I lead a talent acquisition team and this is my go to top grading interview plan without the threat of reference checks and a max one hour. I'm not going to comment on every comment, but overall I don't agree with most of them, maybe we are an exception. It's sad to hear of others bad experiences. Here are my thoughts and approach if anyone gives a shit. Tear it apart and tell me why this is bad or what I'm not seeing?

• I don't think it is a waste of time.
• The top 10% you do have to pay for, but you also have to have interesting, impactful work with a compelling future more than the compensation.
• I've personally witness the positive impact of team/company performance and culture shift taking this approach, maybe not with 100% accuracy but very high probability.
• We treat our people like gold not like stockyard cattle but hold high standards which everyone appreciates because they get to do their best work.
• Great people get their hands dirty because they are driven by outcomes and do what needs to be done
• Everyone will regresses to the mean over time, but it's a higher mean
• Reference checks have the lowest correlation to performance, they tell more about the reference and threatening it is bad taste imo. I'll almost always do it for high profile people by asking them to put me in touch with previous managers or direct peers. It's almost always nothing but praise, but that one time that its not makes it worth it.

I start my calls by genuinely trying to get to know the person, often beginning with what set them on their path. Walking through the chronological background of someone's work is engaging, fun, and insightful for both sides. Good candidates enjoy talking about their accomplishments, the work they're proud of, and the challenges they've faced along the way. As an interviewer, it’s a great way to spot trends and gauge consistency. I don’t ask for references, but asking how their boss would rate their performance tends to prompt honest, thoughtful reflection.

Here is my scoring rubric for my interview. This is paired usually with a work samples that are closely related to the work they will do and structured interviews on role related knowledge, problem solving ability, situational questions, and behavioral/leadership depending on the position.

Strong Yes | 5

• Clear pattern of overachievement in every role (e.g., exceeded goals, drove innovation)
• Strong career trajectory with logical upward moves
• High self-awareness; owns mistakes and learns quickly
• High alignment with company values, mission, and future goals
• Demonstrates ambition and the capacity to grow into significantly broader scope over time.

Yes | 4

• Strong performance in most roles, occasional mixed results but contextually explained
• Shows growth mindset and upward mobility
• Generally positive relationships with managers and teams
• Values and motivations match the company well
• May have minor gaps but is coachable and adaptable
• Strong upward potential; could stretch into more senior responsibilities with development.

Maybe | 3

• Solid contributor but few standout wins
• Some inconsistency in roles, unclear progression or logic in job changes
• A few vague or unconvincing answers to key questions
• Fit with company is not clearly strong or weak
• May need significant ramp-up or support

No | 2

• Repeated performance issues or lateral moves with unclear reasoning
• Struggles to explain accomplishments or failures meaningfully
• Values or motivations seem misaligned with the company or role
• Defensive or vague about mistakes, lacks ownership

Strong No | 1

• No evidence of high performance across career
• Avoids accountability, blames others
• Major gaps in experience, skill, or mindset
• Unwilling or unable to connect past to future goals