Are you at more of a disadvantage to be interviewed first or last in the process?

[firstorlastthatisthequestion]

Particularly if there could be multiple roles available and therefore more people in the mix, across a few weeks of interviews instead of a more condensed timeframe.

I was interviewed first. It went well from what I could tell but you never truly know I guess. I've had an agonising time waiting (sorry if that sounds dramatic, apparently jobseeker anxiety is a thing..)

I think they liked me but they could have liked many others. I'm worried that by going first, as they've been interviewing for a few weeks after before making a decision that they could forget me and I could stand out less in their mind when picking who is successful.

A positive view might be that the very first candidate sets the bar for others to match up to... I know I can't do anything to change or influence it - but would be interested to know your perspective point of view nonetheless. I should hear late next week...

I think better to be first when the interviewers are fresh but when I've interviewed the stand out candidates can appear at any point during the day....but I think I'm less jaded at the start!

Good luck!

Always go last. As soon as the interviews are done they have the review meeting to compare the candidates. They won't remember the first ones, especially if they've interviewed a lot of people or the interviews go across multiple days.

I interview a lot.

First and last are fine. It's the post lunch spot you want to avoid when we are a bit sluggish (sleepy) after food.

Honestly though - if you are the best candidate it doesn't matter what slot you have.

I think being seen earlier in the process is better. If you make a good impression and they want you, someone else effectively has to knock you off that spot.

I made sure I took the first slot in a process years ago and was told after that they decided right after my interview they’d chosen me. Big advantage.

Great ☠️ lol

Just to clarify I wasn't given options - I was told I had the first slot. I doubt this means anything, probably was just the first one to answer the phone!

Thanks all - I guess it's highly dependant on the individual. Just one more agonising week to go 🍷

I think earlier or later is better, middle hardest to make an impact.

It doesn’t always matter, as a recruiter I mark each person individually and we have an immediate discussion after the interview on whether to progress/shortlist that person so all is fresh. It’s a matter of meeting specific competencies for my roles rather than beating other people. As a PP said don’t go for the post-lunch slot though!

I really don’t think it matters, whenever I’ve interviewed people you really do just like the ones you like! Unless it’s for the most bog standard role that anyone can do, usually people are searching for a specific candidate and if they are lucky enough to find them it doesn’t matter what order it was. But if you can be in person then do that - massive advantage over remote interviewees.

I think generally they say humans remember the start and finish best - but also peaks and troughs… so basically if you’re great you’ll be remembered :)

This is simply not true in my experience. You never forget the strong candidates & you should score & review as you go along so you are all agreed as to your conclusion after each candidate anyway. You score later ones partly in response to wheter they were better or worse than the first 2 who remain fresh in your mind.

Psychologically there are both primacy and recency effects, first and last are always more remembered than those in the middle. As a recruiter, I remember the best candidates no matter where they are as you mark as you go along.