How to Decide Who to Hire: A Revolutionary Approach to Landing the Best Fit Every Time!

<div class="grey-callout">
<h2>Key Takeaways</h2>
<ul>
<li>Decide immediately post-interview: This maintains momentum and avoids forgetting crucial details.</li>
<li>Great Performance Profile review: Refer back to this document to maintain high standards.</li>
<li>Score candidates: Use the Fibonacci Sequence and write down scores individually.</li>
<li>Delphi Technique: Allow the Interview Team to share and discuss their scores, patterns, and concerns.</li>
<li>Pre-Mortem analysis: Explore why a candidate might not be successful.</li>
<li>Make a final decision: Emphasise collective decision-making whilst allowing the boss to have the final say. Remember, no one is perfect.</li>
<li>Learn something from every setback: If you decide not to recruit anyone, what can be improved for next time?</li>
</ul>
</div>

‍

If you’ve reached the point where you’re about to decide whether to make a job offer, I’d like to congratulate you. You’ve taken a lot of action to get this far. Whether you outsourced everything or wrote a great job advert and published it yourself, you still managed to attract applicants.

Hopefully, you found Telephone Interviews an easy and powerful way to screen the best candidates for an interview.

While Structured Interviews may have been challenging at first, I hope you got some powerful insights and that the Promise of a Reference Call encouraged the candidate to be truthful.

Job Simulations and Work Culture Assessments were probably a revelation! I certainly can’t believe the number of times I’ve started a Job Simulation with a candidate I thought would be perfect, only to see them crumble!

Now, you need to make a rational decision.

The problem is that humans are naturally emotional, and when we rely mainly on emotions to make decisions, we tend to make poor ones. Deciding who to hire should be like deciding whether to invest in a £150,000 machine. In both cases, we should take time to ensure we’ll get a good return on our investment. We wouldn’t look at an expensive machine, feel good about it and buy it on the spot

However, emotional and gut reactions are built on years of accumulated experience and shouldn’t be ignored. My decision-making process probes and intellectualises our emotions, ensuring they don’t sabotage us while not pushing them aside.

A SECRET of great recruitment is that two or more heads are always better than one. I’m going to build on that, incorporating another SECRET called the Delphi Technique to help make better recruitment decisions.

‍

Decision-Making Process

Ideally, you should start the decision-making process immediately after meeting the candidate. Too often, members of an Interview Team sit back or get distracted and then forget important details. Additionally, you need to keep momentum going so you don’t lose the “race for talent”.

Once the candidate has left, keep the Interview Team in the room and follow these steps with an open mindset.

‍

Step 1: Review the Great Performance Profile

Take out your Great Performance Profile and remind everyone of the important Minimum Acceptable Standards.

Remember you want Great Performers. When recruitment drags on, it can drag down expectations, so resolve not to accept a Poor Performer. If necessary, remind yourself of costly recruitment mistakes you’ve made and the problems that these caused you.

‍

Step 2: Individually score the candidate

Every member of the Interview Team must score the candidate against Key Competencies described in the Great Performance Profile. Remember to score using the 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 and 13 scale (Fibonacci Sequence).

Write down your answers individually; don’t discuss them.

When scoring, consider the following: 

• Look for patterns: These are a good indicator of future success. Place more importance on recent performance.
• Strengths can sometimes be weaknesses: For example, a meticulous planner can be too slow for a fast-moving environment. Speaking from personal experience, I’m a perfectionist (I know that sounds trite), and that’s why my recruitment book has taken so long to write!
• Success is sometimes down to context: Someone may be successful in an organisation surrounded by smart colleagues with great resources and systems, but less so in a start-up with more limited means. Some candidates may want to move from a corporate to a small, agile company, but this doesn’t mean they can adapt.
• Don’t believe candidates who say they’ll change: Only give candidates credit for how they’ve already changed. For example, a disorganised person might have taken a time management course, but have they shown evidence that they’re now more organised? (Employers are often too optimistic, hoping they can help someone change.)
• Note areas where the candidate falls below the Minimum Acceptable Standard: Could this be a knock-out factor?

