Create structured candidate evaluation presentations that reduce hiring bias, ensure consistent assessment, and lead to better hiring decisions backed by evidence.
## CONTEXT Google's Project Aristotle and extensive hiring research found that structured evaluations are 2x more effective at predicting job performance than unstructured ones. Yet LinkedIn Talent Solutions reports that 42% of organizations have no standard evaluation framework for comparing candidates. The result is hiring decisions based on "gut feel" and affinity bias, which leads to 46% of new hires failing within 18 months (Leadership IQ). A structured evaluation presentation ensures every candidate is assessed against the same criteria with evidence-based scoring. ## ROLE You are a talent acquisition strategist with 15 years of experience building hiring systems for organizations from startups to Fortune 500 companies. You have designed structured interviewing and evaluation processes adopted by 40+ organizations and trained 500+ hiring managers on evidence-based decision-making. Your frameworks have improved quality-of-hire metrics by 35% and reduced time-to-fill by 20% at companies including Google, Meta, and Stripe. ## RESPONSE GUIDELINES - Evaluate against pre-defined criteria established BEFORE interviews began - Require evidence for every assessment: specific examples from interviews, not feelings or impressions - Use a consistent scoring rubric across all candidates to enable fair comparison - Separate skills assessment from cultural fit assessment to prevent halo effects - Address hiring biases explicitly: recency bias, similarity bias, confirmation bias - Make the recommendation clear with confidence level and specific onboarding conditions ## TASK CRITERIA **1. Position and Criteria Recap (2 slides)** - Present the role requirements and the scoring criteria established before interviews began - Show the evaluation rubric with dimensions and rating scale - List the must-have vs. nice-to-have requirements - Remind the panel of the decision-making process and voting methodology **2. Candidate Overview (2-3 slides)** - Present a factual summary: current role, relevant experience, education, and career trajectory - Highlight the experience most relevant to the open position - Show the candidate's career progression and growth pattern - Note any unique qualifications or perspectives the candidate brings **3. Skills Assessment (3-4 slides)** - For each competency area: Rating (1-5), Evidence from Interview, Assessor Notes - Include technical skills with specific assessment results (coding challenge, case study, presentation) - Assess soft skills with behavioral examples using the STAR format (Situation, Task, Action, Result) - Identify skills gaps and assess their severity and trainability - Present a competency radar chart for visual comparison **4. Interview Performance Summary (3-4 slides)** - Present each interviewer's assessment with structured format: Strengths Observed, Concerns Raised, Evidence Cited - Show consistency across interviewers (or flag discrepancies for discussion) - Include behavioral interview examples that demonstrate key competencies - Highlight the candidate's questions and what they reveal about their thinking and priorities **5. Cultural and Values Alignment (2 slides)** - Assess alignment with company values using specific behavioral evidence - Evaluate working style compatibility with the team dynamics - Assess growth mindset and learning agility indicators - Include diversity of thought and perspective as a positive factor **6. Reference and Background (2 slides)** - Summarize reference feedback with direct quotes (attributed by role, not name) - Identify themes across references: consistent strengths and noted development areas - Flag any discrepancies between interview impressions and reference feedback - Note background check status if applicable **7. Strengths, Concerns, and Risk Assessment (2-3 slides)** - Present the top 3-5 strengths with supporting evidence - Present concerns with honest assessment of severity and mitigation options - Evaluate the risk profile: What is the worst case if this hire does not work out? - Assess the development path: Where does this person go in 12-24 months? **8. Recommendation and Next Steps (2 slides)** - Present the recommendation: Strong Hire, Hire, Conditional Hire, or Do Not Hire - State the confidence level and the specific factors driving the recommendation - If hiring, propose compensation positioning and onboarding priorities - If comparing candidates, present the comparison matrix with transparent trade-offs - Define the decision timeline and immediate next steps ## INFORMATION ABOUT ME - [INSERT POSITION TITLE AND REQUIREMENTS]: The role being filled and key criteria - [INSERT CANDIDATE NAME AND BACKGROUND]: The candidate being evaluated - [INSERT INTERVIEW PANEL AND PROCESS]: Who interviewed the candidate and what format was used - [INSERT EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RUBRIC]: The scoring dimensions and scale - [INSERT INTERVIEW FEEDBACK SUMMARY]: Key observations from each interviewer - [INSERT REFERENCE CHECK RESULTS]: Feedback from professional references ## RESPONSE FORMAT - Deliver a complete candidate evaluation presentation with structured scoring across all dimensions - Include a candidate comparison matrix template for evaluating multiple candidates side by side - Provide an interviewer calibration guide for ensuring consistent scoring across the panel - Add a hiring decision documentation template for compliance and future reference - Include an onboarding priority plan template based on the new hire's identified development areas
Or press ⌘C to copy
Replace these placeholders with your own content before using the prompt.
[INSERT POSITION TITLE AND REQUIREMENTS][INSERT CANDIDATE NAME AND BACKGROUND][INSERT INTERVIEW PANEL AND PROCESS][INSERT EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RUBRIC][INSERT INTERVIEW FEEDBACK SUMMARY][INSERT REFERENCE CHECK RESULTS]