We need to stop pretending that the best interview is the one that catches candidates off guard.
In campus recreation professional staff hiring, surprise has been treated as a proxy for depth for far too long. It’s not. If the goal is to understand how someone thinks, leads and approaches the work, then sharing interview questions in advance isn’t a weakness in the process, but a stronger design.
Too many interviews in campus recreation still reward composure under pressure more than clarity of thought. Candidates are expected to absorb a question in real time, organize a polished answer on the spot and project confidence for a room full of evaluators.
This process may tell us something about verbal agility, but it doesn’t necessarily tell us who will lead effectively, exercise judgment or solve meaningful problems once hired.
Most professional roles in campus rec don’t require people to improvise their way through high-stakes moments every day. They require them to think critically, prepare thoughtfully, communicate clearly and make sound decisions over time.
Yet our interview practices often test the wrong thing. We act as though quick wit is a core competency when, in reality, many of the best staff members are the ones who process carefully, weigh context and respond with intention.
In searches I’ve led, we shared interview questions in advance. Some might assume that doing so makes it harder to distinguish between candidates. I’ve found the opposite to be true.
When candidates have time to prepare, the committee is better able to evaluate the quality of their thinking rather than their ability to perform under artificial pressure.
Strong candidates still differentiate themselves. You can see who understands the work, who has a thoughtful approach, who can connect ideas to outcomes and who is simply giving polished but shallow responses.
That distinction matters. A candidate who prepares a strong answer to a shared question isn’t gaming the process. They’re doing what we would expect them to do on the job: prepare, reflect and respond with purpose.
If anything, withholding questions in the name of rigor often introduces noise into the process. It privileges a narrow interview style and can disadvantage candidates who may ultimately be stronger in the actual role.
Sharing questions in advance also improves alignment between the interview and the position itself. It forces leaders to ask better questions.
Once you know the questions will be visible beforehand, you’re less likely to rely on vague hypotheticals, “gotcha” prompts or quirky questions that reveal little about the candidate’s potential. You’re more likely to ask what actually matters: how this person would approach the role’s priorities, navigate key challenges and contribute to the outcomes the institution needs.
In an era shaped increasingly by AI, this shift is even more important. Quick answers are easier to produce than ever, which makes them a weaker signal of how someone actually thinks.
Good judgment still requires context, reflection and intentionality. The future of leadership will depend less on who can respond the fastest and more on who can think well, adapt wisely and apply context effectively. Our interviews should be designed to identify those qualities.
Senior leaders should stop treating surprise as a test of merit. If we want better hiring decisions, we should build interviews that reflect the real demands of the work. That starts with giving candidates the chance to prepare for the conversation we actually want to have.
