Staffing System Without Measurement

Imagine a staffing system for a “Chief Ideation Officer” at a startup called “Eureka Innovations.” This job is envisioned as someone who generates groundbreaking ideas, fosters creative thinking across teams, and inspires novel approaches to complex problems.

In this purely qualitative, measurement-free staffing system:

• Job Description: Vague and aspirational, focusing on “visionary thinking,” “inspiring breakthroughs,” and “disrupting norms,” without quantifiable metrics.
• Application Process: Applicants submit a “portfolio of inspiration” – perhaps a collection of their favorite quotes, abstract art pieces they created, or a manifesto on the future of innovation. There are no rubrics or checklists.
• Interview Process: Consists of free-flowing, philosophical conversations where applicants are asked about their “life’s purpose,” their “definition of creativity,” or “how they envision a world without limits.” There are no structured questions, no scoring guides, and no comparative evaluations. The decision is based purely on “gut feeling” or how “inspired” the interviewer feels.
• Reference Checks: Informal chats with previous colleagues who are asked if the candidate is “a good vibe” or “truly revolutionary.” No specific questions about performance or skills are asked.
• Hiring Decision: Made by a single founder who selects the candidate they personally feel has the most “aura of genius” or “creative spark,” without any documented reasoning or comparison to other candidates.

The inherent problem is that without any measurement, the system is entirely subjective, prone to bias, and offers no way to systematically evaluate who is most likely to succeed in the role. It relies solely on intuition and personal judgment, making it impossible to determine if the “best” candidate was truly selected or to improve the process over time.

Determining Scores for Applicant Responses

When a staffing system moves beyond pure intuition, even basic qualitative responses need a structured approach to scoring to ensure fairness and consistency.

a. Interview Questions

For a structured behavioral interview, I would use behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) or rating scales with clearly defined anchors.

Example Question: “Tell me about a time you had to adapt quickly to a significant change in a project’s direction. What was the situation, what did you do, and what was the outcome?”

Scoring Method: A 1-5 point rating scale with specific behavioral anchors for each score.

• 1 (Unsatisfactory): Unable to provide a relevant example or provided an example where they resisted change or failed to adapt.
• 2 (Needs Development): Provided a vague example; adapted but with significant difficulty or delay; required extensive guidance.