How proctored interviews are reshaping the chief human resources officer role

Why proctored interview technology is now on the chro agenda

From niche experiment to board level priority

Proctored interviews have moved very quickly from a niche experiment in campus hiring to a topic that appears on many board and audit committee agendas. For a chief human resources officer, this is no longer just a question of choosing a new interview service or adding another tool to the recruitment process. It is about how the organisation will assess talent at scale, in a way that is defensible, data driven, and aligned with its values.

Several forces are converging at the same time :

• Remote work and distributed teams have normalised remote proctoring and proctored video formats for interviews and assessments.
• Large scale hiring in sectors such as customer support, technology, and operations demands consistent, standardised interview process design.
• Regulatory and social pressure around data privacy, fairness, and algorithmic bias is increasing scrutiny on proctoring tools and platforms.
• Business expectations for faster, better hiring decisions push HR leaders toward more automated, real time assessment and proctoring solutions.

In this context, the CHRO is expected to understand not only the people impact of proctored interviews, but also the technical, legal, and ethical dimensions that come with these tools.

Why proctored interviews fit the new hiring reality

Traditional interviews were built around in person meetings, unstructured conversations, and a lot of intuition. That model is under pressure. Organisations now run interviews with candidates across time zones, often fully remote, and need to compare hundreds or thousands of applicants in a short time.

Proctored interviews and assessments promise to solve several pain points :

• Consistency in how each candidate is assessed, using structured questions, standard scoring, and clear key features in the platform.
• Scalability for large scale hiring, where proctoring tools can monitor many video interviews at once and flag potential issues in real time.
• Integrity of the assessment, especially for problem solving tasks or skills based tests where remote proctoring can reduce cheating.
• Speed in the hiring process, as data from each interview and assessment is captured automatically and can feed into decision making dashboards.

For the CHRO, these benefits are attractive, but they come with trade offs. The same proctoring solutions that protect the fairness of an assessment can feel intrusive to candidates, especially when facial recognition or continuous monitoring is involved. This tension between efficiency and respect for people runs through every discussion about proctored interviews.

The data driven shift in talent assessment

Another reason proctored interviews are now on the CHRO agenda is the broader shift toward data driven talent acquisition. Modern platforms do not just host video interviews. They collect detailed data on candidate behaviour, time taken to answer questions, patterns in assessments, and even environmental signals captured during remote proctoring.

When combined with other hiring data, this creates powerful insights into :

• Which interview formats best predict on the job performance
• How different candidate groups move through the recruitment process
• Where bias may appear in the interview process or in automated scoring

However, this also raises questions about data privacy, retention, and the acceptable use of behavioural signals. CHROs are expected to set clear boundaries on what data is collected during proctored video sessions, how long it is stored, and who can access it. These questions connect directly to the governance and policy work that HR leaders must lead with legal, IT, and compliance teams.

To navigate this landscape, many CHROs are revisiting their technology choices. Understanding the latest updates in assessment platforms is becoming a core part of the role, not a task that can be delegated entirely to talent acquisition or HR operations.

New expectations for CHRO skills and responsibilities

Because proctored interviews sit at the intersection of technology, ethics, and human experience, they reshape what is expected from a chief human resources officer. The role now includes :

• Strategic evaluation of proctoring tools : understanding key features, integration with existing systems, and the impact on the overall hiring process.
• Risk management : assessing algorithmic risk, data privacy exposure, and reputational implications of remote proctoring practices.
• Experience design : ensuring that candidates feel respected and supported during proctored interviews, even when monitoring is in place.
• Capability building : helping HR teams develop the skills to interpret data from proctored assessments and use it responsibly in decision making.

These expectations will influence how CHROs think about fairness and surveillance in proctoring, how they build governance frameworks, and how they prepare HR teams for the future of interviews and assessments. Proctored interviews are not just another tool in the stack ; they are a catalyst for a broader transformation in how organisations understand and select talent.

