Design a Recruitment and Selection Process

Proof required

Submit: a role profile covering the role's strategic purpose, key accountabilities, and how success is measured; and a candidate specification listing five to seven competencies each with two to three observable behavioural indicators and a rationale for why that competency predicts success in this specific role.

What gets checked

• Each competency has observable behavioural indicators — not vague traits like 'good communicator' but specific behaviours with context
• The competency set is traceable to interviews with people who know the role — not copied from a generic job description template
• At least one competency is specific to this role and would not appear on a generic specification for any similar role

Common mistakes

• Copying a generic job description and calling it a candidate specification — competencies without behavioural indicators cannot be assessed reliably
• Omitting to interview current role performers and relying only on the hiring manager's view of the ideal candidate

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the candidate to explain why each competency was included — what interview evidence or role observation supports it?
• Pick one behavioural indicator and ask: 'how would you recognise this in a 45-minute interview?'
• Check that the specification would meaningfully differentiate candidates — could two very different candidates both score well?
• Ask whether any competency in the current job description was deliberately excluded and why

Proof required

Submit: a structured interview guide with at least five competency-based questions, each mapped to a competency from the specification and accompanied by a three-level scoring rubric; a job advertisement targeting the candidate profile; and if applicable, one additional selection tool with a rationale for why this assessment predicts role performance.

What gets checked

• Each interview question is mapped to a specific competency and the rubric defines concrete observable indicators for each of the three score levels
• The job advertisement is targeted at the candidate specification — not a generic listing of role duties and requirements
• Any additional assessment can be completed in a realistic time window and produces comparable data across all candidates

Common mistakes

• Writing interview questions without rubrics — interviewers score inconsistently when they only have questions and no anchor standards
• Designing an assessment that tests knowledge rather than the specific competency identified in the specification

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Read one interview question aloud and ask: 'what competency does this test and how does the rubric distinguish strong from acceptable?'
• Check the job advertisement: does it describe the work and outcomes, or just list requirements and responsibilities?
• Ask how comparable candidate assessments will be across different interviewers using this guide
• Challenge one rubric level: 'what would a weak answer look like that is not just the absence of a strong one?'

Proof required

Submit: the final process document including all tools; a written review session record with the reviewer's name and credentials, at least three specific challenges raised, and your written response to each; and a revision log showing what changed and why.

What gets checked

• Reviewer has ≥3 years of hands-on talent acquisition or HR experience — not a general manager who has hired occasionally
• At least one legal or bias-related challenge was raised and addressed in the revision
• At least one assessment tool was revised based on reviewer feedback with an explicit rationale

Common mistakes

• Seeking a reviewer who is enthusiastic about hiring but has no systematic assessment design experience
• Treating the review as a final approval rather than a genuine challenge — not revising anything

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm the reviewer's role and years in talent acquisition or HR before treating the session as valid
• Ask whether any protected-characteristic bias risk was raised and how the candidate responded
• Check the revision: was the change substantive or cosmetic?
• Ask: 'if you used this process to hire ten people, how confident are you the best candidates would consistently be selected?'