Candidate Evaluation Methods

If a job applicant said "I have no idea how to grow your startup" would you hire them as your VP of Growth? (Because I probably would). Wait, hear me out… If there was an obvious way to grow your startup, you'd already have done it. If you haven’t, you're betting on your next hire to help figure it out. But candidates with the most confidence often, paradoxically, have the hardest time uncovering new ideas, thanks to the “illusion of knowledge bias.” 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗹𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗮𝘀 - Individuals mistakenly believe they possess a deeper understanding of a topic than they actually do. They overestimate their knowledge and fail to recognize the gaps in their understanding, leading to poor decision-making and an unwillingness to seek further information. Wait, it gets worse - Commitment & consistency bias If they claim to know the right strategy, they will become anchored to that approach, even if it's incorrect, thanks to the Commitment & Consistency bias. (That's the one that says: After we state a position, we’re far more likely to act in accordance with that belief, even if it’s incorrect, and less likely to consider alternatives.) What should you do instead? When interviewing candidates, focus less on how much they know, and more on how quickly they can figure things out. That starts the moment a candidate walks in the door. People are uncomfortable admitting “I don’t know” — especially in a job interview! So take a moment to create space for humility and candor in the conversation. Talk about your own mistakes and blind spots, and explain that you don’t expect people to have all the answers – only to figure them out. Then ask questions about their experience finding and applying new information, such as: 1. Tell me about a time when you were wrong about something? How did you find out? And what did you do as a result? 2. What’s something you learned recently from your customers or your data that surprised you? What did you do with that information? 3. Looking at our business, what things do we need to figure out before we can scale? And how do you suggest we bottom those things out? 4. Tell me about a time when you had to tell your boss they were wrong, how did that conversation go? These aren’t easy questions, give them time to think. As they’re answering, focus on what they say plus how they say it. Are they comfortable talking about surprises and unknowns? Simple next step Be honest with yourself, are you hiring a VP of “drive it like you stole it” or a VP of “figure out how to grow my business?” If you need someone to figure it out, hire with that explicit mandate, and ask the whole team to do everything they can to support the discovery process. By the way, this approach can also unlock thinking in your existing team. Helpful? Follow me for more Matt Lerner .

What happens behind the scenes in hiring panels - and how to influence it. Let’s demystify something a lot of experienced candidates get wrong: ✅ The interview isn’t over when you leave the room. ✅ It’s just beginning… for them. Here’s what happens after your final panel: The team regroups. 🗣️ “What did you think?” 🗣️ “Would you want to work with them?” 🗣️ “Do they get our world?” 🗣️ “Can they deliver at this level?” 🗣️ “Any concerns?” This is where offers are made - or quietly die. So how do you influence that conversation before it happens? 🎯 1. Think beyond one good answer. You’re not there to win over one person - you’re there to leave 4–5 people aligned on your strengths. Every response should serve a bigger narrative: 💬 “This is how I think.” 💬 “This is how I lead.” 💬 “This is how I solve problems that matter.” 🎯 2. Don’t just speak to the panel - read the panel. Some will go quiet. Some will challenge you. Some are half-convinced. Your job isn’t to impress. It’s to connect. Ask clarifying questions. Bridge gaps. Build trust across the table. A great panelist might advocate for you. A sceptical one might block you. 🎯 3. Preempt what they’ll say after you leave. Instead of hoping they don’t bring up a weakness - address it head-on: 🗣️ “I haven’t worked in your exact industry before, but here’s how I’ve ramped quickly in new domains.” 🗣️ “This role spans cross-functional teams - I’d love to share how I’ve led across silos.” You don’t need to be perfect. You need to be trusted. 🎯 4. The best candidates influence the recap. They don’t just give strong answers. They shape a story the panel can repeat: 👉 “She’s clearly strategic.” 👉 “He listens and adapts.” 👉 “They’ve led through complexity before.” That’s what turns a panel into a champion. Bottom line? Don’t just prepare to answer questions. Prepare to influence the conversation that happens after you’ve logged off. Because that’s where decisions are really made. #InterviewTips #PanelInterviews #JobSearchStrategy #LeadershipHiring #SeniorJobs #CareerGrowth #HiringInsights #InterviewPreparation

