A CV is useful because it gives recruiters a quick overview of a candidate’s work history, education and qualifications. It can show where someone has worked, how long they stayed and whether they appear to meet the basic requirements of a role. What it cannot always show is how that person approaches problems, what they learned from an unusual career path or how their experience might transfer into a new environment.
This limitation matters because CVs tend to present careers in a standard format. Candidates are expected to summarise years of experience in a few lines, choose the right keywords and make their progression easy to understand at a glance. Those who have followed a clear and conventional path may find that easier than people who have changed industries, returned after a career break or gained relevant skills outside an expected job title.
Research also suggests that presentation can influence hiring outcomes independently of underlying ability. In a large field experiment involving nearly half a million jobseekers, candidates who received writing assistance for their CVs were hired more often, while employers did not report lower satisfaction with those hires. The researchers concluded that clearer writing helped employers identify candidates’ abilities rather than serving as evidence of greater ability itself.
That does not make CVs irrelevant. It does show why they should be treated as one source of information rather than the complete picture.
A CV shows history more easily than potential
Recruiters need efficient ways to review applications, particularly when a role attracts hundreds of candidates. CVs provide that efficiency by compressing a large amount of information into a familiar structure.
The difficulty is that the structure favours information that is easy to label. A recognised employer, a familiar qualification or a matching job title can be identified quickly. Transferable skills, learning ability and motivation often require more interpretation.
Consider a candidate moving from hospitality into customer support. Their previous title may not match the vacancy, but they may already have substantial experience handling complaints, explaining information clearly and remaining calm during difficult interactions. Those skills may be highly relevant even though the connection is not immediately visible from the job title.
A junior applicant presents a different challenge. Their work history may be limited, so the CV contains relatively little evidence from which to draw conclusions. That does not establish whether they lack potential; it simply means the document cannot show experience they have not yet had the opportunity to gain.
Career gaps can also influence how an application is interpreted. Resume-audit studies have found that applicants with long periods of unemployment can receive fewer callbacks, which suggests employers may use the gap itself as a signal when deciding whom to contact.
A recruiter may still need to consider the dates, but the CV rarely explains enough on its own. A short, relevant question can provide context that the timeline cannot.
Strong candidates are not always strong CV writers
Writing a good CV is a separate skill from performing well in many jobs. Some candidates are highly effective in their work but struggle to describe their achievements in the concise and promotional style that applications often require.
Others may not understand which parts of their experience are most relevant to the vacancy. They may describe their daily responsibilities without explaining the result, or use terminology from another industry that the recruiter does not immediately recognise.
The research on CV-writing assistance illustrates how much presentation can matter. When better wording improves hiring outcomes without reducing employer satisfaction, it suggests that recruiters may sometimes overlook ability because it has not been communicated clearly enough on paper.
Structured pre-screening can help by giving candidates another way to provide evidence. Instead of expecting them to predict which information the recruiter wants to find in their CV, the hiring team can ask directly.
A career changer can explain which skills transfer to the new role. A junior candidate can describe how they approached a project, deadline or unfamiliar task. Someone returning to work can provide relevant context without needing to turn the CV itself into a personal explanation.
The purpose is not to ignore employment history. It is to avoid making the quality of the document the only route through which a candidate can demonstrate suitability.
Moving structured questions earlier in the process
Structured questions are often associated with formal interviews, but the same principles can be applied during pre-screening.
The UK government’s 2026 guidance on fair and structured interview techniques recommends developing questions around the skills and knowledge required for the job, asking candidates the same questions and using standardised criteria to assess responses. The guidance notes that this makes answers easier to compare and can support fairer, more transparent decisions.
Introducing this structure earlier gives recruiters relevant information before deciding whom to call or invite to interview. Instead of relying entirely on previous job titles and CV wording, the team can review how candidates answer questions connected to the actual role.
Zeenna is built around this approach. Candidates can be asked the same set of pre-screening questions, while recruiters receive structured answers and scores based on defined criteria. The aim is to make the candidate’s response more visible, rather than allowing formatting, confidence in self-promotion or familiarity with CV conventions to dominate the first decision.
This is particularly useful when a recruiter needs to distinguish between candidates who look similar on paper. Two applicants may have comparable years of experience, yet their answers can reveal different levels of understanding, motivation or practical fit.
