I’m always more interested in why a panel disagrees than in who gets the most votes. If the CEO wants someone to shake things up and the rest of the panel wants a quiet life, I’d rather have that conversation before putting candidates through several rounds of interviews.
Otherwise, you can end up rejecting perfectly good people for failing to meet expectations nobody has agreed. The candidate is left trying to work out what the organisation really wants.
For a senior appointment, I would agree the decision criteria before anyone meets a candidate. Then give each interviewer a clear part of the assessment and bring the evidence together afterwards.
It sounds basic. The discipline is in sticking to it when someone charismatic enters the room.
Agree what would make the appointment successful
Begin with the outcomes the person needs to deliver. What should be different after twelve months? What decisions will they own? Where will they need to influence people they do not manage?
Discuss the tensions in the role. A business may need someone to reduce cost while rebuilding trust. It may want entrepreneurial pace within a tightly regulated environment. The candidate needs to understand those tensions, and the panel needs to agree how much weight to give each one.
If you cannot agree, settle the brief before continuing. A longer interview process will not resolve an argument about the job.
Keep the criteria manageable. A panel can investigate a handful of important requirements properly. A scorecard covering every desirable leadership trait tends to encourage superficial answers.
Divide the work without fragmenting the assessment
Give interviewers responsibility for particular areas. One might explore delivery and financial judgement. Another might test leadership and influence. The hiring manager should examine the relationship they will need with the candidate and the decisions they will make together.
Everyone should use the same role definition. Share the planned areas of enquiry so candidates are not asked to repeat the same career history in every meeting.
Leave room for follow-up questions. A structured interview does not need to feel scripted. The structure makes sure the important subjects receive comparable attention.
Ask for a specific situation, what the person did and what happened. Then go beyond the polished version. What did they get wrong? Who disagreed? What would their colleagues say about their contribution? How much of the outcome came from the team or the circumstances?
Use evidence that can be compared
Here is an illustrative scorecard for a senior people appointment:
| Criterion | Evidence to explore | Question to take into the interview |
|---|---|---|
| Commercial judgement | A decision connecting people investment with a business outcome | Walk me through a recommendation you made when the budget was under pressure |
| Executive influence | A disagreement with a chief executive or board | What was the disagreement and how did the decision change |
| Delivery | A programme with clear personal accountability | What did you own and what happened when the plan slipped |
| Leadership | A difficult team capability decision | How did you establish the gap and what did you do about it |
For each criterion, record the evidence, its relevance and your confidence in it. A score can help, provided the panel agrees what the scale means. Do not let a neat number conceal a weak answer.
A scenario exercise can be useful where it resembles the actual work. Keep it proportionate and offer comparable information to every candidate. Assess their reasoning and questions, rather than how closely their presentation resembles the panel’s preferred answer.
Manage the discussion after the interview
Ask interviewers to record their assessment independently before the debrief. Otherwise the first strong opinion can shape everyone else’s recollection.
In the meeting, discuss the role criteria before asking for an overall favourite. If someone says, “I just didn’t feel it,” ask what behaviour or answer led to that view. There may be a valid concern underneath. There may also be a preference for someone whose style feels familiar.
Where views differ, identify the missing evidence. A focused follow-up conversation or reference discussion can help. Another full round of interviews without a specific question usually adds effort without making the decision clearer.
Be candid about the compromises. One candidate may have stronger sector experience but less evidence of leading the change you need. Another may have the relevant change experience and need time to learn the sector. Agree which risk the organisation can manage.
The panel does not need identical opinions. It does need a shared understanding of why it is appointing this person and what support the decision requires. That record will be useful again when the successful candidate starts.
ARTICLE 5