LESSON 5 OF 6 · INTERMEDIATE
Debrief independently before discussing
Have evaluators record evidence and provisional scores before group discussion. Compare differences against the rubric and resolve missing information. Keep job-related observations separate from conclusions. A senior person’s first impression should not determine everyone else’s assessment. Record the rationale through the approved system.
Write a debrief agenda that tests evidence before preferences.
About 2 minutes reading + 12 minutes practice. Take longer when needed.
Apply the method
Have interviewers record observations and provisional scores before the group debrief. Review one competency at a time and ask which evidence supports each conclusion. Resolve scoring differences by returning to the anchors and identifying missing information. Avoid letting seniority, charisma or the first speaker determine everyone’s judgment. If the role changed, stop and revisit the brief rather than retrofitting criteria around a favored person. Keep records through the approved system and observe appropriate access limits.
A worked application
Fictional example: One interviewer says an applicant lacks presence. The group asks which required task lacked evidence. The concern turns out to be a quiet speaking style, while the applicant gave a clear escalation example. The team does not score presence as a hidden requirement. A genuine gap in coaching evidence is handled through the same planned follow-up process that would be used for another candidate.
Common mistake to avoid
Do not use a debrief to negotiate impressions into a shared story. It should compare evidence against criteria established before the interviews.
Work through the case
FICTIONAL SCENARIO
One interviewer says a candidate lacks presence. The team asks which required task lacked evidence and finds that the concern was speaking style rather than capability.
Make it practical
Write a debrief agenda that tests evidence before preferences.
Compare your reasoning with a worked response
Review competency evidence, discuss scoring differences and identify a consistent next step. Avoid changing requirements after meeting a favored candidate.
Takeaway
Use the method to explain your decision, identify what you still need to verify and choose an accountable next step.
Treat the response as a model for reasoning, not the only possible wording. Adapt it to the role, evidence and appropriate organizational guidance.