Balancing fairness and surveillance in proctored interviews

From monitoring to meaningful fairness

When proctored interviews enter the hiring process, the first reaction in many HR teams is often about control : how do we prevent cheating in remote assessments and video interviews ? But for a chief human resources officer, the deeper question is different : how do we use proctoring tools in a way that is fair, transparent, and respectful of candidates ?

Modern proctoring solutions can track eye movements, browser activity, background noise, and even use facial recognition to flag suspicious behavior in real time. These key features are powerful, especially for large scale recruitment process campaigns or when assessments are fully remote. Yet every extra layer of monitoring changes the psychological contract between employer and candidate.

The CHRO role is to shift the conversation from pure surveillance to fairness. That means asking whether each proctored feature is genuinely needed for valid assessment of skills and problem solving, or whether it simply adds anxiety and potential bias to the interview process.

What fairness actually looks like in proctored interviews

Fairness in proctored interviews is not just about treating every candidate the same. It is about giving every candidate a reasonable chance to show their talent under conditions that are as consistent and bias free as possible. In practice, that means looking at the full interview service and asking some hard questions.

• Is the technology accessible ? Remote proctoring platforms often assume stable internet, a quiet room, and a modern device. Candidates from different socio economic backgrounds may not have that. CHROs need clear alternatives, such as supervised in person interviews or flexible time slots.
• Are flags and alerts interpreted carefully ? Proctoring tools can generate many alerts based on movement, lighting, or connection issues. A data driven approach means reviewing patterns, not punishing a single alert. Human review remains essential before any hiring decision.
• Are we testing the right things ? If the assessment is about problem solving or role specific skills, the level of monitoring should match that goal. Overly strict controls for low risk interviews can feel disproportionate and damage the employer brand.
• Are accommodations built in ? Candidates with disabilities, neurodivergent candidates, or those with caregiving responsibilities may interact differently with remote proctoring. Fairness requires clear processes for accommodations and alternative formats.

For a CHRO, fairness becomes a design principle for the entire hiring process, not a box to tick after the platform is configured.

Surveillance, trust, and the candidate relationship

Every interview, whether traditional interviews or proctored video formats, is a moment where candidates decide if they trust the organization. Heavy surveillance can send a message that the company expects bad behavior, even before the candidate joins. That has long term consequences for engagement and retention.

Trust is built when candidates understand why specific tools are used, how their data is handled, and how decisions are made. This is where the CHRO needs to work closely with legal, security, and talent acquisition teams to define a clear narrative about proctoring.

Instead of presenting remote proctoring as a policing mechanism, some organizations frame it as a way to offer flexible, remote interviews at scale, while still protecting the integrity of assessments. The difference is not only in the tools, but in the tone, the explanations, and the support offered to candidates before and during the interview.

Data privacy and ethical boundaries

Proctored interviews generate sensitive data : video recordings, behavioral logs, biometric signals, and performance data from assessments. For a CHRO, data privacy is not just a compliance topic ; it is a core part of ethical leadership.

Key questions that HR leaders are now expected to answer include :

• What types of data does the proctoring platform collect during the interview process, and for what exact purpose ?
• How long is this data stored, and who has access to it across HR, talent acquisition, and other functions ?
• Are automated risk scores or flags used directly in decision making, or only as input for human review ?
• How are candidates informed about data collection, and do they have meaningful options to opt out or request deletion where regulations allow ?

Regulatory expectations around data privacy and algorithmic transparency are rising. CHROs who can explain their proctoring tools and processes in clear, non technical language to both candidates and regulators will be seen as more credible and trustworthy.

Practical guardrails CHROs can put in place

Balancing fairness and surveillance is not only a philosophical debate. It shows up in very practical choices about tools, policies, and communication. Many HR leaders are now building explicit guardrails around proctored video and remote proctoring use.