It can also help when candidates look different on paper but may be similarly capable. Structured questions create a shared point of comparison that does not depend entirely on career history.
Why broad self-description questions reveal so little
Not every structured question produces useful evidence. Questions such as “Are you a good problem-solver?” or “Would you describe yourself as flexible?” invite candidates to make a positive claim about themselves.
Most applicants understand what the employer wants to hear. Few are likely to answer that they avoid problems, dislike change or struggle to work with others. The question therefore produces a predictable response without showing what the person has actually done.
SIOP guidance on structured interviewing recommends using prepared, job-related questions, asking the same questions of all candidates and evaluating answers against a standard rubric. It also notes that structured interviews based on past behaviour are better predictors of later job performance than informal or partly structured conversations.
A useful screening question asks for evidence rather than a label. It gives the candidate a specific subject to discuss and gives the recruiter something concrete to evaluate.
Instead of asking whether someone is adaptable, the process can ask them to describe a time when priorities changed unexpectedly and explain what they did. Instead of asking whether they are a strong communicator, it can ask how they explained difficult information to someone unfamiliar with the subject.
The answer may still be brief, but it provides more than a rehearsed adjective.
Five weak screening questions and what to ask instead
The difference between a weak and useful question is often small. The goal is not to make questions more complicated, but to make them more specific and connected to the work.
1. “Are you a good problem-solver?”
Most candidates will say yes, and the answer provides no evidence about what they consider a problem or how they approach one.
A better version would be:
Tell us about a problem you had to solve with limited information. What did you do first, and what was the result?
This question allows the candidate to choose a relevant example while giving the recruiter several areas to assess. The answer can show whether the person clarified the problem, gathered information, considered alternatives and took responsibility for the outcome.
The scoring criteria should be defined before answers are reviewed. For example, a strong response might identify the problem clearly, describe a logical approach and explain the result without relying only on vague statements.
2. “Are you flexible?”
Flexibility can refer to working hours, changing priorities, learning new systems or responding to unexpected demands. A yes-or-no answer does not reveal which meaning the candidate has understood.
A clearer question would be:
Describe a time when your priorities changed at short notice. How did you decide what to do next?
This version focuses on observable behaviour. The recruiter can look for evidence that the candidate reassessed priorities, communicated with relevant people and completed the most important work.
The question should still reflect the role. When “flexibility” refers mainly to working particular shifts, the employer should ask directly about availability rather than disguising a practical requirement as a personality trait.
3. “Are you a team player?”
Nearly every applicant will describe themselves as collaborative. What matters is how they behave when working with people who have different responsibilities, opinions or working styles.
A better question could be:
Tell us about a situation in which you had to work with someone whose approach was different from yours. How did you handle it?
The answer can reveal how the candidate communicates, whether they listen and how they respond to disagreement. It also gives the recruiter an opportunity to distinguish genuine collaboration from simply agreeing with others.
A strong response does not need to end with perfect harmony. In many roles, the useful signal is whether the candidate handled the difference constructively and kept the work moving.
4. “Why should we hire you?”
This question asks candidates to deliver a sales pitch. It may reward confidence and preparation more than relevance to the job, particularly when applicants have different levels of experience with interviews.
A more focused version would be:
Which part of your experience would help you contribute most quickly in this role, and why?
The candidate still needs to make a case for their suitability, but the question directs them towards evidence. Career changers can explain a transferable skill, junior applicants can discuss a relevant project, and experienced candidates can identify the part of their background that best matches the work.
The recruiter can then evaluate the connection between the example and the role rather than the general persuasiveness of the answer.
5. “What is your greatest weakness?”
Candidates often prepare a safe response to this question, such as being too detail-oriented or caring too much about their work. The result may show interview preparation, but it rarely provides useful evidence about development.
A better alternative would be:
Tell us about a piece of feedback that changed how you work. What did you do differently afterwards?
This asks the candidate to discuss a genuine learning experience without encouraging a confession unrelated to the role. The recruiter can look for openness to feedback, self-awareness and evidence of practical change.
A strong answer should explain both the feedback and what happened next. The purpose is not to identify a flaw, but to understand whether the candidate can recognise and respond to opportunities for improvement.
Situational and behavioural questions serve different purposes
Useful screening questions generally fall into two broad categories: behavioural and situational.