A candidate applied for a senior role on our team with zero experience in our industry. Not a little experience. None. She had spent her entire career in a completely different field. Different clients, different deliverables, different world entirely. By every conventional standard she had no business being in the shortlist. I almost did not call her. Something in the way she had written her application made me pick up the phone anyway. She had not tried to hide the gap or dress it up with transferable skills buzzwords. She had simply made a direct, specific case for why her outsider perspective was exactly what a team like ours was missing. That kind of clarity is hard to ignore. Thirty minutes into the conversation I realised she saw our industry in a way nobody on our team did. She was not constrained by how things were supposed to work here. She kept asking questions that made us stop and think "why do we actually do it that way?" and none of us had a good answer. We hired her on a three month trial. She restructured the way we approach new client pitches within the first six weeks. The next two pitches we sent out using her framework both converted. Neither would have looked the way they did without her. The person with no industry experience turned out to be the freshest thinking we had brought into the team in years. Here is what that taught me. Industry experience tells you how someone has learned to operate within existing rules. Outsider thinking tells you whether someone has the ability to question them. Both matter. But when a team has been doing things the same way for too long, the second one is often worth more. The best hire for a stuck team is sometimes the one who has never been told how things are done here. Have you ever taken a chance on someone from a completely different background and had it pay off in a way you did not expect?

After 16+ years of working in tech and interviewing 500+ candidates, I can say that the most technically skilled candidate often doesn’t get the job. In fact, I’ve seen the most technically brilliant person in the room lose the offer, more than once. Because once you’ve proven you can do the work, the question changes. The panel stops asking, “Can they code/design/ship? And starts asking: Do we actually want to work with this person every day? I’ve seen candidates talk down to interviewers, and brilliant minds fail to explain their ideas clearly. Every time, they didn’t get the offer. And then someone slightly less technical came in who was collaborative, clear, and easy to work with, and got the job. So here's what you should do to stand out. 1. Explain things simply If interviewers can’t follow your thinking, they won’t trust you to communicate in a team. Practice explaining your ideas as if you were talking to a smart friend outside your field. 2. Share credit, not just results Talk about how you worked with the designers, QAs, and the PMs. That signals you know how to play as part of a team. 3. Stay humble Panels don’t want a know-it-all. The best candidates say things like, “There are a couple of approaches here, and here’s how I’d weigh the trade-offs.” That shows maturity and openness, two traits teams trust. 4. Don’t underestimate likability This one decides more offers than you’d think. In debriefs, I’ve heard panels say, “I don’t know if they were the strongest technically, but I’d love to work with them.” This is the reality of hiring in modern product organizations. Competence gets you considered, but likability, communication, collaboration, and trust decide if you’re chosen. Repost this if it resonated. P.S. Follow me if you are a tech job seeker in the U.S. or Canada. I share real stories and proven strategies to help you land interviews at the top companies.

