"Good gut feeling" remains the most common justification for a hiring decision, and the least reliable. A scorecard replaces that impression with a structured evaluation, built on evidence rather than intuition.
The problem with gut feeling in hiring
Gut feeling is unstable: two interviewers can have opposite impressions of the same candidate, without either being able to say precisely why. It's also biased: we naturally feel good about someone who resembles us, which has nothing to do with their ability to perform in the role.
The scorecard principle: evidence before impression
If you don't have proof, you don't get a point. Gut feeling is for dessert.
That's the core principle of the scorecard we use at Walead to evaluate SDR and Account Executive profiles. Each criterion is only scored if it's backed by a concrete, verifiable example, not a statement of intent or a general impression.
How we structure the interviews
The process relies on 3 interviews of 30 minutes each, conducted by three different interviewers: the recruiter, the Sales Manager, then the Head of Sales. Each evaluator scores the candidate independently, on their own grid tailored to their angle of evaluation, a recruiter and a Head of Sales aren't looking for exactly the same evidence.
The rating scale
1 : Red flag, incoherent answer, no evidence provided.
2 : Weak, insufficient for the expected level.
3 : Standard, acceptable for the role.
4 : Solid, above average.
5 : Excellent: evidence, clarity, and impact combined.
Each grid calculates a weighted score out of 100. The candidate doesn't need to excel on every criterion: some count more than others depending on the role and the stage of the process.
The synthesis and the final decision
The three grids feed into a synthesis tab that consolidates all three interviewers' evaluations and surfaces a clear recommendation. The goal isn't to replace human judgment, but to make it traceable: if evaluators disagree, the scorecard shows precisely on which point, and why.