• Limit what is monitored : Configure proctoring solutions to focus on behaviors that genuinely threaten assessment integrity, rather than collecting every possible signal.
• Separate monitoring from evaluation : Ensure that the people reviewing proctoring alerts are trained and that hiring managers understand the limits of the data.
• Standardize criteria : Define clear, written rules for when a candidate’s interview or assessment should be invalidated, and apply them consistently.
• Offer human support : Provide a help channel in real time during proctored interviews so candidates can report technical issues or ask for clarification.
• Review outcomes regularly : Use data to check whether certain groups of candidates are disproportionately flagged or excluded by the proctoring tools.

These guardrails turn abstract values into concrete practices that can be audited and improved over time.

Communicating openly with candidates

One of the most underestimated skills for a CHRO in this area is communication. Even the most carefully designed proctoring tools can feel intrusive if candidates are surprised by them at the last minute.

Clear, plain language explanations should cover :

• Why the organization uses proctored interviews and how they support a fair and consistent hiring process
• What will happen during the interview or assessment, including any checks or recordings
• What candidates can do to prepare their environment and technology ahead of time
• How their data will be used, stored, and protected, and who to contact with concerns
• What options exist if a candidate cannot meet the technical or environmental requirements

Some HR leaders are also exploring structured toolkits and frameworks to guide this work. Resources that focus on building practical HR capability kits for new technologies, such as an HR builder kit for emerging tools, can help teams translate principles into repeatable processes.

Over time, this kind of transparent communication does more than reduce candidate anxiety. It signals that the organization takes fairness seriously, even when using advanced, data driven platforms in talent acquisition.

Data literacy and algorithmic risk in proctored interview systems

Reading the numbers behind proctored interviews

When proctored interviews move into the hiring process, the chief human resources officer suddenly becomes accountable for a new layer of data. Every remote proctoring platform, every proctored video interview service, every assessment tool generates logs, scores, alerts, and behavioral signals in real time. Without strong data literacy, it is very easy to confuse volume of information with quality of insight.

At a basic level, CHROs need to understand what the system is actually measuring during interviews and assessments. Is the platform tracking eye movements, browser activity, typing patterns, or facial recognition signals ? Which of these data points are used in decision making about candidates, and which are only there to support proctoring tools in detecting technical issues or potential misconduct ?

Research on algorithmic hiring systems has repeatedly shown that models trained on historical recruitment process data can reproduce and even amplify existing bias if they are not carefully audited and governed (for example, see Raghavan et al., 2020, ACM FAccT). For a CHRO, this means that data driven hiring is not automatically fair hiring. It is only as fair as the assumptions, training data, and controls built into the tools.

Key questions to ask about algorithms and risk

Data literacy for proctored interviews is less about coding skills and more about asking the right questions. When evaluating proctoring solutions or a new interview platform, CHROs should be able to challenge vendors and internal teams on how the system works at a practical level.

• What is the model actually predicting ? Is it predicting job performance, likelihood of cheating, completion time, or something else entirely ?
• Which data sources feed the model ? CV data, video interviews, test scores, behavioral logs from remote proctoring, or external data sets ?
• How was the model validated ? Are there documented accuracy metrics, false positive and false negative rates, and comparisons with traditional interviews or manual assessments ?
• How often is the model re tested ? Is there a schedule for revalidation when the role, talent market, or hiring process changes ?
• What are the known limitations ? For example, does facial recognition perform differently across demographic groups, or do language models struggle with certain accents in video interviews ?

Independent studies have highlighted that facial recognition and similar technologies can show uneven performance across demographic groups, which can create legal and ethical risks if used in hiring decisions (see NIST Face Recognition Vendor Test reports). A CHRO does not need to be a data scientist, but must be able to interpret such findings and translate them into practical guardrails for talent acquisition teams.

Protecting candidate data and privacy at scale

Remote proctoring and proctored video interviews often involve sensitive data : live video, audio, screen capture, and behavioral logs. At large scale, across many candidates and multiple interviews, this becomes a significant data privacy and security responsibility for HR leadership.

