A hiring manager at one of The Metiss Group’s client companies recently encountered a situation that reframed their approach to candidate evaluation. After conducting two virtual interviews with a strong applicant for a leadership position, everything appeared to be moving in the right direction. The candidate seemed polished, thoughtful, and well-prepared. Their answers were structured, their presence professional. They had quickly moved into the finalist pool.
Then came the third interview, scheduled in person.
The person who walked through the office doors looked entirely different. It was not a matter of poor lighting or a change in setting. Their physical appearance had been significantly altered by video filters used during the prior Zoom calls. Even more striking, the depth of their answers had vanished. Questions that once drew out impressive responses now prompted shallow commentary. The hiring manager, unsettled by the contrast, asked the candidate directly: “Why do you seem so different now than you did on camera?”
The response was surprisingly honest. The candidate admitted they had used AI tools during the virtual interviews to assist with their answers in real time. They had also activated multiple Zoom enhancements to improve how they appeared on screen. The hiring manager appreciated the transparency but was left uncertain. In the end, they passed on the candidate. Not solely because of the use of AI or filters, but because the in-person interaction revealed a disconnect between the person’s digital presentation and how they showed up when it mattered most. Something felt off, and they trusted their instinct.
Hiring is fundamentally about decision-making. Yet as digital tools expand, the path to those decisions has grown more complicated. Over the past several years, video interviews became the default. Convenience, safety, and speed made Zoom a preferred platform, and nearly 75 percent of interviews are still conducted virtually. However, hiring managers are beginning to feel a shift. The pendulum is moving back. In-person interviews are regaining favor, and artificial intelligence is playing a central role in that change.
This reversal is not merely nostalgic. Executives and hiring teams are recognizing a series of operational and strategic benefits to face-to-face interviews. Candidates commuting to an office may seem like a logistical step backward. In reality, it serves as an early test of commitment and viability for hybrid and in-office roles. When interviews are scheduled during rush-hour, leaders gain insight into the candidate's true readiness for the demands of the job, including their tolerance for a regular commute.
More critically, artificial intelligence is introducing new risks to the authenticity of virtual interviews. From real-time AI-generated responses to video filters that alter appearance, hiring managers are finding it increasingly difficult to trust what they see and hear on screen. In an era of rapidly evolving generative tools, employers are seeking more direct, human interaction as a safeguard.
In this article, you will learn:
- Why AI is undermining trust in virtual interviews
- How in-person interviews offer advantages beyond conversation
- What hiring managers are doing to make better decisions today
Why AI is Undermining Trust in Virtual interviews
The interview is a key instrument in assessing readiness, character, and communication style. But with the rise of real-time AI assistance, virtual interviews are no longer neutral ground. Candidates can now access tools that suggest and refine responses as they speak. While this may improve polish, it also interferes with the hiring team’s ability to assess independent thinking and real-time problem solving.
Some candidates take it a step further. With AI-generated suggestions running in the background and earpieces or smart glasses feeding prompts, they appear more composed and insightful than they might be under natural conditions. The result is a false signal. Interviewers believe they are assessing the candidate’s abilities when they are actually evaluating how well someone uses external aids.
This may not be an issue if access to these external aids is encouraged for use in the workplace itself; however, if a leader is expected to nurture genuine trust with direct reports and peers alike, this could be a real deal-breaker.
Visual manipulation is a growing concern as well. Zoom filters can adjust lighting, smooth skin, sharpen features, and even subtly alter facial structure. These enhancements may appear harmless, but they shape perception. Hiring managers may think they are looking at someone confident and polished when the image has been curated. This creates a gap between perception and reality that only becomes visible in person.
How In-Person Interviews Offer Advantages Beyond Conversation
In-person interviews reintroduce the full range of behavioral cues. These include posture, eye contact, body language, and tone—all essential to understanding presence and interpersonal dynamics. On video, these signals are muted. In person, they become critical data points that help hiring managers determine whether a candidate is the right fit not just for the role, but for the team.
.png?width=400&height=500&name=Copy%20of%20Blue%20and%20White%20Weekly%20House%20Expenses%20Chart%20Graph%20(1080%20x%201350%20px).png)
There are also subtle, situational insights that emerge only through live interaction. The way a candidate enters a room, greets others, manages awkward pauses, or responds to unstructured moments contributes to the overall picture. These signals are not captured on camera and cannot be coached or curated by AI. They represent real behavior under pressure.
Commuting for the interview also adds practical insight. Many hiring managers now schedule interviews during peak traffic hours. This is not an endurance test—it is an attempt to measure how viable the role will be for the candidate on a daily basis. If the position is in-person or hybrid, the commute becomes part of the job. Understanding whether a candidate can manage it is a relevant piece of information.
What Hiring Managers are Doing to Make Better Decisions Today
While video interviews continue to serve a purpose, particularly in the early stages of screening, they are no longer viewed as sufficient for final decisions. Hiring managers are introducing in-person steps earlier in the process. Some reserve onsite interviews for top candidates, while others design the entire process to occur face-to-face once initial assessments are complete.
More hiring teams are also designing interviews to test adaptability and readiness in real-world conditions. This includes requiring candidates to present ideas in front of groups, participate in working sessions, or complete tasks under observation. These approaches remove the crutches that AI and digital enhancement can offer in virtual environments.
One of The Metiss Group’s long term clients requires a real work day for any final candidates to interact with the team for an entire day. The culture of this organization continues to be one of its greatest strengths largely because of the care demonstrated in the extent to which each new hire truly fits.
Organizations working with The Metiss Group often integrate structured assessments into their hiring process, such as those focused on emotional intelligence or leadership styles. But the final test remains interpersonal. A candidate’s ability to engage, persuade, and present themselves in person is still the most reliable way to gauge future performance.
Ultimately, hiring is not just about evaluating what someone knows. It is about judging how they think, how they act, and how they lead. These traits are often subtle. Technology can obscure them. In-person interviews can bring them back into focus.
Takeaways
Artificial intelligence is changing how candidates prepare, present, and perform in virtual interviews. But while these tools offer short-term polish, they often raise long-term concerns. When hiring managers rely too heavily on virtual impressions, they risk making decisions on incomplete or distorted information.
The return to in-person interviews is not about resisting progress. It is about protecting the integrity of the hiring process. In a world where screens can blur the lines between who someone is and who they appear to be, sometimes the clearest answers come from a handshake, a pause, or a look across the table.. It provides the texture, depth, and authenticity hiring managers need to make informed decisions.
Leadership roles demand presence, accountability, and trust. No filter or AI prompt can substitute for that.
