Quality of Hire Assessment

Quality of Hire is the candidate's predicted performance against the actual performance objectives of the job, judged at the one-year anniversary — the Win-Win Hiring outcome. It's predicted pre-hire, then measured post-hire with the same scorecard every 30–60 days, which is what makes it a real metric: the prediction is checkable.

Ability ∶ Fit × Motivationⁿ = Results
The ability to do the work — in relationship to fit — drives motivation, and ultimately performance. Motivation means motivation to do the job, not get the job; it's raised to the power of "n" because it matters so much, and most of "n" depends on the fit factors. We assess four questions: can they do the work (ability), will they want to (fit), will they push to excel (motivation), and will they succeed as things change (adaptability — read from trajectory: achiever pattern, growth trend, scope, progression, recognition).

Each factor is ranked 1–5 by comparing the candidate's major accomplishments to the job's performance objectives — which is why a performance-based job description must come first. Ranks are percentile-anchored: 1 minimal · 2 adequate · 3 strong, top third of the peer group · 4 top 10–15% · 5 top 5%. Where evidence is unclear, the rank is NME — Need More Evidence, never a guess. Because results are a product, not a sum, a missing critical term can't be averaged away: one critical NME means the decision waits until the interviewer gathers more information — and this report says exactly how. The composite (Essential Core and Situational Fit factors ×1.5, others ×1.0, ranked factors only) is valid only when every rank is evidence-based, no factor is NME, and independent interviewers converge on a narrow consensus after sharing evidence — a wide spread means the process is out of control, not the candidate.

Why evidence weight matters: in Bayes terms, each piece of evidence shifts the odds that a candidate is a top performer — and the shift is measurable. Accomplishment-anchored evidence like the Performance-based Interview carries a Diagnostic Ratio near 5.0; keyword screens, degree filters, and years-of-experience requirements sit near 1.0 — below the noise floor, unpredictive and increasingly indefensible. Details: The Diagnostic Ratio of Common Hiring Tools · The Legal Reckoning in AI Hiring.