How would you approach a situation where an interviewer disagrees with your feedback on a candidate?

Be respectful and listen to what other persons perspective it. We being humans are brain functions differently. Get the insight on why the candidate is rejected and then put your point of view to reconsider the decision. Its ok to have different perspectives.

1. Acknowledge their perspective: Show that you value their opinion and understand their point of view. 2. Clarify your feedback: Reiterate your initial feedback, providing specific examples and facts to support your assessment. 3. Ask questions: Seek to understand their perspective and what they saw in the candidate that you may have missed. 4. Offer a compromise: Suggest a middle ground, such as a second interview or a skills assessment, to further evaluate the candidate. 5. Maintain a professional tone: Remain calm, respectful, and objective throughout the discussion.

First of all listen to the feedback, and get understanding of another person, then share your opinion, and its important to always keep the door open for constructive dialogues.

Listening actively is the key here! We cannot be always right, definitely not! Maybe, we missed something during the interview which was caught in the next round. So, I would listen to the other person’s perspective and if I have already evaluated on that part and I disagree with interviewer’s opinion, I will voice my feedback with an example. I usually give situations to people after asking a question to validate.. So, that could play a role in convincing or reshaping the other interviewer’s perception about the candidate.

Its more to do with what is important for the objective . Listening to the other party and presenting the facts on the basis of your selection and contributing towards the common goal.

If the objective of the hire is to find the right person for the company, then we should all welcome honest feedback. While disagreements are never fun, we also don't want to set candidates up to fail. Taking the feedback personally, doesn't help anyone, including the candidate. Having a open conversation that really pinpoints what is needed to be successful can ultimately help you land the best person for the role.

It's important to remember that feedback on candidates, isn't an attack on your judgement as an interviewer. With this in check, it's safe to disagree and agree, but this should be done based on the competencies and job requirements at stake.

Keep emotions out of the equation! Only state the facts. Highlight the candidates strengths that are in alignment with the criteria of the role. Utilize a standard interview guide and rating scale. Ensure your notes are detailed. When debriefing, avoid “I” statements; don’t make it personal. Focus on observable skills and traits.

Ask questions to get a better understanding of any concerns that the other interviewer may have. Be positive throughout the conversation and try to collaborate and come to a mutual decision. Give specific examples and make sure that your points are heard as well.

As a legal recruiter, my job is to find synergies between the attorneys I am representing and the clients I am trying to find attorneys for. If the client does not deem that my candidate is a good fit, I always try to get more information. In part, this is to help me find "on point" candidates for my client, and in part, it helps my candidate see why my client passed. If there is a disconnect between my client's feedback and my candidate's feedback, I do my best to get my client to reconsider. Even if the client does not resurrect discussions, I share my candidate's feedback with them just in case that tempers their concerns. At the end of the day, getting a job is largely based on the chemistry between/among people.

Ask questions that will help you understand their viewpoints, then calmly explain your reasoning, backing it up with specific examples from the candidate’s interview, because you also need to be heard.

After fully understanding their viewpoint, share your observations and the rationale behind the feedback. Ensure the points are clear, backed by specific examples and aligned with the roles objectives.

Getting to the root of the disconnect is key, and it's possible that it has nothing to do with the candidate. Not having a clear target on the ideal behaviors, competencies, and expectations for a candidate can lead to a lack of evidence to support effective decision-making. Want to learn more about how to get it right? Feel free to reach out.

Explaining feedback or own perception of the interviewee’s performance is essential including if possible from the notes taken exact wording or sentences used. Many times a sentence means different things to different people and discussing how we assessed the exact answers provides evidence and a ground for starting a negotiation. I say negotiation because I think it should be an open discussion where both sides share thoughts and try to reach a consensus on the candidate’s possible potential. It is not a disagreement and a power game where the most senior decides, it should be a joint decision by using the facts from the interview and if needed a plan forward (even if it means another chat with the candidate).

When explaining your feedback, it's important to provide evidence to support your assessment. This could include specific examples of the candidate's behavior during the interview, their responses to situational questions, or how they demonstrated certain skills. By backing up your feedback with concrete evidence, you make it more credible and persuasive. This also helps to shift the discussion from subjective opinions to objective evaluation.

I will explain my reasoning for choosing the candidate, backing it up with specific things that got my attention from the candidate’s interview. I'd emphasize collaboration, suggesting we weigh all feedback to make a well-rounded decision. It’s about finding common ground and ensuring the best fit for the role, rather than insisting on being right.

Es muy importante hacer notar al entrevistador los puntos positivos y aquellos comportamientos en los candidatos (lenguaje no verbal) que nos comunican, hay cosas que no se llegan a comunicar literalmente, por lo que hay que ser muy observadores y analíticos para exponer evidencias que sumen y hacer las observaciones necesarias para complementar lo que los candidatos hayan dicho en la entrevista.

My Feedback will be based on specific criteria, but i would like to hear more about your observations. Can we discuss the specific aspects where our views differ ?This conversation can help both parties understand the stakes involved and weigh the pros and cons more clearly. This will help us ensure we make a well-rounded decision. It also puts the focus on the future success of the organization, which is ultimately what the hiring process aims to secure.

As a Hiring Manager, I had faced a few similar situations. Discuss the reason for the conflict and how will that impact the business. Having a strong profile related questions included in the interview most likely diminshes the chances of random/fluke selections and one can stand his/her grounds for selecting a candidate. Even then there are slim chances that conflict still petsists, in which case sharing the recording of the interview with a neutral panelist will increase the chances of getting a solution without having to interview the candidate again, saving both the parties time. Hope this helps!

From personal experience, it is essentially this happens verbally, rather than over email. Not only will you get to the point quicker, if done in the right way it will also help to build your working relationship(s) with your colleague(s). It will also avoid the back and forth over email where despite any best intentions of how you write something, it will always come across to the recipient as how THEY read and perceive it, not how you intended to write it.

Be open to adjusting your view. If the arguments highlight something missed or didn't fully appreciate, be open to adjusting, be agile and flexible.

If an interviewer disagrees with your feedback on a candidate, don't be surprised - it's not uncommon! Instead, view it as an opportunity for a healthy conversation. Approach the situation with open-mindedness, clarification, and respectful dialogue. Focus on data-driven discussion, collaboration, and professionalism. Be flexible and willing to adjust your assessment if needed. Strive for consensus and prioritize making the best decision for the organization. A differing opinion can bring new insights and perspectives, ultimately leading to a more informed decision.

- Tener en cuenta que cada persona es diferente inclusive cuando hayan realizado roles iguales o similares. - Analizar qué otras cosas se pueden priorizar más allá de los conocimientos técnicos para el rol, (valores, personalidad, potencial, diversidad, etc). -Intentar entrevistar de formas diferentes, y evaluar el proceso que se está llevando a cabo para la selección. Nos casamos con procesos o ideas de cómo debería ser una entrevista o un proceso de selección y me parece importante intentar cosas distintas durante las entrevistas, que por su puesto, sumen valor para encontrar el perfil más adecuado.