Regulatory frameworks such as the EU General Data Protection Regulation and similar laws in other regions require clear legal bases for processing personal data, explicit consent in many cases, and strict controls on retention time and access. Supervisory authorities have issued guidance and enforcement actions in areas like biometric data and automated decision making, which are directly relevant to proctoring tools and algorithmic assessments (for example, see the European Data Protection Board guidelines).

For CHROs, this translates into concrete responsibilities :

• Ensuring that candidates are clearly informed about what is recorded during the interview process, how long data is stored, and who can access it.
• Working with legal and security teams to define retention policies for proctored interview recordings and assessment logs.
• Verifying that proctoring solutions encrypt data in transit and at rest, and that vendors meet recognized security standards.
• Limiting the use of biometric or facial recognition data to what is strictly necessary, and avoiding it in decision making unless there is a strong, well documented justification.

Data privacy is not only a compliance issue. It is also a trust issue. Candidates who feel over monitored or unsure about how their data is used are less likely to complete assessments or accept offers, especially in competitive talent markets.

From dashboards to decisions : building practical literacy

Many proctoring tools and interview platforms now offer sophisticated dashboards, with real time alerts, risk scores, and analytics on candidate behavior. These key features can be powerful, but they can also mislead if HR leaders interpret them as objective truth rather than probabilistic signals.

To move from dashboards to sound decision making, CHROs can focus on a few practical habits :

• Separate monitoring from selection. Use remote proctoring alerts to trigger human review, not to automatically reject candidates.
• Triangulate data. Combine proctored assessment results with structured interviews, work samples, and reference checks, instead of relying on a single tool.
• Track outcomes over time. Compare performance and retention of hires who went through proctored interviews with those from more traditional interviews, and adjust the process based on evidence.
• Document decisions. Keep a clear record of how data from proctoring solutions influenced hiring decisions, which helps both learning and compliance.

Over time, this kind of disciplined, data driven approach helps HR teams move beyond intuition while still respecting the limits of automated assessment. It also lays the groundwork for broader automation and analytics capabilities in HR. For CHROs who want to go deeper into structuring these capabilities, resources on building a blueprint to automation for HR leadership can provide a useful reference point.

Embedding algorithmic risk into HR governance

Algorithmic risk in proctored interviews is not only a technology topic. It is a governance topic. As proctoring tools and assessments become embedded in the recruitment process, CHROs need to ensure that risk management is part of everyday practice, not an occasional audit.

Practical steps include :

• Creating a cross functional review group with HR, legal, security, and data experts to evaluate new interview tools and updates.
• Setting clear criteria for acceptable error rates, bias metrics, and data privacy safeguards before adopting a new platform.
• Requiring vendors to provide transparent documentation on model behavior, limitations, and testing methods.
• Training recruiters and hiring managers on how to interpret proctored interview outputs, and when to override automated signals.

When these practices are in place, proctored interviews can support more consistent, scalable hiring without turning the process into a black box. The CHRO role then shifts from passive consumer of tools to active steward of data, algorithms, and the human impact they have on candidates and the future workforce.

Designing a candidate experience that respects people in a proctored interview

From monitored test to respectful conversation

When proctored interviews enter the hiring process, the risk is that the experience starts to feel like an exam under surveillance rather than a human conversation. For a chief human resources officer, the real challenge is to keep the interview process grounded in respect, even when remote proctoring, proctoring tools, and automated assessments are involved.

That means treating every candidate as a person first, not as a data point. The technology, whether it is a proctored video interview platform or a full assessment suite, should quietly support the interaction, not dominate it. Candidates should still feel they are in a dialogue about their skills, potential, and fit, not being watched for mistakes.

Clarity and consent before the first click

Respect starts long before the proctored interview begins. It starts with clear, plain language about what will happen, why it is being done, and how the data will be used.

