sales business developmentbusiness developmentcrm hygieneoutbound prospectingpipeline generation
Complete evaluation framework
What to assess and how to score it
Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.
01
Evaluation factor
Track record
35% weight
Check what they actually closed or sourced: quota attainment percentages, number of qualified meetings booked per month, average deal size, and whether numbers came from named CRM reports.
Explains the market and buyer they sold to, not just the product
Distinguishes what they closed from what the team closed
Can describe a deal they lost and why
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No numbers; cannot describe what they actually sold or to whom.
2
Needs Improvement
Vague attainment; credit for team results is unclear.
3
Satisfactory
Real record with some numbers; attribution occasionally fuzzy.
4
Very Good
Clear numbers and ownership, including honest losses.
5
Excellent
Quotes concrete figures (for example 118% of a 40k quarterly quota, 22 SQLs monthly) and names the pipeline they inherited versus built.
02
Evaluation factor
Method and qualification
25% weight
Probe their qualification framework in practice: MEDDIC, BANT or SPICED, how they disqualify early, and what discovery questions surface budget and decision authority.
Evidence to listen for
Has a repeatable approach to qualifying and progressing deals
Can walk a real deal from first contact to close
Handles objections with questions rather than scripts
Knows when to disqualify
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No method; pitches at everyone and hopes.
2
Needs Improvement
Weak qualification; deals stall with no diagnosis.
3
Satisfactory
Workable method; inconsistent on complex or long cycles.
4
Very Good
Clear repeatable method; disqualifies early and deliberately.
5
Excellent
Walks through a real deal using a named framework, showing where they disqualified and why, not just reciting the acronym.
03
Evaluation factor
Relationships and trust
25% weight
Assess how they build trust with cold prospects and champions: multi-thread strategies, follow-up cadences in Outreach or HubSpot, and referrals or renewals they personally earned.
Evidence to listen for
Has clients or talent who came back or referred them
Manages a difficult conversation without damaging the relationship
Represents the client's interest, not only the commission
Builds rapport across seniority levels
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Transactional; burns relationships for a close.
2
Needs Improvement
Builds rapport but does not sustain relationships.
3
Satisfactory
Solid relationships; less tested in conflict.
4
Very Good
Repeat business and referrals; handles conflict without damage.
5
Excellent
Describes named accounts where they reached multiple stakeholders and cites referrals or expansions that came from relationships they maintained.
04
Evaluation factor
Drive and resilience
15% weight
Look for evidence of sustained activity through rejection: daily call and email volume, response to a lost deal, and what they changed after a bad quarter.
Evidence to listen for
Handles rejection and a bad quarter without unravelling
Self-directed on pipeline rather than waiting for leads
Coachable on feedback
Honest in how they represent the product and themselves
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Gives up easily; blames leads, product, or market.
2
Needs Improvement
Motivation depends on momentum; resistant to coaching.
3
Satisfactory
Steady; recovers from setbacks with support.
4
Very Good
Self-motivated, coachable, and steady through bad stretches.
5
Excellent
Owns a missed target without excuses, states the specific behaviour they changed, and shows steady activity metrics through the slump.
Put this rubric to work
Score every candidate against the same standard
Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.
