There are tactics that I think can be effective to bust those biases. One might be to put an upper limit on the number of times an interviewer is allowed to ask any given question.
I find it curious that you think this has to do with the particular question. This kind of bias comes up all the time, and it will certainly be in place even the first time you ask a particular question.
Simply growing in one's career and being around mostly other experienced people can quickly lead to one forgetting what it was like to be new to the field.
It's total lack of empathy at that point, and if the candidate doesn't exude near-perfect interviewing brilliance on that specific question, the interviewer judges them as essentially worthless.
That's going way too far. Having poorly calibrated standards doesn't imply lack of empathy. Having an unreasonably high bar doesn't mean you think anyone under the bar is worthless.
There are some other experiments I'd like to run. One of them is to have interviewers go through a one-hour interview themselves for every 50 or so interviews they give. Maybe match up an interviewer who has a track record of being especially harsh on candidates for not giving a flawless performance on the question they've been asking for a while. The idea is to see if we can't bubble up some empathy.
How about just recording data about interviews and using it as feedback to make the system better? If there are outlier interviewers with unreasonable interview-to-hire rates, deal with that situation directly.
I find it curious that you think this has to do with the particular question. This kind of bias comes up all the time, and it will certainly be in place even the first time you ask a particular question.
Simply growing in one's career and being around mostly other experienced people can quickly lead to one forgetting what it was like to be new to the field.
It's total lack of empathy at that point, and if the candidate doesn't exude near-perfect interviewing brilliance on that specific question, the interviewer judges them as essentially worthless.
That's going way too far. Having poorly calibrated standards doesn't imply lack of empathy. Having an unreasonably high bar doesn't mean you think anyone under the bar is worthless.
There are some other experiments I'd like to run. One of them is to have interviewers go through a one-hour interview themselves for every 50 or so interviews they give. Maybe match up an interviewer who has a track record of being especially harsh on candidates for not giving a flawless performance on the question they've been asking for a while. The idea is to see if we can't bubble up some empathy.
How about just recording data about interviews and using it as feedback to make the system better? If there are outlier interviewers with unreasonable interview-to-hire rates, deal with that situation directly.