As you score, ask yourself, “Does this person exhibit the competencies of a Great Performer?”:

1. Include comments alongside your score to help clarify your decision: This can be time-consuming, so I’d recommend only commenting on factual issues of concern. Don’t comment on potentially discriminatory areas.
2. Recognise that this process is both art and science: You should only judge based on the hard evidence but also have a balance of probability.
3. Don’t total a candidates’ scores to decide who to employ: It’s dehumanising to reach decisions like that, and a candidate with the highest total score isn’t always the best because not every competency is equally important.

‍

Step 3: Use the Delphi Technique to arrive at a consensus about the candidate’s competencies

Once everyone has written down their scores, you’ll use the Delphi Technique.

‍

What is the Delphi Technique?

The Delphi Technique is a method for making decisions when there’s a lack of data or the issue is complex.

The structured process involves:

1. Asking a group of people for their opinions and sharing responses (often anonymously) with the group.
2. Have the group review the responses and then update their opinion. The process is repeated until a consensus is reached.

In this situation, “the group” is the Interview Team.

‍

<span class="grey-callout"><span class="text-color-purple">The Delphi Technique</span><p></p>Developed in the 1950s, researchers asked four experts to estimate how many American atomic bombs would be required to deter a Russian attack. They answered anonymously because they didn’t want the experts to be influenced by each other and make false inferences. Each expert gave their estimate and reason for it. The anonymous answers were fed back to the group, and the process was repeated. At the start, estimates ranged from 50 to 5,000 atomic bombs. In the end, the range was 167 to 360.<p></p>The Delphi Technique is so powerful that it’s still used by the United States Government today.<p></p>Similarly, we see all sorts of examples of how wisdom of the crowd can be powerful. The presenter of the TV show Who Wants to be a Millionaire? explained that “asking the audience” produced the correct answer 95% of the time! In this case, the audience never knew each other’s answers, just like in the first round of the Delphi Technique.</span>

‍

How to implement the Delphi Technique in recruitment

Invite everyone on the Interview Team to simultaneously share their score for a particular competency. Sometimes people write their answer on a card and turn it over. When revisiting a client I was pleased to see they improvised with playing cards and used the King as number 13!

‍

<span class="grey-callout"><span class="text-color-purple">Note:</span> It is important to share scores at the same time. Otherwise, the first piece of information can influence others by anchoring a suggestion, and some may feel under pressure to change their score to conform with the group.<p></p>For example, Kahneman (2011) asked a group, “Was Gandhi over 140 years old when he died, and at what age did he die?” Another group was asked, “Was Gandhi over nine when he died, and at what age did he die?” The group exposed to the idea of Gandhi being 140 suggested he died significantly older (aged 67) than the other group (aged 50) because they were influenced/biased by the first piece of information.</span>

‍

When sharing scores, they’ll often fall within a narrow range (eg. 3 - 5). If so, everyone is broadly of the same view and can move on to the next competency.

If the range is larger than two steps on the Fibonacci Sequence (eg. 3 - 8), the scorers giving the low and high scores provide reasons for their scores. Afterwards, everyone does another scoring round, repeating the discussion if necessary.

Here’s an example: The Interview Team is scoring a candidate for tenacity. There’s no big disagreement, with scores ranging from 8 to 13. However, scores on leadership skills range from 3 to 8. The low and high scorers discuss the reasons for their scores. After this, the entire team re-scores the candidate’s leadership skills, and the range is now 5 to 8. The team can move on to the next competency.

The beauty of the Delphi Technique is that it:

• Is less biased: There is not a single opinionated colleague deciding.
• Reduces the bandwagon effect: I’m sure you’ve been in a meeting where a senior colleague provides their opinion, and everyone else “falls in line”.
• Individuals use their judgement: Whilst still benefiting from that of the team (if they can’t apply their judgement, that’s a sign of a bigger cultural problem).
• Keeps discussions to a minimum: It allows for discussion when necessary (when there is a wide range of opinions) without needless conversations (when everyone already agrees).
• Swift process: Although it might sound long-winded, once you start the scores quickly narrow to a generally accepted range.