• Explain the purpose of proctoring solutions in the recruitment process : reducing bias, enabling remote interviews at scale, and supporting consistent assessments.
• Describe the key features of the platform in human terms, not just technical jargon. If facial recognition or real time monitoring is used, say so directly.
• Set expectations about time : how long the interview or assessment will take, whether there will be multiple video interviews, and what happens if a candidate loses connection.
• Be explicit about data privacy : what is recorded, how long it is stored, who can access it, and how it is protected.

Informed consent is not just a legal box to tick. It is a signal that the organisation takes people seriously. When candidates understand the tools and the process, they are more likely to trust the hiring decisions that follow.

Designing for accessibility, not just control

Many proctoring tools were originally built for large scale online assessments. When they are repurposed for talent acquisition, they can unintentionally exclude candidates who do not have ideal conditions at home or who use assistive technologies.

CHROs can push vendors and internal teams to design the interview service around accessibility :

• Offer flexible scheduling so candidates in different time zones or with caregiving responsibilities can choose a time that works.
• Provide clear technical requirements and simple pre interview checks so candidates can test their camera, microphone, and connection.
• Allow reasonable accommodations for candidates with disabilities, including alternative assessment formats when proctored video is not suitable.
• Minimise environmental penalties : do not reject candidates because of background noise, shared living spaces, or minor interruptions.

Respectful design means the tools adapt to people, not the other way around. This is especially important when moving away from traditional interviews to remote, data driven formats.

Human support in a digital interview journey

Even the best proctoring solutions can feel cold if candidates never interact with a human. A respectful candidate experience builds in human touchpoints around the technology.

• Pre interview guidance : short, friendly messages that explain the interview process, how remote proctoring works, and what support is available.
• Real time help : chat or phone support during the interview window so candidates can solve technical issues quickly.
• Post interview follow up : timely updates on next steps, even if the decision is a rejection.

These steps do not require large teams, but they do require clear ownership. Someone in talent acquisition should be accountable for the end to end candidate journey, not just the assessment results.

Balancing structure with authentic interaction

Proctored interviews often rely on structured questions and standardised assessments to improve fairness. That structure is valuable, but it can also make the experience feel scripted. Candidates still need space to show problem solving, creativity, and interpersonal skills.

CHROs can encourage hiring managers to use the data from assessments as a starting point, not the final word. For example :

• Use data driven insights from the platform to identify topics to explore in follow up conversations.
• Combine skills based questions with open questions about motivation, values, and ways of working.
• Allow time for candidates to ask their own questions about the role, the team, and the organisation.

This blend of structured assessment and genuine dialogue keeps the process rigorous without losing the human element that traditional interviews often provided.

Transparency about automated decision making

When proctored interviews feed into automated scoring or ranking, candidates deserve to know. They do not need the full algorithm, but they should understand the basics of how their performance is evaluated.

Respectful transparency can include :

• Explaining whether automated scoring is used for assessments, and how human reviewers are involved.
• Clarifying if facial recognition is used only for identity verification or also for behavioural analysis.
• Providing high level feedback where possible, especially for internal candidates who will continue to grow within the organisation.

This connects directly with the broader need for data literacy and algorithmic risk management in HR. Candidates are increasingly aware that their data is being used in complex ways. Honest communication builds trust, even when the outcome is not in their favour.

Measuring candidate experience with the same rigor as performance

Finally, a respectful candidate experience around proctored interviews is not something to design once and forget. It needs ongoing measurement and improvement, just like any other critical HR process.

CHROs can ask for regular reporting on :

• Completion rates for remote proctored assessments and video interviews.
• Drop off points in the hiring process where candidates abandon the platform.
• Feedback scores on clarity, fairness, and overall satisfaction with the interview service.
• Differences across groups to identify whether certain candidates are disproportionately affected by the tools or requirements.

