Interview scorecards are your bridge between what you observe in the interview and the final hiring decision. In this unit, you’ll learn how to use scorecards to capture evidence, rate competencies, and make recommendations that are both fair and defensible. Scorecards help standardize the evaluation process, reduce bias, and ensure that every candidate is assessed against the same criteria. This is especially important because several types of bias can impact your ratings, such as:

• Affinity Bias: Favoring candidates who are similar to you in background, interests, or personality.
• Halo/Horns Effect: Allowing one positive or negative trait to influence your overall impression and ratings in unrelated areas.
• Confirmation Bias: Focusing on evidence that supports your initial impression and overlooking evidence that contradicts it.
• Leniency Bias: Consistently rating candidates higher than warranted, often to avoid conflict or because of a generally positive impression.

Mastering the use of scorecards will help you move beyond these gut reactions and ensure every candidate is evaluated on what truly matters for sales success.

A well-designed scorecard typically asks you to rate candidates on core competencies—such as ownership, resilience, or communication—using a defined scale, often from 1 to 5. The key is to anchor your ratings in observable behaviors, not impressions. For example, a “5” for ownership might be justified with "Took full responsibility for a lost deal, analyzed what went wrong, and implemented a new follow-up process", while a “3” could be "Completed assigned tasks but did not show initiative beyond expectations."

Equally important is the written justification. This is where you provide a brief, specific summary of what the candidate said or did that led to your rating. Avoid vague statements like "Seemed like a go-getter" and instead use concrete evidence, such as "Described proactively reaching out to a disengaged client and successfully reactivating the account." This approach not only clarifies your reasoning but also supports fair, consistent decision-making.

To illustrate how to apply these principles in practice, consider the following sample dialogue between two interviewers discussing how to rate a candidate’s ownership competency:

• Chris: I really liked the candidate’s energy, so I was thinking of giving them a 5 for ownership.
• Natalie: Let’s check the evidence. Did they give an example of going above and beyond, or just meeting expectations?
• Chris: They talked about following up with clients, but it sounded pretty standard.
• Natalie: In that case, a 3 might be more accurate. For a 5, we’d want to hear something like "Took initiative to recover a lost client by redesigning the outreach strategy."
• Chris: Good point. I’ll rate them a 3 and note that their example was about routine follow-up, not extra initiative.

In this exchange, notice how Natalie helps Chris focus on specific behaviors rather than general impressions. The conversation demonstrates how to use evidence to anchor ratings and write clear justifications.

After rating each competency, you’ll synthesize your findings into an overall hiring recommendation. This summary should connect the candidate’s strengths and gaps to the requirements of the role. For instance, you might write: "Recommend hire. Candidate demonstrated strong ownership and problem-solving, as shown by their example of independently resolving a major client issue. Ratings across all core competencies met or exceeded expectations for a sales manager."

It’s important to guard against rating inflation, which can happen when biases—such as affinity bias, halo effect, or leniency bias—lead to higher scores than the candidate’s actual examples warrant. For example, if a candidate was personable (affinity bias) or gave one great answer (halo effect), you might be tempted to rate them higher across the board. If a candidate was only average, a fair rating might be: "3 – Meets Expectations: Candidate described following up with clients as expected, but did not provide examples of going above and beyond." By sticking to behavioral evidence, you help maintain high standards and ensure your recommendations are credible.

You’re now ready to put these skills into action. In the upcoming role-play session, you’ll practice translating interview evidence into structured scorecard entries and defending your ratings with clear, job-related examples. This hands-on experience will help you build confidence and consistency in your evaluations.