sales business developmentlife insuranceneeds analysisterm and whole lifeunderwriting
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
Ask for annualised first year commission, policy count, and average face amount over the last two years, plus persistency or 13 month lapse rates they can quote.
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 APE or FYC figures, case counts, and persistency above 85 percent, with carrier names and product mix.
02
Evaluation factor
Method and qualification
25% weight
Probe their needs analysis method: DIME or capital retention calculations, term versus indexed universal life positioning, and how they handle rated cases or table shaves during underwriting.
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 structured fact find, justifies product choice with numbers, and anticipates underwriting flags before submitting the application.
03
Evaluation factor
Relationships and trust
25% weight
Look for evidence of referral flow, annual policy reviews, beneficiary updates, and how they support families at claim time rather than disappearing after issue.
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
Names clients retained for years, describes claim handling they personally shepherded, and shows referrals as a measurable share of production.
04
Evaluation factor
Drive and resilience
15% weight
Test how they rebuild a pipeline after a dry quarter: seminar work, orphan policy lists, centre of influence partnerships with CPAs, and handling of not taken policies.
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
Describes a repeatable prospecting routine with weekly activity targets and recovers from declined or lapsed cases without abandoning the pipeline.
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.
