A candidate sits in a quiet room after work, records a response, reviews it and submits. Another completes the same interview from a shared home, with an unreliable connection and little privacy. Both may be capable of doing the job. The question, then, is not simply are video interviews fair. It is whether the process measures job-relevant capability or introduces avoidable barriers that change the outcome.
For Australian employers managing high application volumes, video interviews can create genuine consistency and speed. But technology does not make a selection process fair by default. Fairness comes from the design decisions around it: what candidates are asked, how they are supported, who assesses responses, and how decisions are made.
Are video interviews fair when every candidate is asked the same questions?
Asking each applicant the same job-relevant questions is a strong starting point. Compared with an unstructured phone screen, where one candidate is asked about stakeholder management and another spends ten minutes discussing hobbies, a structured video interview gives employers a more comparable evidence base.
This matters because unstructured interviews often reward rapport, confidence and interviewer preference more than relevant capability. A well-designed asynchronous video interview can reduce these inconsistencies. Candidates receive the same instructions, preparation time, response limits and questions. Hiring teams can then assess against the same criteria rather than relying on memory or first impressions.
However, standardisation alone is not enough. An interview can be consistent and still be unfair if the questions are poorly chosen or the scoring process is subjective. Asking for an example of how a candidate influenced a difficult stakeholder may be relevant for a leadership role. Asking someone to perform with a polished presentation style when the role does not require it is less defensible.
The central test is straightforward: can the organisation clearly explain how each question relates to successful performance in the role? If it cannot, the question should be reconsidered.
Where video interviewing can create unfairness
Video adds information that may not be available in a written application or phone conversation. Appearance, accent, visible disability, age cues, home environment and communication style can all influence an assessor, consciously or unconsciously. This creates a real risk that candidates are judged on factors unrelated to the job.
Asynchronous interviews can also disadvantage people who have limited access to a suitable device, dependable internet, a quiet space or confidence with digital tools. Candidates with disability, neurodivergence, anxiety, language differences or caring responsibilities may need an adjustment to participate equitably.
That does not mean employers should abandon video interviewing. It means they should treat it as an assessment method requiring the same discipline as any other selection tool. The relevant consideration is not whether every candidate completes the process in identical circumstances. It is whether every candidate has a fair opportunity to demonstrate the capability being assessed.
A further issue is over-reliance on video. Video responses are useful for assessing communication, motivation, judgement and the examples a candidate can provide. They are not a complete measure of technical skill, cognitive ability, work preferences or job fit. For many roles, the fairest decision comes from combining structured interview evidence with validated assessments, skills testing, work samples and appropriate reference checks.
What a fair video interview process looks like
A fair process is designed before candidates receive an invitation. It begins with a clear understanding of the role, including the capabilities that distinguish effective performance from average performance. Those capabilities should guide the interview questions and scoring criteria.
For example, a customer service role may require clear communication, problem solving, composure and adherence to process. A project manager may need stakeholder influence, planning discipline, risk judgement and commercial awareness. These are observable criteria. Assessors should not be left to decide whether they simply “liked” a response.
A strong process usually includes five practical safeguards:
- Job-relevant, structured questions that give candidates a clear opportunity to provide behavioural or situational evidence.
- A defined scoring guide with examples of what strong, acceptable and weak evidence looks like for each criterion.
- Consistent assessor training so hiring managers understand the criteria, recognise common biases and apply scores reliably.
- Reasonable adjustments and an alternative pathway for candidates who cannot fairly complete the video format.
- A multi-method decision process that does not treat a recorded response as the sole determinant of suitability.
The alternative pathway is particularly important. A candidate should be able to request support without having to disclose more personal information than is necessary. Depending on the situation, this might involve extra preparation time, modified instructions, a live interview, a telephone-based process or another accessible assessment method. Clear instructions on how to request an adjustment demonstrate respect and reduce uncertainty before the assessment begins.
Fairness depends on how responses are scored
Most fairness risks emerge after the recording is submitted. Without a scoring framework, assessors may place too much weight on eye contact, confidence, speed of speech, background noise or personal similarity. These impressions can feel persuasive while adding little evidence about job performance.
A scoring rubric directs attention back to the evidence. If a question assesses conflict resolution, assessors should look for how the candidate identified the issue, listened to the other party, selected an approach and achieved or reviewed an outcome. They should not reward a highly polished delivery if the example itself lacks sound judgement.
Using more than one trained assessor can also improve decision quality, particularly for senior, high-risk or high-volume appointments. Independent scoring before discussion helps prevent the most senior person in the room from setting the tone. Where assessors disagree materially, the hiring team should return to the evidence and rubric rather than negotiate based on preference.
Employers should also monitor outcomes over time. Are candidates from particular groups progressing at materially different rates? Are some questions producing inconsistent scores between assessors? Is performance in the video stage linked to later job performance, or merely to presentation confidence? Reviewing these patterns gives organisations a practical way to identify where the process may need improvement.
The role of AI in fair video interviews
AI can support administration, workflow and reporting, but it should not be treated as a shortcut to objective decision-making. Any automated feature used in selection should be understood, validated for its intended use and governed carefully. Employers need clarity about what the technology analyses, how outputs are generated, what limitations apply and where human judgement remains essential.
The greatest value often comes from using technology to improve process discipline: standardising invitations, controlling question delivery, applying consistent time settings, recording assessor ratings and producing an auditable decision trail. These functions reduce administrative burden without asking an algorithm to make a high-stakes judgement it cannot adequately explain.
Candidates should also know how the interview will work, what will be assessed, how long it is likely to take and whether recordings will be reviewed by people, technology or both. Transparency does not require disclosing every internal scoring detail. It does require being clear enough that candidates can make an informed decision about participation.
When video interviews are the right choice
Video interviews work particularly well when organisations need to screen many applicants consistently, recruit across locations or give candidates greater flexibility than a fixed-time interview allows. Asynchronous formats can be valuable for shift workers, regional applicants and people balancing employment or caring commitments because they can respond within a reasonable window rather than attend at a prescribed time.
They are less suitable when the process is being used as a cheap substitute for assessment design. A generic set of questions, no adjustment process and untrained reviewers will not become fair simply because every applicant receives the same link.
RightPeople’s Anytime Interview™ is designed around the operational benefit of structured, on-demand candidate responses. Its value is strongest when employers pair that flexibility with clearly defined capability criteria, consistent rating practices and other validated selection data.
Make fairness visible to candidates
Candidates form an opinion about an employer long before an offer is made. A vague invitation, unexpected time pressure or unexplained rejection can create the impression of an impersonal process. Clear communication does the opposite. Tell candidates why the video interview is being used, how to prepare, what support is available and when they can expect an update.
Fair video interviewing is not about removing human judgement. It is about making judgement more relevant, consistent and accountable. When the process gives every candidate a genuine opportunity to show job-related capability, employers gain better evidence and candidates receive the respect a serious selection decision deserves.