Using this data, HR leaders can refine instructions, adjust proctoring settings, or even change vendors when needed. The goal is a recruitment process that is efficient and data driven, but still recognises that every candidate is a person investing their time, energy, and trust.

Governance, policy, and cross functional leadership around proctored interview use

Putting clear ownership around proctored interview decisions

Once proctored interviews move beyond pilots, the chief human resources officer has to decide who actually owns what. Without clear ownership, remote proctoring tools can spread across the hiring process in an uncontrolled way, with different teams using different platforms, rules, and data practices.

At a minimum, governance should define :

• Strategic ownership in HR or talent acquisition for why proctoring is used, in which interviews or assessments, and for which roles.
• Operational ownership for configuring proctoring tools, managing proctored video settings, and monitoring key features such as facial recognition, browser lockdown, and real time alerts.
• Risk and compliance ownership in partnership with legal, security, and data privacy teams to review the interview process and the data driven logic behind automated flags.
• Candidate experience ownership to ensure that every interview service, from scheduling to support, respects candidates and aligns with the organisation’s values.

This division of roles keeps the CHRO in the strategic seat, while ensuring that day to day decisions about tools and platforms are not made in isolation by a single vendor or a single recruiter.

Cross functional guardrails for ethical and lawful use

Proctored interviews sit at the intersection of talent acquisition, technology, and regulation. That means governance cannot be an HR only exercise. A cross functional working group is usually needed to set guardrails for how proctoring solutions are selected, configured, and monitored over time.

Typical members include :

• HR and talent acquisition to define the hiring process, the role of assessments, and the skills being evaluated.
• Information security to review platform architecture, data flows, and large scale monitoring capabilities.
• Data protection and legal to assess data privacy, consent, retention, and cross border data transfers.
• Diversity, equity, and inclusion specialists to examine whether the interview process or remote proctoring rules create unequal barriers for some candidates.
• IT and procurement to evaluate integration with existing tools, cost, and vendor risk.

This group should meet regularly, not only at selection time. Proctoring tools evolve quickly, and new key features such as advanced facial recognition or behavioural analytics can change the risk profile of a platform almost overnight. Governance has to keep pace with that change.

Policies that translate principles into daily practice

High level values about fairness and respect are not enough. The CHRO needs written policies that translate those values into concrete rules for interviews and assessments. These policies should be simple enough that recruiters, hiring managers, and candidates can understand them without legal training.

Areas to cover include :

• When proctoring is used : for which roles, which stages of the recruitment process, and whether it replaces or complements traditional interviews and video interviews.
• What is monitored : camera, microphone, screen, keystrokes, room scans, and how real time alerts are generated.
• How flags are handled : who reviews them, how candidates can respond, and how final hiring decisions are made based on the full assessment, not a single automated signal.
• Accessibility and accommodations : how candidates can request alternative formats or support when remote proctoring is not suitable.
• Data handling : what data is collected, how long it is stored, who can access it, and how it is deleted.

These policies should be embedded into the interview service itself. For example, the platform can display clear explanations before a proctored video session starts, and provide links to request support or raise concerns in real time.

Data privacy, consent, and transparency as non negotiables

Remote proctoring relies on sensitive data : video, audio, behavioural patterns, and sometimes biometric like facial recognition. Governance has to treat this as high risk data, not just another hiring metric.

From a CHRO perspective, strong governance means :

• Explicit consent from candidates, with clear language about what is collected during the interview or assessment and why.
• Purpose limitation : data from proctored interviews is used only for the specific hiring process, not for unrelated analytics or training other systems without clear consent.
• Minimal retention : keeping recordings and logs only for the time needed to complete assessments, manage appeals, and meet legal obligations.
• Access controls : limiting who can view proctored video, logs, and flags, and tracking every access in an audit trail.

Regulators in multiple regions are paying close attention to AI and monitoring in employment contexts. A data privacy first approach is not only ethical, it is also a practical way to reduce legal and reputational risk over time.

