Shortlisting

Start with the work, not the inbox

Shortlisting asks a narrower question than whether a candidate is generally strong: whose available evidence warrants the next step for this role? The US Office of Personnel Management’s job-analysis guidance starts with work tasks and the competencies they require. That is a useful order for a shortlist too. Agree the relevant evidence before reading applications, then apply it consistently.

The criteria can be modest: a required licence, experience with a specific type of customer, or evidence of a skill the role needs on day one. A preference should stay a preference. Treating it as a hidden requirement makes the eventual list harder to explain.

The decision needs a trace

For each candidate, note the evidence considered and the decision: advance, hold for a defined reason, or decline. A candidate who does not progress is not automatically unsuitable; the choice may reflect the stage, the evidence available, or the number of interview slots the team can support.

When reviewers disagree, return to the criterion and the evidence rather than averaging impressions. This is also where a structured hiring process earns its keep: it gives the team a common basis for discussing a decision without pretending that selection is mechanical.

Review the cut before it becomes habit

After a hiring round, compare the reasons recorded against the role requirements. Repeated vague notes such as “not quite right” are a prompt to improve the criteria or the evidence requested. They are not an audit result by themselves. The useful question is whether another reviewer could understand the decision from the record.