Teams will increasingly include both humans and AI agents. We need to learn how best to configure them. A new Stanford University paper "ChatCollab: Exploring Collaboration Between Humans and AI Agents in Software Teams" reveals a range of useful insights. A few highlights: 💡 Human-AI Role Differentiation Fosters Collaboration. Assigning distinct roles to AI agents and humans in teams, such as CEO, Product Manager, and Developer, mirrors traditional team dynamics. This structure helps define responsibilities, ensures alignment with workflows, and allows humans to seamlessly integrate by adopting any role. This fosters a peer-like collaboration environment where humans can both guide and learn from AI agents. 🎯 Prompts Shape Team Interaction Styles. The configuration of AI agent prompts significantly influences collaboration dynamics. For example, emphasizing "asking for opinions" in prompts increased such interactions by 600%. This demonstrates that thoughtfully designed role-specific and behavioral prompts can fine-tune team dynamics, enabling targeted improvements in communication and decision-making efficiency. 🔄 Iterative Feedback Mechanisms Improve Team Performance. Human team members in roles such as clients or supervisors can provide real-time feedback to AI agents. This iterative process ensures agents refine their output, ask pertinent questions, and follow expected workflows. Such interaction not only improves project outcomes but also builds trust and adaptability in mixed teams. 🌟 Autonomy Balances Initiative and Dependence. ChatCollab’s AI agents exhibit autonomy by independently deciding when to act or wait based on their roles. For example, developers wait for PRDs before coding, avoiding redundant work. Ensuring that agents understand role-specific dependencies and workflows optimizes productivity while maintaining alignment with human expectations. 📊 Tailored Role Assignments Enhance Human Learning. Humans in teams can act as coaches, mentors, or peers to AI agents. This dynamic enables human participants to refine leadership and communication skills, while AI agents serve as practice partners or mentees. Configuring teams to simulate these dynamics provides dual benefits: skill development for humans and improved agent outputs through feedback. 🔍 Measurable Dynamics Enable Continuous Improvement. Collaboration analysis using frameworks like Bales’ Interaction Process reveals actionable patterns in human-AI interactions. For example, tracking increases in opinion-sharing and other key metrics allows iterative configuration and optimization of combined teams. 💬 Transparent Communication Channels Empower Humans. Using shared platforms like Slack for all human and AI interactions ensures transparency and inclusivity. Humans can easily observe agent reasoning and intervene when necessary, while agents remain responsive to human queries. Link to paper in comments.

Power Dynamics decide who gets hired — not always who is best. No matter how strong your profile is, if the interviewer already has someone in mind, you're competing against a decision that was made before you walked in. This is my tracking of traps in interviews: 🎭 1. The Loyalty Trap The preferred candidate is already known to the panel. You're just there to make the process look fair. --- 🪞 2. The Visibility Illusion Being shortlisted feels like progress. But if no one inside vouched for you, you're already behind before you speak. --- 🗣️ 3. The Credit Theft Cycle Your answers get evaluated differently. The same response lands better when the interviewer already likes who's giving it. --- 🪤 4. The Authority Trap "Our leadership prefers a certain profile." A vague standard created to justify a predetermined choice. --- 🧩 5. The Insider Language Trap They use internal terms and cultural references in questions. Someone outside the network can't win that test. --- ⏳ 6. The Tenure Trap Internal candidates get credited for time served. External talent gets penalised for not "knowing the culture." --- 🎯 7. The Moving Goalpost Requirements shift round by round. The role gets quietly reshaped to fit who they already want. --- 🤝 8. The False Alliance A friendly recruiter builds your confidence, but is feeding intel back to the panel. Candor becomes a liability. --- 🔇 9. The Silence Tax Ask too many sharp questions and you seem difficult. Ask none and you seem disengaged. There is no neutral. --- 🚪 10. The Feedback Trap "We'll keep your profile on file." Means nothing. It's a polite close on a decision already made. --- Most candidates walk out thinking they lost on merit. Often, the game was over before it began. Awareness won't always change the outcome — but it will stop you blaming yourself for a rigged room. Save this if you've ever felt an interview was just a formality :)