Embedding human oversight into data driven decision making

Even when proctoring tools are marketed as automated or AI based, the CHRO remains accountable for hiring decisions. Governance should make it explicit that automated flags are inputs to human judgment, not final verdicts on a candidate’s integrity or skills.

Good practice includes :

• Human review of all critical flags before any candidate is rejected or disqualified.
• Contextual assessment of the full interview, including problem solving performance, communication, and other assessments, rather than a single incident.
• Appeal mechanisms so candidates can challenge outcomes, explain technical issues, or request a new interview time.
• Regular audits of outcomes to check whether certain groups of candidates are disproportionately flagged by the platform.

This kind of oversight keeps data driven tools in their proper place : supporting human decision making, not replacing it.

Vendor management and ongoing performance review

Proctoring solutions are not static purchases. They are evolving platforms that can change their algorithms, key features, and data practices over time. Governance has to treat vendors as long term partners that require continuous scrutiny.

For the CHRO, that means building a structured vendor management approach :

• Due diligence at selection : reviewing security certifications, data privacy documentation, and evidence of bias testing in the interview process.
• Contractual safeguards : clear clauses on data ownership, retention, sub processors, and notification of any major changes to the platform.
• Performance dashboards : tracking metrics such as completion rates, candidate drop off, false positive flags, and time to hire across proctored interviews.
• Regular business reviews : bringing together HR, IT, and the vendor to discuss issues, roadmap changes, and alignment with future talent acquisition needs.

When vendor management is handled well, proctoring tools become part of a coherent, data informed recruitment process rather than a disconnected layer of surveillance.

Aligning governance with broader HR strategy

Finally, governance around proctored interviews should not live in a silo. It has to connect with the broader HR strategy, including workforce planning, skills based hiring, and the organisation’s stance on technology in the workplace.

For the CHRO, this means checking that :

• The use of proctoring supports long term talent goals, such as fair access to remote roles or large scale graduate hiring.
• Policies for interviews and assessments are consistent with internal monitoring policies for employees.
• Data from the platform is integrated carefully into HR analytics, without over relying on any single tool or metric.

When governance, policy, and cross functional leadership are aligned, proctored interviews can become a controlled, transparent part of the hiring process, rather than a source of confusion or mistrust for candidates and internal stakeholders.

Building future ready hr capabilities around proctored interview practices

From one off pilots to a repeatable operating model

Most organisations start with proctored interviews as a small experiment in one part of the hiring process. The real shift for a chief human resources officer is turning those pilots into a stable, scalable operating model that supports talent acquisition at large scale.

That means moving from ad hoc choices of proctoring tools to a clear architecture of platforms, data flows, and responsibilities. The CHRO does not need to be a technologist, but does need to understand how remote proctoring, video interviews, and online assessments fit together as one integrated interview process.

• Define where proctored interviews add value in the recruitment process, and where traditional interviews remain the better option.
• Clarify which roles or levels justify proctored video or remote proctoring, based on risk, volume, and candidate expectations.
• Standardise key features and configurations across business units, so candidates experience a consistent and fair process.
• Set measurable goals for quality of hire, time to hire, and candidate satisfaction, then track them over time.

Without this operating model, even the best proctoring solutions become isolated tools, and the organisation struggles to compare data, improve decision making, or maintain trust with candidates.

New capability stack for HR and talent acquisition teams

Proctored interviews introduce a different skills mix for HR professionals. The focus is no longer only on behavioural interviewing and competency models. Teams now need a blend of human judgement, data literacy, and comfort with digital platforms.

At a minimum, HR and talent acquisition teams should build capabilities in three areas :

• Digital fluency with proctoring tools – understanding how to configure assessments, manage remote proctoring sessions, interpret system alerts, and support candidates in real time when the platform fails or connectivity drops.
• Data driven assessment literacy – reading and questioning the data produced by proctored interviews, including pass rates, flag rates, and correlations with later performance or retention.
• Ethical and legal awareness – recognising when features such as facial recognition, browser tracking, or continuous monitoring may create data privacy risks or unintended bias.