‍

<span class="grey-callout"><span class="text-color-purple">Important: </span> You must protect colleagues who disagree with the consensus. They’re often ignored, but they may have valuable knowledge and perspectives. Ensure everyone understands they won’t be shamed or punished for sharing their ideas, questions, or concerns.<p></pIf a member is timid and doesn’t contribute, help them by expressing your doubts and ask for their opinion. This helps others feel psychologically safe enough to share their views.<p></p>I’ll never forget sitting in on interviews with a customer service manager (CSM) and her managing director. At the end, we debated a candidate’s suitability. The CSM was noticeably not making any contribution. When asked her opinion by the managing director, she replied, “I’m happy with whatever you decide”. It wasn’t what she said but how she said it, with subtle disdain and resentment. The organisation’s culture was toxic; the CSM didn’t feel her input was valued, and she subsequently left. (This organisation was deep into the Mid-Life Crisis stage of its life cycle</span>

‍

You should now have a list of the group scores for each Key Competency. Do they meet the Minimum Acceptable Standards that are listed on the Great Performance Profile? Looking back at the example, say leadership had a MAS of 8, the team needs to decide whether a group score of 5 - 8 is good enough. Luckily, there’s a lot more for the Interview Team to take into consideration, so let’s continue with the next steps.

<div class="purple-callout"><p>It's a shameless plug, but if you need advice or practical help, get your free consultation.</p><p>I can help advertise a job on all the UK's best job sites for just £199.</p><p>You will also find my best-selling recruitment book helpful.</p></div>

‍

Step 4: Discuss patterns

Discuss potential patterns in the answers the candidate gave you:

• Does the candidate have realistic expectations? It’s very challenging getting a candidate to accept reality and they may quickly resign.
• Is the candidate’s salary consistently increasing? If it isn’t, can you establish why not?
• Do they keep repeating the same mistakes? Are they aware of errors and motivated to correct them?
• Do they work well with their managers? Is your management style consistent with the candidate’s preference? Remember that employees often leave bad managers, so don’t expect every managerial relationship to be amicable.
• Do they often leave jobs for negative reasons? Do they consistently claim that the employer was at fault? If so, they were the only constant which would suggest the candidate was the issue!
• Was their past environment the key to their success? They might have enjoyed success because of support from a great manager and huge resources. Without these, they may have struggled.

A good discussion will be evidence-based, fair, and detailed. An unhelpful and poor-quality conversation includes statements like:

• “He’s a good guy.” This is terrible because it isn’t specific about what he is “good” at, so it is challenging to differentiate candidates or provide helpful feedback.
• “She’s recently married, so might decide to have kids.” You have significant discrimination with a lot of inference and bias. If someone uses biased or inappropriate terms, don’t berate them, but rephrase what they said in a better style and explain why it was unacceptable. You may also be able to help challenge their assumptions by showing examples of current staff who are going against their own bias. Only privately escalate if it is an unacceptable risk for the company.
• “Not right for us but might be good for another department.” You don’t know why the candidate isn’t good for a job or what attributes make them suitable for another role. This could simply be a hiring manager who doesn’t want to say “No”.

If you find the debate deadlocked, reiterate that recruitment is an imprecise science and compromise is crucial.

‍

Step 5: Discuss the candidate’s motivations

Recruiting a motivated employee is critical, or their productivity will suffer, and you have a mis-hire. So, I like to consider the following:

• Do they have a good balance of professional and personal motivation? You don’t want candidates purely motivated by personal matters, as they may be less reliable and productive.
• Are they focused mainly on the long term? Candidates primarily focused on short-term motivations are more likely to leave.
• Is their “push” motivation too strong? Candidates being pushed/forced away from their current situation often make rash, short-term decisions.