Here's 16 common hiring mistakes ranked by how hard they are to solve: EASY FIXES 1. Copy-paste job posts Still using that job description from 2015? The one that says "must be a team player" and "5+ years experience required"? You're filtering out incredible talent who assume you're another boring company. 2. Slow response time Taking 2 weeks to email candidates back? They've already accepted another offer. The best people have options. 3. No interview prep Watched too many interviewers walk in cold and ask "so tell me about yourself" for 45 minutes. Create a simple question bank. Train your team. 4. Unclear next steps "We'll be in touch" is where good candidates go to die. Tell them exactly what happens next. Basic respect that most companies miss. STANDARD PROBLEMS 5. Wrong interviewers Your backend engineer interviewing salespeople because "they were free"? Stop it. Match interviewers to roles. Train them on what to look for. Bad interviewers drive away good candidates. 6. No scorecard One person loves them because they're "smart." Another hates them because they're "too aggressive." Meanwhile you have no idea what actually matters for success. Build scorecards before you interview anyone. 7. Poor selling Interviews are two-way. You're so busy evaluating them, you forget to explain why they should drop everything to join your vision. Sell that vision. 8. Bad timing Three month interview processes for a senior role? They're gone. Match process to seniority. Move fast on junior roles. Go deep on senior ones. DEEP ISSUES 9. No success metrics "We need someone good" isn't a hiring strategy. What does success look like in 30/60/90 days? What metrics matter? If you can't define winning, you can't hire winners. 10. Bias in process Hiring people because they went to Stanford or remind you of yourself? You're building a monoculture that will fail. 11. Zero feedback That amazing candidate who didn't quite make it? They'll trash you on Glassdoor if you ghost them. Or they'll improve and be perfect next year if you give them real feedback. Most companies choose ghosting. 12. Pipeline neglect Only recruiting when someone quits is like only eating when you're starving. Build relationships before you need them. CRITICAL PROBLEMS 13. Role design failure Badly designed roles attract desperate people, not talented ones. Period. 14. Unrealistic expectations Want someone with 10 years experience, startup hustle, and enterprise polish? Cool. That person makes $500K at Google. You're offering $120K and some options. Math doesn't work. 15. Toxic culture You can hire all the A-players you want. If your culture sucks, they'll leave in 6 months. Then you're back to hiring, except now you have a reputation. Fix the culture or stop wasting everyone's time. 16. No hiring strategy Making it up as you go works until it doesn't. Usually around 20 people when everything breaks. What else would you add? 👇

A VP of recruiting told me they caught 200 North Korean state-sponsored actors trying to land jobs at their company in the last 12 months. The FBI has issued multiple warnings. Fraud in hiring has officially reached a breaking point. These aren't amateur scammers. They're real engineers with real skills using fake identities that cost less than $100. They proxy their IP addresses through the Midwest so you can't tell where they're actually located. Once hired, they build security backdoors, steal IP, and gain access to sensitive data. They're targeting engineering roles and customer service positions - anywhere with data access. And that's just one type of fraud. Here's what I keep hearing from recruiting leaders: 1. Mass AI applications are flooding the top of the funnel Candidates are using AI to apply to hundreds of jobs at once. The barrier to entry has collapsed. This alone isn't catastrophic if you have good screening technology. But it's creating noise that makes everything else harder to detect. 2. Resume misrepresentation has become systematic Candidates use AI to tailor resumes to exact job requirements, inserting skills and experience they don't have. On paper they look perfect. Then you hop on a call and their skills clearly don't match. Recruiting teams are now cross-referencing LinkedIn with resumes just to see if things smell right. 3. Interview fraud is getting sophisticated Some candidates have other people interview on their behalf. Others use AI to cheat in real-time. For video calls, teams are asking candidates to put their hand in front of their face. It breaks the deep fake. 4. In-person verification is making a comeback The Wall Street Journal reported that fraud is accelerating return-to-office interview policies. For remote companies, requiring in-person onboarding serves the same purpose. If candidates know they'll eventually meet face-to-face, fraudsters often move to easier targets. 5. Upfront disclosure is your best deterrent Tell candidates in the first round: we verify employment, we verify education, we will speak with previous direct managers. Fraudsters self-select out. They'd rather find an easier target than risk exposure. Smart companies make the cost of fraud visible before the process even begins. Because right now, the barrier to committing hiring fraud is lower than it's ever been. Your job is to raise it. P.S. This is from my full conversation with James Mackey on State of Hiring. Watch it here:  https://lnkd.in/gKSWc5Eg

