Opinion is not evidence.

Most recruiters treat them as a formality. However, a well-structured phone screen is one of the most efficient tools a recruiter has.

Done right, it gives you enough evidence to make a confident recommendation to the hiring manager. Done poorly, it creates confusion and delays in the hiring process, and can eventually cause a bad hire and, if we want to exaggerate and attempt to look into the far future, jeopardize the future performance and success of an organization.

Over time I have landed on four parts of a conversation that I think every phone screen should include. Together they give you a reliable read on motivation, job understanding, relevant experience, and execution ability. None of them are complicated. But they are intentional, and that intentionality is what separates a screening call that covers basic requirements from an actual evaluation of whether you are speaking with a potentially extraordinary candidate.

Part 1: Motivation

I like to start my conversations with candidates with their why. Before anything else, I want to understand why this candidate is interested in this role, at this point in their career.

This is not a warm-up question. Motivation is one of the most reliable predictors of performance and one of the least explored areas in most screening calls.

A candidate who can clearly articulate why this role is interesting, how it connects to where they want to go next, and what specifically draws them to this opportunity is already telling you something important. They have thought about it. They are not just applying everywhere and hoping something sticks.

The question is simple:

Tell me about your interest in this position. Why is this role interesting to you, and how does it align with what you want to do next?

Let them talk. The quality of the answer, not just the content, tells you a great deal. In hospitality, where the work is demanding and the environment is unforgiving, genuine motivation is not a nice-to-have. It is a prerequisite.

Part 2: Job understanding

This is the question most recruiters skip, and I think it is one of the most valuable ones you can ask.

Based on your understanding of this role, how would you describe what the position entails? What do you believe the key responsibilities, priorities, and day-to-day activities would be?

With this question, I am not looking for a perfect recitation of the job description but for whether the candidate actually understands what the job is. What business outcomes it drives. What it means in practice to do this work well.

The language they use, the priorities they name, the nuances they pick up on, all of it is signal.

In hospitality, this matters more than in most industries. Someone who has genuinely done this work before, or who has taken the time to understand what the role demands, will describe it differently than someone who is guessing.

This question also gives you the opportunity to add context after they answer, correct any gaps, and build a shared understanding of the role before moving into the next part of the conversation.

Part 3: Relevant accomplishment

Now that the candidate has described what they think the role involves, ask them to connect their own experience to it directly.

Based on your understanding of this role, can you share a professional accomplishment you feel is most relevant to this position? Something you are proud of that demonstrates the kind of results this role will require.

This is where evidence enters the conversation. The more specific, the better. Vague answers to this question are themselves informative.

Anyone can say they have experience managing a team, owning a P&L, or leading a renovation. What I look for with this question is a specific example that shows they have actually produced results similar to what success in this role looks like.

The connection to the previous question is intentional. By asking them to link their accomplishment to their own description of the role, you are testing not just experience but judgment. Do they understand what is relevant? Can they draw the line between what they have done and what this job needs?

Part 4: Problem solving and execution

The final part goes one level deeper. You have heard about their motivation, their understanding of the role, and a relevant accomplishment. Now you want to understand how they actually operate when things get hard.

Describe a complex or challenging problem you faced in your work. How did you identify and understand the issue? What steps did you take to develop a solution? And what were the results?

It is important here not to get distracted or fooled by a rehearsed story. You are asking them to walk you through their thinking, their process, and their outcomes in a specific, real situation.

During this part, especially with candidates I think could be stellar, I tend to force myself not to get too excited and instead push for more details. Those details are the difference between a good candidate and a great one.

In hospitality, execution is everything. The gap between someone who understands a problem and someone who actually resolves it is wide, and it shows up clearly in how candidates answer this question. Listen for specificity. Listen for ownership. Listen for what they actually did, not what the team did, not what eventually happened. What did they do?

Why these four?

There are so many interviewing techniques out there, but these are mine and I wanted to share them.

Motivation tells you if they want to do this job. Job understanding tells you if they know what the job actually is. The relevant accomplishment tells you if they have done something similar before. And the problem solving and execution question tells you how they operate when pressure is high and the work is hard.

Together, these four questions give me a picture grounded in evidence rather than impression.

Finding that evidence, confirming that the candidate can actually do the job, is what makes hiring a true competitive advantage.

In hospitality, where the job is practical, the environment is demanding, and the cost of a wrong hire is high, evidence is what you want to be making decisions from.

Thank you for reading, and don't forget to subscribe if you want to know when the next post is out.