You send a candidate through four rounds of interviews. You're ready to make a decision. You pull up the interview feedback and it says:

"Candidate seemed fine. No major red flags. I'd be okay with them."

This feedback is useless. "Fine" doesn't tell you if this person will succeed in the role. "No major red flags" doesn't help you compare three "fine" candidates. "I'd be okay with them" isn't a ringing endorsement.

Bad interview feedback leads to bad hiring decisions. Here's how to fix it with better templates that force interviewers to give you actual signal.

The Problem With Most Interview Feedback

Most interview feedback forms ask open-ended questions like:

• "What did you think of the candidate?"
• "Would you recommend moving forward?"
• "Any concerns?"

These questions produce vague, unhelpful responses because:

1. Interviewers don't know what "good" feedback looks like
2. They're busy and default to quick, surface-level answers
3. They're trying to avoid saying anything controversial
4. There's no structure forcing them to evaluate specific criteria

Better approach: Give interviewers a template that guides them to provide specific, actionable feedback.

Template #1: The Specific Evidence Format

Force interviewers to provide concrete examples instead of general impressions.

The template:

Role: [Job Title]
Interviewer: [Name]
Date: [Date]

## What specific skills or qualities did this candidate demonstrate?
(Provide at least 2 examples with evidence)

Example 1:
Skill/Quality: [e.g., Problem-solving]
Evidence: [Specific thing they said or did that demonstrated this]

Example 2:
Skill/Quality: [e.g., Communication]
Evidence: [Specific thing they said or did that demonstrated this]

## What specific concerns or gaps did you observe?
(Provide at least 1 example with evidence)

Concern 1:
Gap: [e.g., Limited experience with X]
Evidence: [What they said/didn't say that surfaced this]

## Overall recommendation:
☐ Strong Yes - I would be excited to work with this person
☐ Yes - I think they'd be successful in the role
☐ No - I have significant concerns about their fit
☐ Strong No - I would not recommend moving forward

## What would you need to see/hear to change your recommendation?
[Specific information that would address your concerns]

Why this works:

• "Provide at least 2 examples" prevents lazy one-word answers
• Requiring evidence forces interviewers to reference actual things the candidate said
• The "what would change your mind" question surfaces whether concerns are dealbreakers or just gaps
• Clear recommendation options prevent "maybe" responses

Template #2: The Role-Specific Criteria Format

Create feedback forms tailored to each role with specific competencies you're evaluating.

Example for a Senior Software Engineer role:

Candidate: [Name]
Role: Senior Software Engineer
Interviewer: [Name]

Rate each criterion (1-5 scale):
1 = Well below expectations
2 = Below expectations
3 = Meets expectations
4 = Exceeds expectations
5 = Far exceeds expectations
N/A = Not evaluated in my interview

Technical Skills:
☐ Code quality and architecture decisions [1-5 or N/A]
Evidence/Notes:

☐ Problem-solving approach [1-5 or N/A]
Evidence/Notes:

☐ System design thinking [1-5 or N/A]
Evidence/Notes:

Collaboration:
☐ Communication clarity [1-5 or N/A]
Evidence/Notes:

☐ Teamwork and collaboration examples [1-5 or N/A]
Evidence/Notes:

☐ Mentorship potential [1-5 or N/A]
Evidence/Notes:

Role-Specific:
☐ [Specific technology/framework experience] [1-5 or N/A]
Evidence/Notes:

☐ Experience with [domain-specific requirement] [1-5 or N/A]
Evidence/Notes:

Overall Assessment:
Would you want this person on your team?
☐ Absolutely - Strong hire
☐ Yes - Would be a good addition
☐ No - Concerns outweigh strengths
☐ Absolutely not - Would not recommend

Most impressive thing about this candidate:

Biggest concern about this candidate:

Why this works:

• Role-specific criteria ensure you're evaluating what actually matters for this position
• Rating scales force differentiation between candidates
• N/A option acknowledges not every interviewer evaluates every skill
• "Most impressive" and "biggest concern" require reflection, not checkbox filling

Template #3: The Comparison Format (For Tight Decisions)

When you're down to 2-3 final candidates and need to differentiate them, use this:

You interviewed [Candidate A], [Candidate B], and [Candidate C] for [Role].

Rank them (1 = top choice, 2 = second choice, 3 = third choice):
[Candidate A]: ___
[Candidate B]: ___
[Candidate C]: ___

Why did you rank your #1 candidate first?
(What specific strengths do they have that the others don't?)

What concerns do you have about your #1 candidate?
(What might make them unsuccessful?)

If we can't get your #1 candidate, would you be excited about #2?
☐ Yes, they're almost as strong
☐ They're acceptable but there's a meaningful gap
☐ No, I would recommend we keep looking

What's the biggest difference between your #1 and #2?

Why this works:

• Forced ranking makes interviewers commit to a preference
• You see whether there's clear consensus or split opinions
• The "biggest difference" question surfaces what actually matters in the decision
• "Would you be excited about #2" tells you if #2 is a real option or just "fine"

Template #4: The Red Flag / Green Flag Format

Simple, fast, and forces interviewers to be specific about concerns.