When we talk about biases in recruiting, it's often brought up in the context of Diversity efforts... But understanding where human decision making can be faulty should just be part of creating sound hiring decisions. Some common cognitive biases that I see influence recruiting decisions ALL the time: 1. Halo Effect: Halo effect occurs when an interviewer's overall impression of a candidate is disproportionately influenced by one positive trait, leading them to overlook other, potentially critical, aspects of the candidate's profile. Example: A candidate with excellent verbal skills might leave such a strong impression that interviewers overlook gaps in technical knowledge or expertise necessary for the job. 2. Priming: Priming involves being influenced by prior information. In recruitment, it can happen when an interviewer's expectations are subtly influenced by information seen or heard before the interview. Can also lead to Anchoring. Example: An interviewer overhears that a candidate has been strongly recommended by a trusted colleague. 3. Confirmation Bias: The tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions or hypotheses, often ignoring contradictory evidence. Example: If you believe that X companies have solid Engineers, might pay more attention to evidence that supports this belief and ignore evidence to the contrary. 4. Sunk Cost Fallacy: The more resources (time, money, effort) one invests in a decision, the harder it becomes to abandon it, even if it's not the best course of action. Example: A hiring team might continue investing time in a candidate they've spent weeks courting, despite emerging evidence that the candidate may not be a good fit, simply because they've already invested so much in the process. 5. Contrast Effect: The enhancement or diminishment of a weight or other measurement when compared with a recently observed contrasting object. Example: If a particularly weak candidate is interviewed before a slightly above-average candidate, the latter may appear more competent than if assessed independently, simply due to the contrast. These are just a few of many that may come up in interviewing. Completely eliminating them is impossible so instead, I suggest trying to spread awareness to interviewers, hiring manager and recruiters during training. Just knowing that these are in play can trigger interviewers to catch themselves or point out when these are showing up to each other. #recruiting #techrecruiting #hiring #techhiring

The industry claims AI will take jobs, but the truth is, AI helps us work smarter, not harder. Take recruitment as an example—something many of us deal with. Recruiters often face a common issue: hiring managers change requirements after discussions, and even after sourcing several candidates, roles remain unfilled. Even recruiters at Uplers, faced these challenges while serving global customers hiring remotely in India. To solve this, we started developing LLM based solutions, using AI tools to make the hiring process smoother. The goal? Help recruiters improve submissions, gain confidence, provide insights beyond CVs, interpret profiles, and ask the right questions. Here’s a simple way recruiters can use AI: Start with tools like ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini. Step 1: Apply Boolean filters, identify promising resumes, and copy the full CV or LinkedIn profile (prefer CVs for project details). Step 2: Use this prompt: "Please act as a hiring manager and analyze this resume for potential red flags and areas of concern against the job description provided." Categorize each resume/cv into 4 quadrants (attached document): Quadrant 1: Fewer Red Flags, Low Severity ✅ Profile: These are your top candidates. ➡️ What to do: Get on a call with these candidates. Create a profile / Cover letter bucket to share with hiring managers. Wait for feedback. Quadrant 2: Multiple Minor Red Flags, Low Severity 🤔 Profile:Minor, explainable issues; small patterns of oversight. ➡️ What to do: Use pre-screening or recorded calls to clarify concerns. Request work samples if needed. Conduct interviews casually addressing flags; listen for clarity. Proceed if their strengths outweigh the issues; reject if they show carelessness or inconsistencies. Quadrant 3: Many Red Flags, High Severity ❌ Profile: These candidates have serious issues that outweigh their potential. ➡️ What to do: Skip for now. Quadrant 4: Fewer Red Flags, High Severity ⚠️ Profile: Significant, potentially deal-breaking issues. ➡️ What to do: Assign detailed assessments and use AI video screening for flagged concerns. Conduct focused, longer interviews with targeted questions. Use behavioral techniques and involve stakeholders if needed. Proceed if explanations are valid and documentation supports claims. Reject if crucial information is unverifiable or concerns deepen. #AIRecruitment #HiringInnovation #TalentAcquisition #FutureOfWork #AIinHR #HRTech #AIInterview