A good interview cannot compensate for a bad history.

A good interview cannot compensate for a bad history.

• A. A good interview can compensate for bad history
• B. A good interview cannot compensate for bad history
• C. Interview and history are unrelated
• D. History alone determines hiring decision

Answer: (B)

Past performance is a stronger predictor of future job success than interview impressions. In selection, what a candidate has done in the past reflects actual work behavior, reliability, and how they handle responsibilities. A track record of poor performance, unreliability, or disciplinary issues signals ongoing risk, and these patterns tend to persist even if the person interviews well. An effective interview can reveal communication skills, motivation, and fit, but it cannot reliably overturn documented history of underperformance. Therefore, a good interview cannot compensate for bad history because the history sets a baseline expectation for future behavior, and the interview adds only limited incremental information. This distinction helps prioritize outcomes that have stronger evidence of predicting how someone will perform on the job.

Past performance is a stronger predictor of future job success than interview impressions. In selection, what a candidate has done in the past reflects actual work behavior, reliability, and how they handle responsibilities. A track record of poor performance, unreliability, or disciplinary issues signals ongoing risk, and these patterns tend to persist even if the person interviews well. An effective interview can reveal communication skills, motivation, and fit, but it cannot reliably overturn documented history of underperformance. Therefore, a good interview cannot compensate for bad history because the history sets a baseline expectation for future behavior, and the interview adds only limited incremental information. This distinction helps prioritize outcomes that have stronger evidence of predicting how someone will perform on the job.