interviews are particularly suitable for positions with high team relevance, trainee programs, and high-volume recruiting. For leadership positions, sensitive roles, or with few candidates, individual interviews are better suited.

How long should a group interview last? A typical group interview lasts 60 to 90 minutes. This includes welcome (10-15 min.), self-presentation (15-20 min.), group exercise (30-45 min.), and conclusion (10-15 min.).

How do I fairly evaluate introverted candidates? Introverted individuals are often disadvantaged in group formats. Consciously focus on qualitative contributions, not just speaking time. Additionally use individual interviews or written reflections. Objective aptitude tests offset the disadvantage by measuring competencies independently of demeanor.

Conclusion: Using Group Interviews Effectively

The group interview is a double-edged sword: Used correctly, it provides valuable insights into team behavior and soft skills. Conducted poorly, it opens the door to bias and poor decisions.

Key takeaways:

Group interviews are particularly suitable for positions with high team relevance and when there are many candidates. Structure is crucial: Clear criteria, standardized tasks, and a uniform evaluation form increase meaningfulness. Bias traps like contrast bias, halo effect, and dominance behavior must be actively countered. Combining with objective aptitude assessment increases validity and measurably reduces mis-hires.

What you can do now:

Review your current group interviews against the criteria presented here. Create a structured evaluation form. Train your interviewers on unconscious bias. And examine whether combining with scientifically validated aptitude assessment makes sense for your organization.

Objective aptitude assessment tools like Aivy support you in objectifying pre-selection and reducing bias – so you find the right talents, not just the loudest ones.

Sources

• Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M., & Lievens, F. (2022). Revisiting meta-analytic estimates of validity in personnel selection: Addressing systematic overcorrection for restriction of range. Journal of Applied Psychology.
• Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262–274.
• Kanning, U. P. (2016). Über die Sichtung von Bewerbungsunterlagen in der Praxis der Personalauswahl. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 60, 18–32.
• Huffcutt, A. I., & Arthur, W. (1994). Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited: Interview validity for entry-level jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(2), 184–190.
• Lufthansa Success Story: https://www.aivy.app/erfolgsgeschichten/lufthansa
• MCI Germany Success Story: https://www.aivy.app/erfolgsgeschichten/mci-deutschland-gmbh