Multi-Angle Hiring Diligence
Test candidate fit through many interviewers and verified reputation
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~weeks to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 97%
Multi-angle hiring diligence treats the interview as an incomplete sample rather than definitive evidence. The organization first establishes role and culture criteria, then exposes the candidate to multiple interviewers who see different facets of judgment, expertise, communication, and behavior. Evaluators record views independently so early opinions do not manufacture consensus. People with demonstrated interviewing skill receive meaningful weight, while discrepancies trigger further investigation. References, background checks, and calls to informed contacts test whether the candidate's reputation matches the interview presentation. Diligence increases with seniority because a senior mistake can influence many hires and damage culture at scale. The output is not certainty, which hiring can never provide, but a richer and better-verified picture of the person before an irreversible organizational commitment is made.
Origin
Ken Kencel described Churchill's practice of using at least a dozen interviewers and intensified background work for senior candidates.
Core principles
- 01One interview reveals only one side of a candidate
- 02Multiple perspectives reduce individual blind spots
- 03Skilled interviewers should carry more diagnostic responsibility
- 04Reputation checks matter more as seniority increases
- 05Broad consensus should supplement, not replace, role criteria
How to run it
- 1
Define the evidence needed
Specify the experience, technical capability, behavior, and cultural contribution required for success in the role.
Pro tip Translate vague qualities such as passion into observable past behavior.
Watch out Without shared criteria, many interviews merely produce many incompatible opinions.
- 2
Design varied interviews
Assign multiple interviewers to assess different requirements and interact with the candidate in varied contexts.
Pro tip Include future peers, managers, and cross-functional collaborators.
Watch out Repeatedly asking identical questions adds volume without adding perspective.
- 3
Use skilled assessors
Include interviewers with a strong history of evaluating talent and identifying fit.
Pro tip Track hiring outcomes to learn which interviewers and questions are predictive.
Watch out Seniority alone does not make someone an effective interviewer.
- 4
Capture independent judgments
Have evaluators submit evidence and recommendations before discussing the candidate as a group.
Pro tip Require concrete observations rather than unsupported ratings.
Watch out Early group discussion can turn consensus into conformity.
- 5
Verify the reputation
Conduct background checks and speak with people who have directly observed the candidate's work and conduct.
Pro tip Ask references about specific situations, colleagues, and rehire willingness.
Watch out Do not assume a well-known senior candidate has already been adequately vetted.
- 6
Investigate inconsistencies
Reconcile conflicting evidence through follow-up interviews or additional references before deciding.
Pro tip Treat unexplained contradictions as information rather than inconvenience.
Watch out Do not rationalize warning signs merely because the role is urgent.
In the wild
A prominent executive interviews well and brings an impressive client list. Independent interview feedback raises questions about team behavior, so the firm calls several former colleagues. Their consistent accounts reveal destructive management practices, and the firm declines the hire despite the candidate's commercial appeal.
→ Expanded diligence prevents a senior cultural and leadership mistake.
Common mistakes
Counting interviews instead of angles
A large panel adds little value when everyone tests the same polished presentation.
Letting fame replace diligence
A recognized senior candidate can still have a damaging reputation that a few calls would uncover.
Manufacturing group consensus
Discussing impressions before independent feedback encourages weaker evaluators to follow the strongest voice.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for organizations making consequential hires whose behavior will influence teams, clients, or culture.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal for low-risk temporary roles where a dozen interviews would be disproportionate.
From the transcript
“we typically have an individual that we hire interviewed by at least a dozen people, sometimes more”
“it's very important not only to get a broad based consensus around a person, but also to do the background checks.”
“We actually redouble the effort when we're talking about a senior person”
From the episode
Ken Kencel on the Rise of Private Capital
Ken Kencel