This post by Sergio Ermacora at Nexteam is part of our blog series, “The Recruitment Rule I’d Break”.
“We’ve vetted this candidate.”
If I were the hiring manager, my next question would be: “What do you now know that I couldn’t learn from their CV?”
That is the recruitment convention I would challenge: presenting “vetted” as a sufficient explanation for why somebody belongs on a shortlist. The word describes work the recruiter says has happened. It does not tell the client what that work established.
I recruit finance and accounting professionals, where this distinction matters. A candidate might produce an accurate spreadsheet but struggle to explain an assumption. Another might interview confidently but need support with the task the client wants them to own. Describing both as vetted leaves the hiring manager to discover the difference.
I would keep the checks and change the handover. Alongside the CV, give the client a short evidence note: what was assessed, what the candidate demonstrated, and what remains untested for this particular role.
Explain what each stage contributes
Our selection process includes an initial screen, an aptitude test, an interview, a practical assessment and a presentation of the assessment. Each stage gives us a different opportunity to understand the person. None should be made to carry a conclusion it cannot support.
An aptitude test gives us one view of how a candidate approaches the questions in that test. It does not establish that they can manage an accounting function. An interview lets us explore experience and reasoning, but an answer about previous work is different from observing someone perform a task.
The practical assessment and its presentation are useful together. The completed work shows the output. The discussion lets us ask why the candidate took a particular approach, what they assumed and where they would need more information.
For example, I would ask: “Which part of this would you want someone else to review before it went to a client?” The answer is not a pass-or-fail trick. It opens a discussion about judgement and the limits of the work. The shortlist should preserve those distinctions instead of compressing the whole process into a reassuring label.
Write a note the client can use
The evidence note need not become another lengthy report. Four short headings are enough: task, observation, not assessed in this exercise, and next check.
Here is an illustrative example for an accounting candidate, not a record of an actual assessment:
Task: Reconcile a bank statement to a cash ledger using a fictional dataset and explain outstanding differences.
Observation: The candidate identified a duplicate entry, separated timing differences from an unresolved item, and explained what information they would request before making a further adjustment.
Not assessed in this exercise: This exercise did not assess the client’s accounting software, tax knowledge or the ability to manage a complete month-end close independently.
Next check: In the client interview, discuss how the candidate would handle an unresolved difference approaching a reporting deadline, including when they would seek a manager’s decision.
That tells the hiring manager more than “strong technical skills”. It also gives them a useful starting point for the interview, rather than leaving them to repeat the recruiter’s questions.
Being clear about what the assessment did not cover is part of a useful recommendation. If a capability matters to the role but has not been assessed, the client needs to know that before making a decision.
Make the recommendation specific to the role
The same assessment result can mean different things for different vacancies. Someone who demonstrates careful reconciliation work may be suitable for a role with established procedures and regular review. That result alone would not justify recommending them to lead the accounting function.
For a remote position, I would also include relevant observations from the assessment discussion: whether the candidate explained an unresolved issue clearly, asked a useful clarification question or described the next action. Those are narrower, more defensible observations than calling someone an “excellent communicator”.
A presentation is still only one setting. It cannot prove how somebody will communicate through several demanding weeks of client work. In our business, we continue checking communication and work quality after an engagement begins. Selection provides an initial basis for a decision; it does not remove the need for support and review.
There is a commercial temptation to make a shortlist sound conclusive. I would rather give the client a recommendation they can examine. “This person demonstrated X; Y still needs checking” is a useful judgement, not an apology.
Before sending the next shortlist, read it as the person who will manage the hire. Can they see why each candidate was selected, what supports the recommendation and what to ask next?
If not, “vetted” is doing too much of the explaining.
Author bio: Sergio Ermacora is co-founder and COO of Nexteam, a business connecting clients with remote finance and accounting professionals from Latin America and Eastern Europe.
