Effective Interview Scoring Conversations – Was I wrong to do this? 

Imagine this situation: You walk into the scoring conversation feeling confident. In your mind, the candidate performed well, demonstrating strong competency across multiple areas. You’re prepared to advocate for them. But then, before you even have a chance to speak, your colleague leans back, shakes their head, and exclaims, “That was shocking, wasn’t it?” A wave of doubt crashes over you.

Wait, shocking? You briefly replay the interview in your head. Did you miss something, or did they pick up on a major red flag that completely escaped you? You become uncertain.

Should I revise my score? Your colleague has years more experience than you; surely they must have seen something you didn’t. The pressure to align with their judgment weighs even more heavily.

What will they think of me as an interviewer? If you stick to your initial assessment, will you come across as naïve, inattentive, or lacking sound judgment? If you adjust your score, will you be acting on instinct rather than evidence?

Adjusting my score slightly won’t cause any harm, will it? You alter your score slightly to align more closely with your colleague; I am sure everyone does this, and I’m sure being a harsher marker will only benefit us.

It’s easy to assume that the person with the most experience in the role has the sharpest eye for talent. While this can be true, their judgment, just like anyone else’s, needs to be backed by evidence. The only way to ensure fairness is to communicate openly, share observations, and provide justification for your scores.

The scoring conversation should facilitate a structured discussion that leads to a well-rounded assessment rather than one swayed by personal perceptions or quick judgments.

A successful scoring conversation doesn’t just happen; it requires intentionality. Here are key steps to ensure a meaningful discussion:

Rushing through this process can lead to quick, surface-level summaries that miss critical details. Allocate dedicated time to dissect candidate performance thoroughly. 

Instead of relying on vague impressions, focus on specific behaviours and responses. Statements like, “They handled the problem-solving question well by outlining clear steps and demonstrating critical thinking,” are far more valuable than subjective summaries.

Disagreement is not just acceptable—it’s beneficial. Differing viewpoints spark discussions that lead to deeper insights. The key is to remain open-minded while ensuring that all assessments are rooted in factual evidence. 

Avoid generalising statements like “that was terrible” or “they were amazing,” as they can unduly influence perceptions. Stick to measurable, concrete examples when discussing performance.

Not every candidate will have a unanimous evaluation, and that’s okay. The goal isn’t necessarily full agreement but a well-rounded, fair, and justified decision.

If you remember three things from this discussion, let them be these: 

• Always have the scoring conversation and challenge perspectives objectively. 
• It’s okay to doubt your own scoring – but state your evidence clearly and confidently. 
• Ensure sufficient time for thorough discussions – quick summaries won’t do justice to candidate assessments. 

By following these principles, your hiring decisions will be more structured, fair, and free from unnecessary bias. Ultimately, a well-executed scoring conversation ensures that the best candidates rise to the top – for the right reasons.

Our Inclusive Recruitment Programme helps you sharpen your assessment skills, provide evidence-based feedback, and compare ratings against expert benchmarks. This allows you to spot patterns in decision-making across your organisation and refine your hiring process for better, data-driven outcomes. 

Want to see it in action? Book a demo now!