sales business developmentcrm hygienepipeline generationquota attainmentremote sales
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 quota history in numbers: annual target, percentage attainment by quarter, average deal size, sales cycle length, and whether they closed remotely over Zoom without field visits.
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 two or three years of quota versus attainment with deal sizes, cycle length, and named logos closed entirely over video.
02
Evaluation factor
Method and qualification
25% weight
Probe their qualification framework (MEDDIC, BANT, SPICED), how they source pipeline via LinkedIn Sales Navigator or Outreach sequences, and their CRM discipline in HubSpot or Salesforce.
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
Applies a named qualification method to a real lost deal, explains the missed champion, and keeps forecast stages clean and current.
03
Evaluation factor
Relationships and trust
25% weight
Assess how they build trust without in-person meetings: multi-threading into procurement and finance, handling silent stakeholders on calls, renewals and referrals they generated.
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 accounts where they multi-threaded across three or more contacts and produced referrals or expansions from those relationships.
04
Evaluation factor
Drive and resilience
15% weight
Look for evidence of self-managed activity at home: daily call and email volume, response to a bad month, working across time zones without a manager watching.
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 concrete rebuild after a missed quarter, with activity numbers they hold themselves to and no reliance on supervision.
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.
