From Gut Feeling to Evidence-Based Selection

Have you ever felt like you just know when the right candidate is in front of you—sometimes within minutes of meeting them?

Tempting thought, but it likely has a lot to do with unconscious bias —a human trait that allows us to categorize information in a split second. Handy when confronted with twenty different kinds of toothpaste in a supermarket, but it also makes us favor people who look and act like us, give us a firm handshake, or share our hobbies and interests. Traits that don't qualify anyone for the job at hand.

There are many forms of it, and since they are unconscious, there's little we can do about it besides being skeptical of any judgments that are not based on gathered evidence related to the job requirements. But how do we find out if someone is really up to the task?

Structure & simulation

In an ideal world, we would have someone join the team for a test trial to see how they perform. Since this usually isn't an option, we can try to simulate the job in a scalable and engaging way. Using standardized interview kits and scorecards is another method. To make these successful, both require hiring teams to craft assignments and think deeply about what to ask and how to rate outcomes. A good recruiter will convince stakeholders of the value in considering these points and support them in making it happen. However, even with a recruiter's support, doing this right is time-consuming, and doing this work well is critical. Let me give an example.

When I first started recruiting software engineers, I thought a coding challenge would be the ultimate silver bullet in assessing their talent. Our candidates were instructed to keep their code simple. Only to be rejected because of the simplicity of their submission by some interviewers. We had designed an excellent code assignment, but the candidate briefing was too vague, and not everyone was on the same page about the meaning of simplicity. It only started working for us after addressing these issues.

Candidate briefing

In regards to candidate briefing, I am a big fan of clarifying to candidates what you will be focusing on during each interview. Before a behavioral interview, let them know what competencies you will be rating. Haven't you ever forgotten to highlight a crucial achievement during your interview? In my experience, briefing candidates will give you better information and allow you to rate your interviews more confidently.

IQ tests

Some job families correlate applying IQ tests with job success. However, one can improve the results by practice. A valid test? If you decide to use it, check how relevant a high IQ is for the job. Understand that it only measures reasoning and problem-solving abilities. And there are many other, perhaps even more important traits, such as resilience, persistence, curiosity, and motivation.

Personality tests

I've used them successfully, but I’ve learned that their value depends on self-awareness and honesty. The reports hold no absolute truth, yet competency scores are often treated as such. Their real value lies in interpretation—serving as a starting point for discussion rather than a definitive assessment. Success depends on interviewers being trained to use these scores as a lens for understanding a candidate’s self-perception, strengths, and potential pitfalls within a given context. An interview is essential to uncover these nuances.

It’s important to recognize that a low competency score does not equate to incompetence, nor does a high score guarantee proficiency. Scores simply indicate which behaviors may come more naturally, not how they’ve been developed over time. And after all, raw talent is only valuable if it has been cultivated. Likewise, a person may score low in certain areas despite having mastered them through dedication and experience. That’s why misinterpreting these scores is so easy—and why it can lead to unfair judgments before an interview even begins.

Concluding

Selection is a delicate and complicated process, and getting it right is hard. Start with the basics: think deeply about what you need to test for someone to be successful in a job, conduct structured interviews, and apply scorecards. That alone is usually challenging enough. From there, refine and build on your approach systematically. Cases and tests can be great tools, but they can also become counterproductive if you don't take the time to think them through.