How to Make a Better Hiring Decision

By Don Georgevich

Phase Four of the Scientific Hiring Method: Decision

A better hiring decision does not come from finding a candidate with no risk. It comes from choosing the person whose evidence best matches the role and whose remaining risks are understood.

The final hiring meeting often begins too late.

By the time the team sits down to choose, each interviewer has already formed a favorite. The conversation becomes a contest between impressions, and the strongest voice in the room begins to shape everyone else’s memory.

A better decision starts by returning to the standard written before the search began. It brings together the résumé, screening, interviews, Candidate Test Drive, and references. Then it separates what the company knows from what it assumes.

What makes a hiring decision better?

A better hiring decision is one the company can explain using job-related evidence.

The team should be able to answer five questions:

1. What must this person accomplish in the role?
2. What evidence did each candidate provide?
3. How strong and consistent is that evidence?
4. Which important risks remain unresolved?
5. Why is the chosen candidate the least risky match for this specific role?

The answer is not, “Everyone liked her,” “He has the best résumé,” or “She feels like an A-player.” Those may be reactions, but they do not reveal what the candidate proved.

Least risk does not mean safest-looking

A candidate from a well-known company may feel safe but have little evidence of succeeding without the resources that company provided. Another candidate may come from a less familiar background but show repeated evidence of solving the exact problems the new role requires.

The purpose of Phase Four is to make that difference visible.

Gather every evidence source

OPM defines personnel assessment as collecting information about individuals for a selection decision. Its assessment-strategy guidance recommends using multiple methods because candidates may respond differently to different assessment formats and no single method captures the whole picture. See OPM’s Assessment and Selection guidance and Designing an Assessment Strategy.

For a final decision, gather:

• The original Job Scorecard
• Résumé and screening evidence
• Completed Interview Scorecards
• The Candidate Test Drive and its scoring record
• Reference Checking notes
• Any job requirement that still needs confirmation

Do not allow information that never made it into the record to suddenly become decisive in the final meeting.

Return to the fixed standard

The criteria should come from the role, not from the candidates who happened to apply.

When the team sees an impressive candidate, it is tempting to rewrite the job around that person. A skill that was never considered important suddenly becomes essential. A weakness in a critical area is explained away because the candidate is unusually strong somewhere else.

Return to the outcomes, capabilities, practical requirements, and minimum standards written before interviews began. Change the standard only when the company has learned something real about the job—not to make a preferred candidate easier to select.

Weight evidence by relevance, not drama

Not every piece of information deserves equal influence.

A polished answer about leadership is weaker than a specific example with clear responsibility and a measured result. A Candidate Test Drive that closely resembles the work may provide stronger evidence than a résumé claim. A reference who directly observed the candidate may add useful context to an interview story.

Ask four questions about each evidence source:

1. How closely does it match the work?
2. How directly did we observe or verify it?
3. How consistent is it with other evidence?
4. How much uncertainty remains?

This does not mean one source always wins. It means the team understands why some evidence carries more weight.

Separate missing evidence from negative evidence

These are not the same problem.

Missing evidence: The company did not learn whether the candidate can manage resistance without formal authority.

Negative evidence: The candidate described two situations where progress depended on a senior leader forcing cooperation.

Missing evidence may justify another assessment step. Negative evidence must be evaluated against the role. Treating both as a vague “concern” hides an important distinction.

Identify the risk you would be accepting

Every candidate carries risk. The useful question is whether the company can name it.

For one candidate, the risk may be scale: strong evidence in a ten-person company but no experience with several locations. For another, it may be influence: strong technical judgment but limited evidence of gaining cooperation. For a third, it may be learning speed in an unfamiliar industry.

Describe the risk in plain language:

“Jordan has strong evidence of process diagnosis and operating discipline. The remaining risk is whether that approach will work without the analyst support available in Jordan’s current company.”

That is more useful than “not sure about fit.”

Do not average away a critical failure

A candidate can receive several strong ratings and still fail to meet a requirement that is essential to the role.

If the person must make safe technical decisions, a serious gap in technical judgment cannot be erased by high communication and teamwork scores. If the role must influence peers without authority, repeated dependence on executive intervention may be a decisive risk.

Set critical minimums before evaluating candidates. Do not invent them after seeing the scores.

Make the decision in the right order

Use this sequence:

1. Confirm that every candidate is being evaluated against the same role standard.
2. Review the highest-priority outcome or capability first.
3. State the evidence, rating, and confidence for each candidate.
4. Identify missing, negative, and conflicting evidence.
5. Check critical minimums.
6. Name the remaining risk for each viable candidate.
7. Choose the candidate with the strongest job-related evidence and the most manageable uncertainty.
8. Document why the decision was made.

The Candidate Evaluation guide handles steps one through five. The Hiring Decision Matrix makes steps six through eight visible.

Document the decision before making the offer

Write a brief final record:

Chosen candidate: Who was selected?

Role evidence: Which evidence most strongly supports the choice?

Critical minimums: Which minimum standards were met?

Remaining risk: What uncertainty is the company accepting?

First 90 days: How will that risk be monitored or supported after hire?

Rejected alternatives: What job-related evidence made the other finalists less suitable?

This record becomes useful again when the company measures Quality of Hire.

Keep selection criteria job-related and consistent

The EEOC explains that employment tests and other selection procedures can violate federal law when they disproportionately exclude protected groups and are not job-related and consistent with business necessity. The same guidance advises employers to ensure that selection procedures are appropriate for the job and their intended purpose. See the EEOC’s Employment Tests and Selection Procedures.

Do not introduce vague final-stage criteria such as executive presence, polish, culture fit, or likability unless the company has defined the job-related behavior being measured and applies the same standard consistently.

This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The Phase Four path

Begin with Candidate Evaluation: Score and Compare Every Candidate Fairly. Then use the Hiring Decision Matrix to make the final comparison, remaining risk, and reasoning visible.

Return to the complete Hiring Process or the main Scientific Hiring Method.