Interviewee Bias: The Hidden Risk in Client Listening

When discussing client feedback, the spotlight often falls on the interviewer: on their potential biases, the importance of active listening, and the need to remove the filters that distort what they hear. We may then examine the firm’s side of the exchange and those who interpret the feedback. In short, we focus on what makes communication imperfect from within the firm doing the listening. Yet, while interviewer bias is widely acknowledged, we rarely consider how the interviewee’s own biases can influence the depth, quality, and direction of the conversation. Is the client always right? And more importantly, how can we refine our approach to truly understand and elevate what is being said and what is being shared?

Imagine this scenario: two people at a client company have received the same service, arguably they have had the exact same experience. However, our perception of an experience can vary, even when what we receive is the same. There are many reasons for that, from what shapes our expectations, through to whether or not we are having a good day.  As a result, those two people might communicate back a completely different story if asked, “how did we do?”. This might be because they truly did experience the same thing in a different way. However, there is another reason why accounts may vary. Perhaps one of the interviewees was being more open and honest, while the other was less so. How do we account for this? Should we?

Cognitive filters on the side of the interviewee

Here at Client Talk, we often talk about filters: those internal biases, assumptions, or emotions that cloud our perception. Think of them like smudges on a lens: they distort what we see (or in this case, hear). When we become aware of these filters, we can begin to wipe the lens clean, allowing for sharper, more honest insight.

We all have biases. Bias is a product of heuristics – mental shortcuts that we take as humans to be able to process the vast quantities of information that we are faced with.  We have written in the past about the impact of heuristics on the way we listen. However, the person we are speaking to will also benefit (and suffer) from heuristics.

There are several biases to watch out for when someone is on the receiving end of an interview:

1. Social desirability bias – people tend to give answers that they think interviewers want to hear, or that make them look good. This is especially true with certain topics, and one can see how this might come through in certain areas that clients are asked about. For example, when asked about diversity or developing new talent, interviewees might lean towards answers that overstate the importance of these topics to them, because they may be seen to be socially desirable.

2. Afinity bias – we gravitate towards people who are like us. Again, one could imagine the impact this might have in an interview, with someone being more open to sharing with an interviewer with whom they can see similarities. It could also impact their review of professionals, with clients more likely to respond positively to advisors with whom they see the most similarities.

3. Conformity bias – this is where we agree with the views of the majority. Again, one can imagine a scenario where an interviewee has canvased the views of colleagues, and in order not to be seen to be an outlier, goes along with the opinion of the majority, despite knowing something they don't. This can work the other way around too. Sometimes, where there are two interviewees, one might start with a positive review, but quickly shift if the second person is critical - almost being swept up with what they are saying.

All biases operate out of sight, of both the interviewer and the interviewee. The firm and the client.

Emotional filters

Effective listening starts before the conversation begins. We teach interviewers to take a deliberate five-minute pause before conducting any interview. This short check-in helps them assess their mindset and emotional state. Are you carrying stress from earlier in the day? Are you bringing personal feelings into the room? These factors can subtly shape how you hear and respond. The check-in doesn’t need to be elaborate. A few deep breaths, silencing notifications, and mentally clearing space can be enough. The goal is simple: arrive focused, neutral, and ready to listen without interference.

Unlike trained interviewers, clients rarely pause before giving feedback. They may arrive late, distracted, or emotionally charged. These moods can colour their responses. Their last interaction with an advisor also plays a role, influencing what they choose to share and how they frame it. Emotional filters aren’t just present, they can shape the entire conversation.

What is the impact on the interview process?

“The customer is always right” may be a useful starting point, but it’s not the whole story. Clients’ perspectives are valid from their point of view, and when they choose to share them, we have a responsibility to listen. But client listening isn’t just about hearing what’s said in the moment. Firms often use that feedback to identify broader themes and to shape future offerings.

AI has transformed how we handle qualitative feedback. It allows us to capture open-ended responses and extract meaningful patterns without relying on rigid question sets. This is something to be celebrated because it enables us to throw away our question sets and start interviewing and interacting with curiosity. It enables us to make the client listening process a valuable part of our client’s journey and interactions with us.

There is a 'but' though. Analysis and insight can only ever be as good as the raw data allows. The filters that smudge the lens of our clients can lead to distorted data, which in turn can lead to inaccurate conclusions being drawn. Insights can be missed if certain things are filtered out, or other elements overstated.

Using our gather, reflect, act framework to mitigate interviewee bias

With so much in life, we are limited to what we are able to control. We cannot eliminate bias on the side of individuals, and so the focus should remain firm-side. There are things that can be done to mitigate any possible interviewee bias.

Gather:

At the Gather stage, we recommend the following:

• Think about rapport - if rapport isn’t built in the interview, then the client might be guarded and limit the depth of what is shared.

• Use active listening - this can guard against the interviewee feeling like there is a 'right answer' and enables the conversation to be broader.

• Encourage client-side reflection - just as it makes sense for the person conducting the interview to pause and reflect in advance, you can also invite the client to do the same. They might not do these in the same way, but being aware of what might be discussed may help them to frame their thoughts in advance.

• Increase data sets - whether this be by asking the same contact within the client at different stages of their journey, or gathering more feedback from the same client, this can help mitigate any bias by providing more points of comparison.

Reflect:

At the Reflect stage, we recommend:

• Don’t just feed things into a machine - pause and ask the question, 'what biases might be present and what might that mean in the context of these insights?' What other data points do you have to prove or support what you are hearing?

• Build psychological safety – is it safe to be vulnerable within the firm? This enables more honest discussions about what is heard, prevents honest feedback being dismissed, and invites deeper reflection.

Act:

At the Act stage, ask, 'are we acting for one, or for many?' There is a saying that the client's perception is reality. It might not be as you see it, and it might be influenced by their filters, but it is what they experience. This means that when you receive feedback from a client, it must be taken seriously and acted upon. However, where your data set is small, there is a risk in extrapolating from this feedback and making changes that impact many without going out and finding out more.

The ideas explored here aren’t academic abstractions; they’re rooted in the everyday challenges of client listening. At an individual level, we need to create the conditions to hear clearly: to show up well, build rapport, and stay curious. But we also need to be honest about the limits. The more we work with feedback that may be imperfect, shaped by filters, emotions, and bias, the more alert we must be to its distortions. Insight doesn’t come from polishing flawed data until it shines. It comes from recognising its imperfections and working with them thoughtfully.