These skills are not only for a small HR tech team. Recruiters, HR business partners, and hiring managers all interact with the interview service and need enough understanding to use it responsibly.

Upskilling hiring managers for a hybrid interview world

Hiring managers remain central to the interview process, even when much of the assessment is supported by proctoring tools. Their role, however, changes.

Instead of spending most of their time on unstructured interviews, they increasingly :

• Review structured assessment outputs from proctored interviews and online assessments.
• Use data from the platform to prepare targeted follow up interviews focused on problem solving, collaboration, and culture fit.
• Balance system generated risk flags with their own judgement, avoiding both blind trust and automatic rejection.

To make this work, CHROs need to design simple, repeatable training for hiring managers. That training should cover how to interpret proctored video recordings, what to do when a candidate disputes a proctoring incident, and how to keep the final decision based on job relevant evidence rather than on technical glitches.

Embedding data literacy and continuous improvement

Earlier sections highlighted the importance of understanding algorithmic risk and fairness. Turning that into daily practice requires a basic level of data literacy across HR.

Future ready HR teams should be able to :

• Read dashboards that show how different groups of candidates move through the hiring process.
• Spot patterns that may indicate bias in assessments or in the way proctoring tools flag behaviour.
• Run simple experiments, such as adjusting time limits or instructions, and then comparing outcomes.

This is not advanced data science. It is about asking the right questions of the data and knowing when to escalate concerns to specialists in analytics, legal, or information security. Over time, this habit of review and adjustment turns proctored interviews from a static system into a learning process that improves both fairness and hiring quality.

Strengthening support for candidates in a digital first process

As more interviews move to remote and proctored formats, the candidate experience becomes a core capability, not an afterthought. HR teams need to be able to support candidates before, during, and after assessments.

That includes practical skills such as :

• Explaining clearly how the proctored interview will work, what data is collected, and how it will be used.
• Providing accessible guidance for candidates with limited bandwidth, older devices, or disabilities.
• Offering real time support channels when the platform fails or when candidates are unsure how to proceed.
• Handling appeals or complaints about remote proctoring incidents in a transparent and respectful way.

These capabilities help protect the employer brand and ensure that even candidates who do not receive an offer feel they were treated fairly and with respect.

Building cross functional HR leadership around proctoring

Proctored interviews sit at the intersection of HR, technology, legal, and risk. Future ready CHROs therefore need strong cross functional leadership skills, not only technical understanding.

In practice, that means being able to :

• Lead joint working groups with information security, data protection, and IT to review proctoring solutions and key features.
• Translate complex topics such as data privacy, algorithmic transparency, and facial recognition into clear implications for hiring.
• Negotiate service levels with vendors, including how quickly they respond to incidents and how they handle candidate data.
• Align proctored interview practices with broader organisational values and risk appetite.

These leadership capabilities ensure that proctored interviews are not just an HR project, but a shared organisational capability that can adapt as regulations, technology, and candidate expectations evolve.

Planning for the next wave of assessment innovation

Finally, building future ready HR capabilities means accepting that today’s proctoring tools and platforms will change. New forms of assessment, new ways of monitoring, and new expectations from candidates will emerge.

Instead of locking into a single way of working, CHROs can focus on flexible skills and processes :

• Developing a clear framework for evaluating any new interview service or assessment tool, including its impact on fairness, privacy, and candidate experience.
• Maintaining internal expertise that can question vendor claims and test tools before large scale deployment.
• Creating feedback loops where recruiters, hiring managers, and candidates can report issues and suggest improvements.

With these capabilities in place, HR is better prepared to move from one generation of proctored interviews to the next, without losing control of ethics, quality, or the human side of hiring.