Candidate: [Name]
Role: [Job Title]
Interviewer: [Name]

🟢 Green Flags (Things that make you confident they'd succeed):
1.
2.
3.

🔴 Red Flags (Concerns that make you hesitate):
1.
2.
3.

⚠️ Yellow Flags (Things you're unsure about and want more signal on):
1.
2.

Are any of your red flags dealbreakers?
☐ Yes - Which ones: _____
☐ No - They're concerns but could be addressed

Recommendation:
☐ Move forward
☐ Move forward with reservations (specify): _____
☐ Do not move forward

Why this works:

• Visual (flags) makes it easy to scan feedback quickly
• Separating red/yellow/green forces nuance instead of "they're fine"
• "Are any dealbreakers" helps you know which concerns are actually serious
• "Move forward with reservations" captures the middle ground many interviewers feel

Template #5: The Debrief Discussion Guide

For interview debriefs, give the team a structured discussion format instead of free-form conversation.

The structure:

Interview Debrief: [Candidate Name] for [Role]

Round 1: Quick Gut Reactions (2 minutes)
Each interviewer shares their overall impression in one sentence.
No discussion yet—just capture first impressions.

Round 2: Strengths (10 minutes)
Go around: What are this candidate's 2-3 strongest qualities?
What evidence supports this?

Round 3: Concerns (10 minutes)
Go around: What are your biggest concerns about this candidate?
Are these dealbreakers or gaps that can be addressed?

Round 4: Role Fit (5 minutes)
Discuss: Do they have what it takes to be successful in THIS specific role?
What's the strongest evidence they'll succeed?
What's the biggest risk they won't?

Round 5: Decision (5 minutes)
Vote:
☐ Strong Yes - Make an offer
☐ Yes - Move forward if no better options
☐ No - Do not move forward
☐ Need more information - Schedule additional interview

Final decision: _____
Next steps: _____

Why this works:

• Structured discussion prevents one loud voice from dominating
• Separating strengths and concerns ensures balanced evaluation
• Timed rounds keep discussions focused
• Vote at the end forces commitment

How To Get Interviewers To Actually Use These Templates

Having great templates doesn't help if interviewers ignore them. Here's how to get adoption:

1. Make It Mandatory (And Enforceable)

Rule: Interview feedback must be submitted within 24 hours using the template. No exceptions.

No feedback = No participation in the hiring decision = No ability to veto candidates later.

If people know they can't influence the decision without submitting proper feedback, they'll submit proper feedback.

2. Train Interviewers On What Good Feedback Looks Like

Show examples of bad vs. good feedback:

Bad: "Candidate was okay. No red flags. I'd be fine with them."

Good: "Candidate demonstrated strong problem-solving when I asked about [specific scenario]. They walked through [specific approach] and identified [specific trade-offs]. Concern: They haven't worked with [technology] before, which could create a learning curve in the first 2-3 months. Not a dealbreaker if they have ramp-up support."

When people see what you're looking for, they're more likely to provide it.

3. Give Feedback On Feedback

When someone submits vague feedback, send it back:

"Thanks for the feedback. Can you provide specific examples for your assessment? For instance, what did the candidate say that made you think they have strong communication skills?"

People learn quickly when you hold them accountable.

4. Make Templates Easy To Access

Put templates:

• In your ATS (auto-populated for each interview)
• In a shared Google Doc/Notion page
• In your interview scheduling emails as a reminder

Don't make people hunt for the template. Make it the default, easiest option.

The Feedback That Never Helps (And Should Be Banned)

Some feedback is worse than no feedback. Ban these phrases:

❌ "They were fine" - Not specific enough ❌ "I liked them" - Personal preference, not evaluation ❌ "No red flags" - Doesn't tell you what's GREEN ❌ "Good culture fit" - Vague and potentially biased ❌ "Strong candidate" - Compared to what? ❌ "I'd be okay with them" - Damning with faint praise

Replace these with specific observations and evidence.

What To Do When Feedback Conflicts

You'll get conflicting feedback. That's normal. Here's how to handle it:

Scenario: Two interviewers have opposite assessments

Option 1: Look at what they evaluated. Did they assess different things? Maybe one focused on technical skills (strong) and one on communication (weak). Both can be true.

Option 2: Weight feedback based on expertise. The engineering manager's technical assessment probably matters more than the recruiter's.

Option 3: Get more signal. If feedback is split, add another interview or reference check to break the tie.

The Bottom Line

Interview feedback is only useful if it helps you make better hiring decisions.

Useful feedback:

• Is specific and evidence-based
• Evaluates criteria that matter for the role
• Surfaces both strengths and concerns
• Enables comparison between candidates
• Makes recommendations clear

Useless feedback:

• Is vague ("they were fine")
• Relies on gut feelings without evidence
• Avoids taking a clear position
• Provides no differentiation between candidates

Fix your feedback templates and you'll make better, faster hiring decisions. Keep using vague forms and you'll keep getting vague answers.

Your call.