Method
Does this person fit? Veto, weakest layer, five levels
No weighted average: vetoes first, then the weakest layer, then five levels
Nobu Sato6 min read
Contents5
A weighted average is the wrong way to score a candidate.
Many companies do it anyway. So much for skills, so much for experience, so much for culture fit. If the total clears the bar, hire.
I don't count that way.
Bad hires almost always look the same. One layer is clearly wrong and the others are very good. Average them and the strong layers cover the weak one. After the person joins, the trouble comes from exactly that layer.
Averaged, this candidate fits. By the weakest layer, average.
Basis: one candidate read in four layers. Illustrative
The stronger layers hide the weak one, and the weak one is why people leave.
First, break the role into four layers too
A person reads as core, patterns, equipment and context. I break the role into the same four, so I can compare layer by layer. Otherwise you're just holding a job post up against a resume.
| Layer | What I look at on the role's side |
|---|---|
| Core | Which drives the role can actually feed; what the organization really rewards and won't tolerate |
| Patterns | Where the pressure comes from, how much ambiguity there is, which derailer would hurt most, how fast someone must learn |
| Equipment | Which requirements must be there on day one, and which can be built after joining |
| Context | The boss's style, the team, the stage the company is at |
How do you get at the role side? I use on the hiring company the same method I use to research competitors. The job post, the hiring manager's description and the company's account of itself all go down as claims first. How the company actually operates is the fact. How strict the approval process is decides how much rejection a salesperson faces each day. Who gets disciplined and who gets promoted after an incident decides what the organization really rewards and punishes.
The match runs both ways. Check only whether the person has what the role needs, and the person you hire will leave. Check only whether the role gives what the person wants, and the person you hire can't do the job.
Veto items come first
There are five. I check them in order. If any one applies, you stop there.
| Veto | What it means | What it rules out |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Drive | The role can't give this person the two things they want most | This person in this organization |
| 2. Values | Their values clash with what the organization really rewards and punishes | This person in this organization |
| 3. Resonance | Their derailers sit on the same decision chain as the organization's, and the two amplify each other | This person in this organization |
| 4. The unbuildable requirement | They lack the one requirement that can't be built after joining | This person in this role |
| 5. Friction | This person in this environment will turn into constant friction | This person in this role |
The first three are about the person and this organization. They won't work anywhere in this company, so moving them to another role doesn't help. The last two are about the person and this role. A different role might work, and I can refer them.
A veto only counts once it's verified. If it's only a suspicion, it becomes the first thing to get evidence on in the interview.
If nothing is vetoed, look at the weakest layer
I score each of the four layers in whole numbers only. If I'm unsure, I mark it "to verify" rather than fudging it with an in-between score. Then the weakest layer sets the verdict.
| Verdict | Roughly | What happens next |
|---|---|---|
| Strong fit | Matches on every layer, and the evidence is solid | Go straight to the pay proposal |
| Fit | No weak layer | Move forward, with a ramp-up plan |
| Average | One layer is weak | Only with a development plan, or by moving that duty off the role |
| Poor fit | Veto 4 or 5 applies | Not for this role. Refer elsewhere if it makes sense |
| Strong mismatch | Veto 1, 2 or 3 applies | Stop |
One part of this is deliberate. Someone with first-rate skills and an only average core can reach "fit" at most. The person I'd rather find has ordinary skills, a core that matches very well, and a market that undervalues them.
Thin evidence is a different problem from low fit
I keep the two apart. A verdict with thin evidence behind it gets capped. It doesn't get rounded up. These are the gaps that cap it:
- A veto item among the first three is still unverified.
- There's been no organization diagnosis, so the environment side rests entirely on what the company says about itself.
- I only used the quick version to read the person.
- There simply aren't enough events behind the scores.
With any of the first three, the verdict stops at "fit" at most, however good the person looks. If you want a higher verdict, go and get the evidence.
Pay expectations, location, visas and non-compete terms decide whether the deal can close. They go on a separate line and stay out of the fit score. Whether a person fits and whether this deal happens are two different questions.
Ninety days later, check the call
Before the person starts, I hand the hiring manager a short list of what has to be verified in the first 90 days. What signal would show the call was right, and what would show it was wrong. Ideally someone with no stake in the hire is watching too. We check at day 30, 60 and 90.
At day 90 we go back to the original verdict. Without that look-back, the right calls and the wrong ones sit in memory with the same weight, and the method never gets more accurate.
Change an input, and the verdict gets redone. The old verdict isn't deleted. It stays as an earlier version, so I can see later what I knew at the time and what I got wrong.
This part is still a draft. The structure is set, but it hasn't been through a full real cycle yet. Once enough look-backs pile up, I plan to recalibrate the standards in one go.
Candidates can turn this around and use it on an offer they're holding: Run a Five-Level Check on Your Job Offer.
Only after the fit call does money come in. That's the next page: three-track pay. Or go back to the method overview.