Panel Disagrees on a Candidate? Here's How to Decide

Panel disagreements are common. One interviewer is strongly in favour; another has reservations. Without a structured process, the decision ends up being made by whoever argues most persuasively — which is a terrible selection mechanism.

First: Welcome the Disagreement

Disagreement in a panel is not a problem — it's information. If all three panel members always agree, one of two things is happening: they're all using exactly the same standards (good), or they're socially conforming to avoid conflict (bad). Genuine disagreement means you've captured something nuanced about the candidate that deserves examination.

Step 1: Reveal Scores Before Discussing

All panel members should show their scores simultaneously. This prevents anchoring — the first person to speak setting the frame for everyone else. Simultaneously revealed scores give you an honest picture of disagreement.

Step 2: Focus on Competency-Level Disagreements

Don't discuss overall impressions. Go through each competency where scores differ by more than one point. For each: "You scored a 2 on operational problem-solving. What evidence were you responding to?"

This keeps the conversation factual. You're comparing evidence, not arguing about feelings.

Step 3: Distinguish Evidence from Impression

Sometimes panel members have scored on different evidence. One was paying close attention during a particular answer that another missed. In these cases, share notes. If one assessor has specific behavioural evidence that another doesn't, weight accordingly.

If the disagreement is "I just didn't warm to them" — that's an impression, not evidence. It should carry zero weight.

Step 4: Check Deal-Breakers

Before any decision is made, confirm that no deal-breaker criteria were triggered. If any panel member flagged a deal-breaker, the discussion is over — the candidate doesn't progress, regardless of overall score.

Step 5: Use the Data to Decide

If genuine disagreement remains after evidence review, weight the decision towards role-critical competencies. Identify in advance which competencies are essential versus desirable — a shortfall on an essential competency should outweigh strong performance on a desirable one.