Typically, most applicants receive feedback about their interview performance days after the meeting, assuming they get any feedback at all. However, one chief executive officer has determined that delaying this process is unproductive. Consequently, he has begun providing his assessments to applicants immediately following their interview (occasionally in the presence of an entire committee) as a component of the interview evaluation.
“Started to give candidates direct feedback during the interview process,” Gagan Biyani (who goes by @gaganbiyani) revealed in a recent X post. “Often in public during our panel interviews or live at the end of my 1:1 with them.”
The chief executive of Maven, an educational service, and co-founder of a different online learning company, Udemy, stated that it's the “most telling part” of the discussion—and frequently a crucial element in determining if they receive a job offer.
TL;DR
- Gagan Biyani provides direct interview feedback to candidates immediately after their assessment.
- This real-time feedback aims to gauge a candidate's reaction to criticism and their potential fit.
- The approach has received mixed reactions, with some praising its transparency and others criticizing its potential for humiliation.
- Experts suggest this unconventional method may not be mainstream but could see wider adoption in certain industries.
“If this is their nightmare, [the] candidate freezes up or even gets offended,” Biyani added it highlights straight away that they are “not a fit” for the company. “If this is exciting, they are more likely to join.”
The executive from California explained that he generally uses the assessment for individuals he intends to advance. However, Biyani confessed that on occasion, he will administer the feedback exercise to individuals he found promising but who weren't ideally suited for the position.
There isn't a definitive correct or incorrect response per se—he's perfectly content for applicants to abandon their prior statements and adjust their approach based on feedback: “No matter what, we expect the candidate to take the feedback in real-time and change their answers from then on out.”
Diverse responses to the interview approach: 'If your organization disregards psychological safety, try this experiment'
The interview tactic has drawn a mixed response. Some commented that they “love it” and that it’s a great way to gauge a candidate’s ability to receive criticism and whether that can thrive under transparent communications. Many others were not so sure.
“Publicly critiquing someone in a high-stakes, power-imbalance situation like this isn’t a test of ‘coachability.’ It’s a test of who is willing to suppress their nervous system response to humiliation, stress, and social threat in exchange for a job,” the most-liked response read. “Freezing, discomfort, or offense in that context isn’t fragility, it’s biology…. And filtering people out based on how well they override that isn’t selecting for resilience or a growth mindset. It’s selecting for compliance under pressure.”
Others highlighted that a candidate’s reaction in a high-stakes interview setting could be very different from day-to-day in the role, that some need time to sleep on feedback before responding, that it’s a “dehumanising” approach that would raise HR’s eyebrows, and ultimately could result in losing talent.
Career coach Kyle Elliott, EdD, echoed that “in 10 years of coaching more than 1,000 clients, no one has ever reported facing this type of situation.”
While critiques are entirely expected, he stated that its one-sided nature, stemming from a solitary interview without prior connection, and with a job proposal contingent on the outcome, renders it questionable—and it's improbable that it will genuinely assess an applicant's aptitude for the role they've pursued. “This just reads like an insensitive science experiment.”
“If your company doesn’t care about psychological safety, likes to put people on the spot, and triggers trauma responses, I suppose you could run this test, Elliott added. “Otherwise, your interview process should mirror the candidate’s day-to-day work environment to get the best talent possible.”
Strategies for managing real-time input during an interview
While not frequently encountered, the practice is gaining traction, as cautioned by Lewis Maleh, the chief executive of Bentley Lewis, a worldwide firm specializing in executive recruitment.
“We are seeing more companies experiment with stress testing candidates in various ways to assess how they perform under pressure,” he told Coins2Day. “I’ve heard of some tech CEOs and startup founders doing similar things, particularly in high-pressure roles where quick thinking and resilience are critical. But it’s definitely not mainstream practice.”
Maleh sees the logic. “If you’re hiring for a role where receiving feedback, adapting quickly, and performing under pressure are essential, testing those skills in real time makes sense,” he said. But “it absolutely can be cruel depending on how it’s executed.” Public critiques can intimidate even brilliant candidates, potentially ruling out top talent who simply don’t thrive in that scenario.
Regardless, given that technology firms frequently dictate the direction for unconventional hiring and employee retention strategies, similar tests might see wider adoption in additional industries.
Maleh’s advice to candidates? Practice receiving feedback in real time.
“Ask friends or mentors to critique your work or ideas on the spot and practice responding thoughtfully rather than defensively,” he added. “You can also use your favourite LLM chat (ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok) and ask it to “act as a very harsh interviewer” to give you practice.”
“Focus on staying calm, asking clarifying questions, and showing you can incorporate feedback quickly.”
However, remember that discussions are a mutual exchange: “Remember that if a company’s interview process feels excessively harsh or performative, that might tell you something about their culture too.”
