Chapter 10. Candidate Evaluation
Evidence note: structured methods linked to job performance are usually more reliable than informal "gut feel" evaluation. See Schmidt and Hunter: doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262, and the update by Schmidt, Oh, and Shaffer: doi:10.1111/peps.12164.
How to Use This Chapter
Use this chapter before passing the candidate onward. Its purpose is to turn the profile, message, and screening call notes into a structured evaluation with facts, uncertainties, and a clear recommendation.
Remember in One Phrase
A candidate evaluation should show which fact supports the decision, which risk remains, and who needs to verify the uncertainty.
| If Your Task Is | Go to Section | What You Get |
|---|---|---|
| Evaluate a profile before contacting the candidate | Candidate relevance map | Uniform criteria for decision-making |
| Record a screening call without chaos | Call notes template | A structure for facts and questions |
| Prepare for calibration | Calibration questions | The conversation is about criteria, not taste |
| Reduce bias risk | Evaluation bias protection | Boundaries of honest evaluation |
Quick Chapter Map
1. First, check mandatory requirements and environment.
2. Then note transferable skills and motivation.
3. After that, record uncertainties.
4. Only then formulate the recommendation.
Minimal Start
In 30 minutes, evaluate five candidates using the same map. For each score, write one fact or the word "unknown." If facts are insufficient, do not raise the score based on impression: flag the question for calibration.
Principle
Evaluation in sourcing must be fact-based, structured, and honest about uncertainty. The goal is not "I liked the profile" but the next action based on uniform criteria.
Candidate Relevance Map
Dimension 1 – Weak 2 – Partial 3 – Strong Notes
Mandatory No facts Possibly Clear
requirements
Environment match Different Adjacent Direct
Scale/level Does not match Unclear Matches
Transferable Weak Possible Strong
skills
Motivation hypothesis None Possible Specific
Risk High Manageable Low
Decision: 15–18 – priority outreach; 11–14 – outreach or calibrate; 7–10 – defer; 6 and below – reject.
Screening Call Notes Template
Field Notes
Candidate Name and source
Role Target role
Motivation Why open or not open
| Field | Notes |
|---|---|
| Mandatory indicators | Specific examples |
| Transferable experience | Adjacent examples |
| Gaps | Known gaps |
| Compensation/location | Expectations |
| Questions for the client | Calibration points |
| Recommendation | Advance, defer, reject, calibrate |
Calibration Questions
What facts make the profile relevant or irrelevant?
Is this a blocking gap or a training issue?
Would you interview this candidate if they came via referral?
Which profile is closer to the quality bar: A or B, and why?
What would you change in the next iteration?
Evaluation Bias Protection
Do not use school/university, age, photo, gender, nationality, or name as a substitute for quality evaluation.
Do not overvalue well-known companies without work-related facts.
Do not reject career gaps without context.
Use the same criteria for everyone.
Mark uncertainty explicitly.
AI Prompts for This Chapter
The full prompt for structuring an evaluation is in Appendix G.7. AI can help bring notes to a uniform format, but the decision is made by a human based on pre-agreed criteria and facts.
Key Takeaways / Where to Go Next
Take away the evaluation map as a shared language for the team. If the decision hinges not on the candidate but on client feedback, requirements, or speed, move to Chapter 11.
