A University of Messina study revealed that performance in high-pressure oral examinations peaked between 11am and 1pm, confirming what many professionals have long suspected: cognitive performance fluctuates dramatically throughout the day. Yet most organisations continue scheduling job interviews based purely on panel availability, potentially sabotaging their own talent acquisition efforts through an oversight as simple as timing.
This biological reality raises an uncomfortable question for corporate recruiters: how many promising candidates have been dismissed not for lack of ability, but for the misfortune of being interviewed at the wrong hour?
The circadian challenge
Manish Majumdar, head-HR, Centum Electronics, frames the issue in relatable terms: “Some people are morning people, some are evening people. Just go back to your college days. Some of us studied at 5am, others stayed up all night. So yes, there’s absolutely a time of day when you’re sharper.”
“Some people are morning people, some are evening people. Just go back to your college days. Some of us studied at 5am, others stayed up all night. So yes, there’s absolutely a time of day when you’re sharper.”
Manish Majumdar, head-HR, Centum Electronics
This individual variation in circadian rhythms means that scheduling interviews based solely on interviewer convenience could systematically disadvantage candidates whose peak performance windows don’t align with corporate schedules. A brilliant evening-focused candidate interviewed at 9am may appear sluggish compared to a morning person in the same slot.
Majumdar experienced this bias firsthand during a virtual interview where he, joining from India in the morning, faced an American interviewer connecting late at night from his home. “The interviewer looked like he had just gotten out of bed—disinterested, grumpy. It impacted me. That interview could’ve gone much better if the interviewer had been at his best.”
The example illustrates how timing affects both sides of the hiring equation. “The interviewer also needs to see when they are at their best—not just physically present, but mentally invested,” Majumdar observes. His practical advice is stark: “Don’t take interviews when you’re hungry. You’ll either be irritable or rush through it.”
The sincerity imperative
Rishav Dev, head – talent acquisition, Century Plywoods, argues that consciousness matters more than chronology. “Any interview by the hiring manager or interviewer has to be conducted when the frame of mind is right,” he insists. Yet he acknowledges that optimal timing varies significantly: young candidates may perform better in the morning, whilst senior professionals often deliver their strongest performance after handling regular work commitments.
“Any interview by the hiring manager or interviewer has to be conducted when the frame of mind is right.”
Rishav Dev, head – talent acquisition, Century Plywoods
Dev identifies a more troubling pattern: senior professionals casually postponing interviews. “That doesn’t reflect a great image of the organisation,” he warns. In today’s candidate-driven market, such disrespect for applicants’ time and emotional investment can damage employer brand significantly.
His organisation has adapted accordingly: “Even at promoter-level interviews, we seek which time the candidate is comfortable with. Unless it’s an exceptional case, we always prefer the candidate’s availability.” This approach treats interviews as mutually respectful engagements where timing becomes strategic rather than merely logistical.
The flexibility imperative
Amit Sharma, group CHRO, Gokaldas Exports, adds scientific context to the discussion whilst warning against oversimplification. “There is a science to timing—circadian rhythms, decision fatigue, peak performance windows—but the art lies in being present and respectful,” he explains.
Sharma acknowledges that performance typically peaks during midday hours but cautions against universal application: “The danger lies in assuming one slot fits all. The bigger problem is the rigidity that comes from focusing solely on process and not on people.”
This rigidity sends problematic signals about organisational culture. “If you’re still scheduling interviews based only on internal panel availability, you’re not just missing good candidates—you’re making them feel like afterthoughts. A rigid, inconvenient schedule sends the wrong message about how you treat your people.”
The cultural shift
The broader issue reflects changing power dynamics in talent acquisition. Sharma notes a fundamental assumption that requires updating: “We often assume the candidate must adjust to us. But in today’s world of talent scarcity, organisations must show up as deserving employers too.”
This shift demands new approaches to interview scheduling. Even when perfect timing accommodation isn’t possible, asking candidates about their preferences demonstrates respect and elevates the candidate experience. Such gestures matter in competitive talent markets where first impressions of organisational culture begin with scheduling interactions.
The strategic response
Forward-thinking organisations are incorporating timing flexibility into their hiring processes systematically. This involves several practical adjustments: offering multiple time slots when possible, explicitly asking candidates about their peak performance windows, and ensuring interview panels are genuinely prepared rather than merely present.
The implications extend beyond individual hiring decisions. When organisations consistently schedule interviews at suboptimal times, they may develop skewed impressions of candidate quality, potentially missing talent that would excel under different circumstances.
Moreover, the timing consideration applies equally to different interview formats. Virtual interviews may offer more flexibility but can also create new timing challenges, particularly across time zones or when conducted from home environments with varying distractions.
The measurement challenge
Quantifying timing bias proves difficult, but the University of Messina findings suggest the effects are substantial. If cognitive performance varies significantly throughout the day, hiring decisions made during low-energy periods may systematically favour candidates whose natural rhythms align with interview schedules whilst penalising equally capable individuals with different patterns.
This suggests that organisations committed to fair hiring should audit their scheduling patterns for potential bias, examining whether certain demographic groups or personality types might be systematically disadvantaged by rigid timing approaches.
The practical imperative
The solution requires balancing logistical efficiency with human psychology. Whilst perfect accommodation isn’t always possible, acknowledging timing as a legitimate factor in interview performance represents progress toward more equitable hiring practices.
As Sharma concludes: “The art of hiring is in honouring people’s time, energy and aspirations—because every great career begins with a conversation that feels worth having.”