As you debate these points, some common issues may arise:

‍

A candidate doesn’t seem motivated about your job

If you have a “great” candidate but they aren’t showing any motivation for the job, I recommend you find another candidate. Their lack of motivation will negatively impact their productivity, and they may quickly leave.

Some candidates from passive sources (eg. CV database searches and headhunters) intentionally decide not to show motivation, almost as a bargaining tool. If necessary, call the candidate and express your concerns, “Being motivated for this job is important in the long term. So what motivates you about this job so we know if we will be a good fit?” I’d prefer to find a better candidate if I didn’t get a satisfactory response.

Consider a short-term contract to see if they are a good fit. During this time, transfer the candidate’s knowledge into the business so that you’ve got some value if they leave.

‍

Money is their greatest motivator

If money is a short-term motivator, be very concerned. I’d generally find a better candidate if I can't find broader motivations.

When money is an important long-term motivator, the candidate may accept counteroffers and competing offers. This is why it is so important to pre-close candidates during the interview.

‍

Your company might not be able to fulfil a candidate’s motivations

Sometimes, I meet ambitious businesspeople who want equally ambitious employees. However, the chance of achieving some business goals are often unrealistic, particularly without substantial financial backing. Therefore, don’t lie to candidates if the lofty goals are pipe dreams. Instead, find more suitable candidates who will be a good stepping stone, so if a company doesn’t grow as hoped, less damage has been done.

If it is potentially possible for a company to develop and meet a candidate’s motivations in the long-term, have a frank conversation with the candidate so there are no surprises. Document what you agreed and that you will help them if it fails.

‍

A hiring manager prefers a candidate with low motivation

This can be a red flag about the hiring manager’s ambition and decision-making ability.

As a recruitment advisor, I have been in these situations. I like to remind the hiring manager that we’re recruiting for long-term success and if possible, give examples of Great Performers and what motivates them. It is ultimately their final decision, so if we disagree, I document it and wait and see what happens. When a mis-hire occurs, I politely remind them I told them so, then constructively help them.

If you are in a similar situation, my approach may work for you, but tread carefully, as it can be politically sensitive.

‍

Step 6: Debate why you should not employ them using a Pre-Mortem

A Pre-Mortem is a risk management technique in which a group imagines a plan has failed and then works backwards to identify why. This technique gives the team psychological permission to discuss failure. It can raise awareness of potential problems that are often overlooked, increasing the chances of success.

Discuss the following questions:

• “A year from now, the unexpected happens, and the candidate does not work out. Why?”
• “What are the downsides? Why wouldn’t we employ this person?”
• “How likely are the downsides to occur?”
• “What can we do to mitigate the downsides?”
• “Can we accept the downsides?”
• “Can we help them overcome their weaknesses?”
• “What’s the risk to their career if the role doesn’t work out?”

‍

Step 7: Make a decision

By this point, I hope you’ve made an informed decision based on the combined wisdom of your Interview Team.

Businesses aren’t democracies, so the boss can always have the final decision. However, all employees must be able to share their views and feel valued.

Please resist the temptation of expecting a “perfect” candidate. Perfect doesn’t exist. The question is, who might be considered a Great Performer given the existing labour market?

‍

<span class="grey-callout"><span class="text-color-purple">Tips:</span> I accept that introducing this decision-making tool may be difficult in some company cultures. If so, try it as an “experiment”.<p></p>It’s also challenging to use in a small business with limited staff. In this case, it’s helpful to bring in an outside perspective, such as that of a non-executive director or recruitment advisor. While their expertise will cost money, the cost of a mis-hire is often far greater.</span>

‍

Step 8: Confirming your decision in writing (optional)

I often need to document decisions when consulting or in a corporate role. I hate putting too much in writing because candidates have a legal right to see information about them, and almost anything can be distorted to suit a particular narrative.

