Does the museum interview process require an overhaul?

Let me start by saying that I know many museums already run exemplary recruitment processes—structured, thoughtful, and fair. If that’s your institution, I’m genuinely pleased for you. This blog is aimed more at those still finding their way—those stuck in outdated habits, with the hope that a little reflection might encourage the adoption of better practices.

I was listening recently to Diary of a CEO, the podcast by Stephen Bartlett. While it's received fair criticism in the past for platforming questionable medical practices without sufficient challenge, this particular episode featured Reid Hoffman, the founder of LinkedIn—so I felt I was on safer ground. If anyone knows about recruitment, it’s him.

What struck me most was Hoffman’s claim that references are far more valuable than interviews when it comes to selecting the right candidate. I found it hard to disagree—though I do think the idea needs some unpacking and balance. There are, after all, people who shine in interviews but underperform in the role, just as there are brilliant candidates who don’t interview well at all.

Too often, we treat job applications as a gateway, the interview as the real test, and references as a post-decision formality. But is this really the most intelligent use of the information we gather during recruitment? While we’re certainly not alone in our lack of strategic thinking, other sectors, such as education, have shown us what’s possible when recruitment becomes a data-informed, holistic process.

Let’s look at the application itself. This document should be more than just a ticket to the next stage. If approached critically and with a healthy awareness of potential bias, it’s a treasure trove of insights. It offers a timeline of achievements, responsibilities, and outcomes—data that no other stage of the process is likely to capture as comprehensively. Of course, the candidate chooses what to emphasise, and yes, narratives can be crafted to impress. But in many cases, that emphasis is honest and well-intentioned. Still, caution is necessary—particularly when the same standout phrases and polished anecdotes appear across multiple applications.

Despite its value, I’ve seen far too many examples where application documents are barely glanced at—if at all—by the interview panel. In some settings, the panel relies entirely on one senior figure to have done the due diligence. In others, members skim the applications during the interview itself, which is hardly a recipe for fairness or informed decision-making. This is far less likely in larger institutions—universities or local authorities, for example—but in independent museums or where external professionals are brought in, it remains surprisingly common.

Then comes the interview—the moment most likely to determine the final outcome. It’s not unusual for panels to have only a superficial knowledge of candidates at this stage, assuming that earlier sifting has been rigorous enough. And while some applicants excel in this setting, others don’t. Sometimes it’s nerves. Sometimes they’ve anticipated, researched and memorised for entirely different questions. The point is: the ability to deliver polished answers under pressure doesn’t always align with competence in the role.

Which brings us to references—Hoffman’s preferred metric. It’s true that a well-chosen referee can offer invaluable insights, particularly someone who has managed the candidate closely and seen their strengths (and weaknesses) over time. But let’s not ignore the obvious: references are handpicked. Most people won’t include someone likely to paint them in anything but a positive light. Still, with a bit of creativity, it’s possible to seek wider perspectives—particularly from previous employers or colleagues not listed as referees. Done well, this can yield a far more rounded picture.

That said, I’m wary of leaning too heavily on references. The early-career applicant who’s only worked in one organisation shouldn’t be disadvantaged because they don’t have a long line of managers ready to vouch for them. And applicants from marginalised backgrounds often face different challenges when it comes to networking and endorsement. So yes—references matter. But they must be used carefully, as one part of a broader, balanced process.

One element I haven’t touched on yet is the presentation or task, a standard part of many museum interviews. I’ll explore this more fully in another blog, but for now, let me offer a few reflections. From the candidate’s point of view, preparing a presentation is a major undertaking. They’re expected to research the organisation and sector, anticipate a range of questions, rehearse scenarios, and memorise a presentation that will (usually) kick off the interview. For those who value precision and detail, this can become all-consuming—and that’s before the real questions begin. Presentations are often weighted heavily, but are they always useful? If the objective is vague, they may distract more than they illuminate.

So, how might we do better?

Could we use the written application more intelligently—not just as an entry point but as a central pillar of the decision? Could we speak to referees before making a final choice, rather than treating them as an afterthought? My view is that interviews are too often seen as make-or-break, while written evidence and references are underused and undervalued.

Here’s a suggestion: what if we gave greater prominence to the application itself, used references strategically before shortlisting is finalised, and recognised that the interview is just a snapshot—not the definitive test of someone’s suitability? And yes, this would require a cultural shift. Panels would need more time and better preparation. Trustees and councillors would need to be persuaded. But if we want to recruit the best candidates—not just the most confident or best rehearsed—it’s a conversation worth having.

So, how have you fared in interviews? Have you ever walked away feeling you were stronger than you appeared? Or that your written application told a clearer story than you were able to in person?

We can only change the process if we bring everyone with us. And that begins with asking the right questions—not the obscure, catch-you-out kind, but the ones that uncover skill, experience, and potential. If we get this right, we’ll not only be fairer—we’ll also make better appointments.

Thanks for reading. While you're here, do take a moment to check out my other blogs—particularly the recent update on the strategic development programme created by Nick Winterbotham, which Helen Sharp and I will be delivering in future.

Paul Baker

Links:

MTD Blog

MDM Strategic Planning Programme