Posted on: 12/02/2026

Thought Leadership

Is sharing interview questions a step towards fairness, or does it risk undermining effective selection? This article explores the growing debate around transparency in recruitment, balancing candidate experience with robust assessment. Drawing on resourcing practice and inclusion principles, Graham Bradley considers reasonable adjustments, role expectations and hybrid approaches, and why there may be no single ‘right’ answer, only better, more thoughtful conversations.

By Graham Bradley MCIPD, Senior Consultant - Resourcing, at West Midlands Employers

The question isn’t whether sharing interview questions is right or wrong, it’s what kind of fairness we are really trying to achieve. I’ve had many discussions on this theme over the years but it’s always one that provides a good opportunity for discussion and healthy debate across recruitment and hiring communities. When preparing for interviews, one key decision recruiters and hiring managers face is whether to provide candidates with the interview questions ahead of time.

While this practice isn’t universal, it’s gaining traction in organisations that prioritise transparency and candidate experience. But how far should you go, and where should the line between providing transparency during selection and giving applicants too much information?

There are of course times when reasonable adjustments come into play to provide a level playing field. Within the framework of the Equality Act 2010 providing sight of the questions beforehand, particularly for neurodivergent candidates, is one of a range of adjustments that can be considered to provide parity and equality of opportunity. Let’s explore the benefits and drawbacks of sharing interview questions versus keeping them under wraps.

1. Reduces Anxiety and Creates a Fairer Process

Interviews can be stressful, and anxiety often prevents candidates from showcasing their true potential. Providing questions in advance allows candidates to prepare thoughtfully, leading to more authentic and confident responses. This levels the playing field, especially for those who may not excel under pressure. On the flip side of this, critics argue that advance access to questions can lead to scripted responses, making it harder to gauge authenticity or gain a clearer insight into how a candidate might actually perform in role

2. Focuses on Substance Over Performance:

When candidates know what to expect, they can concentrate on demonstrating their skills and experience rather than scrambling to interpret questions on the spot. This approach shifts the emphasis from quick thinking to meaningful insights, which often results in better hiring decisions. However, in highly competitive industries, some employers believe that surprise questions help identify candidates who can think on their feet, for these positions, spontaneous responses may better reflect how candidates handle pressure and ambiguity.

3. Improves Candidate Experience and Employer Brand

Transparency signals respect for candidates’ time and effort. Organisations that share questions often receive positive feedback, which can enhance their reputation and attract top talent in the future.

4. Encourages Diversity and Inclusion

Not everyone thrives in high-pressure, surprise-question environments. Providing questions beforehand can help candidates from diverse backgrounds feel more comfortable and included, reducing bias toward those who are naturally more confident in interviews.

Finding the right balance.

There is of course a middle ground, a hybrid approach often works well: sharing broad themes or competencies or subject matter (e.g., problem-solving, leadership, technical skills) while keeping specific situational questions for the interview. This gives candidates a chance to prepare using key themes without losing the ability for the panel to assess adaptability.

A further consideration may be the role itself.For higher level roles there may be an expectation that role holders will have an ability to think on their feet, adapt to challenging situations or be able to provide views and opinions with relatively little background information.

In contrast, for entry level roles where candidates are likely to have less working or life experience to draw on, sight of the questions before hand may allow candidates a much more informed and confident interview.

I am sure that the debate will continue, and every organisation will have a view. There is no right or wrong approach but as long as there is consistency, fair process should be achieved.

As someone who has recently joined the Resourcing Team at WME, these are exactly the kinds of questions I’m keen to explore with peers across our member organisations. The strength of our network lies in the open sharing of practice, challenge, and experience, particularly when there are no simple answers.

This debate is unlikely to be resolved any time soon, and that’s no bad thing. It’s through ongoing discussion and reflection that fairer, more effective resourcing practices continue to evolve.