Therefore, if you are going to confirm your decision in writing, even if it is for internal purposes, I would recommend being:

• Concise.
• Objective and unbiased: Information should be about facts and evidence. Avoid feelings which are open to bias.
• Job relevant: Clearly state how the decision aligns with the requirements and responsibilities of the job.
• Unambiguous: Ensure that the language leaves no room for interpretation or misunderstanding. Use concrete language and avoid vague terms.
• Professional not personalised: Focus on the candidate’s performance and qualifications related to the job rather than personal characteristics or traits.

‍

<span class="grey-callout"><span class="text-color-purple">Warning:</span> I remember a colleague used to annotate recruitment decisions with abbreviations. They were genuinely harmless and an efficient form of shorthand. When a candidate reviewed their notes, they incorrectly thought “HR” meant “high risk”! This took time to resolve, and thankfully no lawyers were involved, but the damage was done.<p></p>I share this story with you to reiterate the importance of not documenting recruitment decisions if you don’t need to and being clear with your language.<p></p>If you document decisions, consider deleting/destroying the information after a reasonable time.</span>

‍

If You Want to Make a Job Offer

Great! Skip ahead where I discuss making Reference Calls (we won’t make a job offer yet).

‍

If You’re Unsure

Some hiring managers aren’t confident in making recruitment decisions because they don’t trust their decision-making abilities. This is understandable, and it’s why you should always draw on the collective wisdom of your Interview Team and, if necessary, use a non-executive director or recruitment advisor.

If you’re unsure because you lack enough information to make an informed decision, try having a telephone call to address any questions you still have (avoid inviting the candidate for another interview if possible). If you have enough information but you’re still unsure, then you’ve made the decision – don’t hire.

However, avoid the common trap of thinking there must be “better” candidates. You could start the whole recruitment process again, but typically new candidates are no better, just different. Be realistic and decisive.

Equally, avoid these common mistakes:

• Forced to choose: Hiring managers sometimes think they must pick one of the candidates to fill the job immediately. Another option is not to recruit anyone!
• Sunk cost fallacy: Managers often factor in the costs and time already incurred in the recruitment process. They worry that the costs won’t be recovered if they abandon recruitment at this stage. However, the rational approach is to look at future costs of a mis-hire, not past ones.
• Loss aversion: Sometimes, hiring will fix an immediate hardship but create a long-term problem.
• Preference for completion: Some decision-makers prefer to recruit even when there are no suitable candidates so they can “complete” a task, regardless of the outcome. 

‍

Could the candidate be suitable for a different role?

I caution against making another position available just to shoehorn a candidate into your business. It comes back to why you started the recruitment process – finding staff who add value by performing a specific task. You can always keep in touch with potential employees.

‍

Saying “No” to a Candidate

Don’t worry about declining candidates who aren’t suited to the job. Almost everyone can be a Great Performer somewhere, but not necessarily in your organisation. Recruitment isn’t an exact science; you only need to find one good candidate for each vacancy.

Learn how to decline a candidate professionally.

‍

Deciding Not to Hire Anyone

If you don’t find the right candidate, the hardest and bravest decision you can take is not to immediately restart the recruitment process. Despite the pressure you may be under, realise that recruitment is just the beginning, and a mis-hire is often a bigger cost.

I recommend completing a post-mortem summary. Some helpful reflective questions include:

• Does the right person really exist, and can you afford them? If not, what compromises might you make, and what staff training might you offer?
• Have you properly followed the correct recruitment process? How can you improve the process? Was the problem a poor choice of Applicant Attraction Channels, a poor job advert, moving too slowly, or another reason?

‍

Additional Resources

More help and advice are available at starget.co.uk/book including:

• Recruitment book; The Secrets of Great Recruitment: How to Recruit Great Employees.
• Downloadable PDF guide; 8 Crucial Steps for Deciding Who to Recruit.
• Summary article; Deciding Which Candidate to Recruit: A Simple Guide to Making the Final Choice.