Behavioural questions ask candidates to describe something they have already done. They are helpful when applicants are likely to have relevant past experience and when the recruiter wants evidence of how they behaved in a real situation.
Situational questions present a realistic scenario and ask what the candidate would do. They can be particularly useful for junior candidates or career changers who may not have encountered an identical situation in a previous role.
For example, a behavioural question for a customer-service position might ask:
Tell us about a time you handled a frustrated customer. How did you approach the conversation?
A situational version might ask:
A customer says they have contacted the company twice and still have no solution. How would you begin the conversation?
Both can provide useful information, but they should not be evaluated in exactly the same way. The behavioural question examines past actions, while the situational question examines how the candidate reasons through a hypothetical problem.
SIOP’s summary of structured-interview research notes that both past-behaviour and situational questions have been studied as structured methods. Their value depends on how closely they relate to the role and how consistently the answers are evaluated.
Good questions still need good scoring
Asking every candidate the same question does not automatically make the process fair or useful. The team also needs to decide what a strong answer looks like before reviewing applications.
Without defined criteria, recruiters may still score answers based on style, confidence or personal similarity. One reviewer may reward detail, while another prefers brevity. A polished answer may appear stronger even when it contains less relevant evidence.
The UK government guidance recommends creating benchmark answers and standardised scoring criteria in advance. It also warns that hiring teams should leave room for good answers they did not anticipate, particularly when candidates come from different backgrounds and may approach the problem differently.
A simple scoring guide for a problem-solving question might include:
-
1 point: The answer is vague or does not explain the candidate’s role.
-
2 points: The candidate describes the situation and some action but provides little reasoning or result.
-
3 points: The candidate explains the problem, their actions and the outcome clearly.
-
4 points: The answer also shows prioritisation, consideration of alternatives or learning that can be applied to the role.
The exact scale is less important than agreeing on what each level represents. The criteria should focus on the content of the answer rather than writing style unless written communication is itself an essential requirement.
Structure should not eliminate context
Standardisation improves comparability, but it should not turn screening into a rigid exercise that only rewards expected answers.
Candidates may provide strong evidence through an example the hiring team did not anticipate. Someone from another industry may use different terminology while demonstrating the same underlying skill. A junior applicant may draw on education, volunteering or personal projects rather than paid employment.
Scoring criteria should therefore describe the quality being assessed without requiring one specific background or example. When the aim is to assess prioritisation, the recruiter should look for how the person made decisions rather than whether they used a familiar corporate method.
The government guidance explicitly recommends allowing flexibility for good answers that differ from the benchmark, because applicants from varied backgrounds may approach the same question in ways the panel did not predict.
This is where human review remains important. Structure provides a common framework, but recruiters still need to understand the meaning of the answer and whether it demonstrates relevant evidence.
CVs and structured screening work better together
The choice is not between CVs and questions. Each provides different information.
A CV gives recruiters an overview of employment history, qualifications and progression. Structured screening gives candidates an opportunity to explain relevant decisions, examples and motivations that are difficult to capture in that format.
Together, they create a fuller view. The CV may show that a candidate has not worked in the same industry before, while their answer demonstrates experience solving a closely related problem. It may show a career gap, while the screening provides context about what the person learned or why they are now returning.
The recruiter can then decide whether the candidate should progress based on more than the neatness of their career history or the quality of their self-marketing.
This approach does not guarantee that every unconventional candidate will be suitable. It gives them a clearer opportunity to provide evidence before a conclusion is reached.
Better questions create better evidence
A strong screening process does not ask candidates to describe themselves in broad, positive terms. It asks them to provide relevant examples, respond to realistic situations and explain how their experience connects to the role.
That shift benefits both sides. Candidates know what kind of information the employer needs, while recruiters receive answers that can be compared against defined criteria.
CVs will continue to be valuable because they provide an efficient overview of a candidate’s background. Their limitation is that they show past experience more easily than future potential, and presentation can influence how clearly that experience is understood.
Structured pre-screening adds another source of evidence. By asking each candidate the same job-related questions and scoring the content consistently, hiring teams can look beyond the shape of the CV without abandoning it.
The best candidate will not always have the cleanest career timeline or the most polished document. Sometimes the relevant evidence only appears when the hiring process asks a better question.