How interview performance can mask real sales ability

The best salespeople don’t always get hired.

Sometimes they lose out to candidates with:
• stronger CVs
• more polished interview answers
• a better “feel” in the room

None of those things close deals.

The problem with interview performance

Interviews tend to reward how someone performs in a controlled setting.
• how they communicate
• how they structure their answers
• how confident they appear

Those are useful signals, but they are not the same as performance in role.

The ability to handle pressure, manage a complex deal, or recover when things go wrong does not always show up in a one-hour conversation.

The candidates who get overlooked

Some of the most capable salespeople are not the most visible.

They:
• listen more than they talk
• ask better questions
• challenge appropriately
• stay composed under pressure

They are focused on outcomes, not presentation.

And because of that, they do not always “perform” in an interview.

Where hiring decisions go wrong

When interviews are used as the primary decision tool, there is a tendency to select:
• the most articulate candidate
• the most confident candidate
• the one who leaves the strongest immediate impression

That is not always the person who will perform best in the role.

A more accurate lens

Good hiring decisions come from understanding how someone operates in a real sales environment.
• how they manage a deal
• how they respond when things go wrong
• how they build and maintain momentum

That requires going beyond surface-level impressions.

The difference that matters

Hiring is not about selecting the best interview performance.

It is about identifying the person most likely to perform in the role.

Those two things are not always aligned.

If the process is not designed to recognise that difference, the wrong decisions are made more often than they should be.

Category: Sales Hiring

Why over-engineered briefs lead to weak shortlists and slow hiring decisions

A very tight hiring brief is not always a sign of clear thinking. Sometimes it is the opposite.

A business wants:

• deep sector experience
• a specific product background
• experience with the exact buyer group
• proven new business capability
• leadership potential
• credibility with senior stakeholders

All within a salary band that the right person is unlikely to accept.

At that point, the problem is not the candidate market. It is the brief.

When a brief becomes the problem

If only a very small number of people could realistically meet the requirements, one of two things is usually true:

• The brief has been over-engineered
• The business has not properly decided what matters most

Both create friction.

Shortlists become thin.

Strong candidates are ruled out early.

The process slows down.

Frustration builds.

The assumption is often that the market is the issue.

Sometimes it is.

More often, it isn’t.

What a strong brief actually looks like

A strong hiring brief is not about asking for everything.

It is about clarity.

• What is essential
• What is adaptable
• What can be learned

Without that clarity, the process becomes a search for a perfect profile that does not exist.

The impact on hiring decisions

When the brief is unclear or over-specified:

• candidates are assessed against the wrong criteria
• trade-offs are not understood
• decisions become inconsistent

Even good candidates can look wrong if the framework is off.

Where better hiring starts

Better hiring does not start with the search.

It starts with the definition of the role.

When there is clear alignment on what the role actually needs to deliver, the rest of the process becomes more straightforward.

The shortlist improves.

Decisions become easier.

Outcomes are more predictable.

That is where most hiring processes need to be tightened.

Most Sales Interviews Don’t Test Sales Ability

Category: Assessment & Interviews

How vague answers get accepted as fact — and what that means for hiring decisions

Most sales interviews don’t fail because the questions are poor.

They fail because vague answers get accepted as fact.

“I built trust.”

“I positioned value.”

“I handled the objections.”

“I have strong relationships.”

All of it sounds right. None of it is evidence.

The problem is not what candidates say. It is how easily those statements are accepted without being tested.

Where interviews go wrong

In most hiring processes, interviews are treated as a way to validate a candidate’s story.

The conversation flows, the candidate communicates well, and the interview moves on.

But strong communication is not the same as sales ability.

If the detail is not explored, the difference between the two never becomes clear.

Where real ability shows up

Specifics are where substance appears.

What actually happened in the deal.

What the buyer said.

What changed the direction of the conversation.

Where the candidate struggled.

How they recovered.

When those questions are asked properly, one of two things happens:

• The answer sharpens, and real ability becomes clear
• Or it falls apart under pressure

Both outcomes are useful.

What this means for hiring

If interviews are not designed to test for detail, they tend to reward:

• confidence
• communication
• presentation

Those are useful qualities, but they are not what closes deals.

Good hiring decisions come from understanding how someone actually sells, not how well they talk about selling.

A more effective approach

Interviews should be used to explore evidence, not collect impressions.

That means:

• asking for specific examples
• staying with the answer until it becomes clear
• being comfortable pushing beyond surface-level responses

The goal is not to make the interview difficult.

It is to make it accurate.

If you are hiring for a sales role, this is where the process often needs to change.