To choose between two good sales finalists, go back to what the role needs, score each candidate against it separately, add up the scores and only then talk about your gut. Compare each finalist to the job, not to each other. If the scores are still close, gather one more piece of evidence on the thing that matters most, rather than deciding on who you'd rather have lunch with.
This is the moment most owners find hardest. You've done the work. Both candidates are good. Either one could probably do the job. And the decision feels like a coin toss, so it usually gets made on feel.
Why is choosing between two good candidates so hard?
Because the evidence has run out and your instincts take over. That's when the well-documented errors creep in.
First impressions stick. In one study of 166 interviewers and 691 applicants, about 30% of decisions were made within the first five minutes (Frieder et al., 2016). That was at a careers fair, not a final round, and there's no reason to assume the habit disappears when the stakes go up.
We favour people like us. In a study of hiring at elite US firms, sociologist Lauren Rivera (2012) found that "concerns about shared culture were highly salient to employers and often outweighed concerns about productivity alone." Employers leaned toward candidates who shared their hobbies, experiences and style.
We compare candidates to each other. An Ontario open textbook on recruitment, drawing on Canada's Public Service Commission, names contrast bias: comparing candidates against each other instead of against the job's requirements ("Assessment Errors and Personal Bias," 2024). With two finalists, it's almost automatic. One looks polished next to the other, and the job itself drops out of view.
None of this means you have bad judgment. It means anyone's judgment gets less reliable at exactly the moment you're relying on it most.
Does a scoring system really beat gut feel?
Yes, and by a lot. A 2013 meta-analysis by Kuncel et al., published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, compared two ways of using the same candidate information. Combining it with a fixed rule predicted job performance more than 50% better than combining it in the decision-maker's head. That held even when the people using their judgment were experts who knew the job and the organization.
The rule doesn't need to be clever. Back in 1979, psychologist Robyn Dawes showed that simple models giving every factor equal weight beat intuitive judgment. People are good at picking which factors matter, he wrote. Where we struggle is combining them. In his words, "the whole trick is to know what variables to look at and then know how to add."
There's also evidence that structure takes the sting out of similarity. In a study of nearly 20,000 applicants for a managerial role, McCarthy, Van Iddekinge and Campion (2010) found that in highly structured interviews, sharing a gender or race with the interviewer had no effect on ratings.
How do I break a tie between two sales finalists?
Six steps. Most take less than an hour.
Go back to the job. Reread the profile you wrote before you started. What are the three or four things this role must do well in its first year? If you didn't write one, write it now, before you look at either candidate again.
Score each finalist alone. Rate each candidate against each requirement, on the same scale, without looking at the other candidate's scores. Canada's Public Service Commission tells interview boards to assign independent ratings shortly after each interview, before any group discussion (Public Service Commission of Canada, 2009).
Have everyone score separately. If others interviewed, they score alone too. The US Office of Personnel Management's guidance is the same: rate individually, then discuss only where ratings differ (U.S. Office of Personnel Management, n.d.). The loudest voice shouldn't set everyone's score.
Add it up before you talk. Total the scores. Then discuss the gaps, not the overall impression.
Find the one requirement that matters most. If the totals are close, look at the requirement that will make or break the role. Which candidate has stronger evidence there? Not the better story. The better evidence.
Get one more piece of evidence. If it's still a tie, gather something new on that requirement: a short work sample, a deeper reference conversation or an independent assessment. Work sample tests are a validated predictor in their own right (Sackett et al., 2022, as summarized in O'Shea & Fox Luscombe, n.d.).
Then let your gut have a vote. If your instinct and the scores disagree, find out why. Sometimes your gut has noticed something real that the scorecard missed. Often it's noticed that one candidate reminds you of yourself.
What should I look for when two sales candidates are close?
The scorecard covers the job. But in sales, a tie often comes down to how someone treats a buyer, and that's worth looking at directly. A few questions we'd ask about each finalist, using evidence you already have:
Who listened before they pitched? Think back to the interview. Who asked a follow-up question before giving you an answer? Who played back what you said so you could correct it?
Who changed their answer when you pushed back? A salesperson who adjusts when a buyer corrects them is a salesperson buyers can trust. One who repeats the same pitch louder is not.
Who said "I don't know"? Admitting a gap, and saying how they'd find out, is a better sign than a confident answer to everything.
Who has ever made a sale smaller? Ask, if you haven't. A candidate who has talked a customer into a smaller order, or pointed one to a competitor, understands that the buyer has to live with the decision.
Who stayed after the signature? Ask what happened to their last three customers after the deal closed.
In our experience, buyers now research most things on their own. What they still need from a salesperson is help making a decision they can defend. The finalist who does that is usually the one worth hiring, even if the other one was more fun in the interview.
What if I just can't decide?
Then that's information too. Two possibilities are worth considering.
If both candidates score well against the job, either is likely a good hire. Pick the one with stronger evidence on the most important requirement, and put your energy into onboarding them well.
If you can't decide because something about both feels off, it may be that neither is right. Measured against the profile, you may find the strongest candidate in this group still isn't ready. That's a cheaper thing to learn now than six months from now. We've written about what a bad sales hire really costs if you need the numbers to make the case for going back out.
For the steps before the tie, see our posts on evaluating sales candidates, structured interviews for sales roles and reference checks that actually tell you something.
Work with us. Ashley Wesley, MA, CHRL, CIM, and our team are based in Guelph, Ontario. When it's down to two and you need to be sure, our Final Candidate Review assesses both finalists against your role and your own best people, and can be scheduled and completed in as little as 24 hours. Our handshake guarantee: if the report and process don't help, you don't pay.
In short
To choose between two sales finalists, score each one against the job's requirements separately, have every interviewer score alone, add up the scores and only then discuss impressions. A 2013 meta-analysis by Kuncel et al. found combining candidate data with a fixed rule predicted performance more than 50% better than judgment. Compare finalists to the job, not to each other, to avoid contrast bias. If it's still close, gather one more piece of evidence on the requirement that matters most.
Key takeaways
Combining candidate data mechanically predicted job performance more than 50% better than holistic judgment, even by experts (Kuncel et al., 2013).
Simple equal-weight scoring beats intuition; "the whole trick is to know what variables to look at and then know how to add" (Dawes, 1979).
In one study, about 30% of interview decisions were made within the first five minutes (Frieder et al., 2016).
Canada's Public Service Commission recommends independent ratings before any panel discussion (Public Service Commission of Canada, 2009).
In highly structured interviews of nearly 20,000 managerial applicants, demographic similarity had no effect on ratings (McCarthy et al., 2010).
Frequently asked questions
How do you choose between two candidates who are both good?
To choose between two candidates, score each one against the job's requirements on the same scale, separately, and add up the scores before discussing impressions. If the totals are close, look at the single most important requirement and choose the candidate with stronger evidence there.
Should I hire the candidate I liked more?
Not on that basis alone. Research shows employers often favour candidates who are similar to them (Rivera, 2012), and some interview decisions get made within minutes (Frieder et al., 2016). Liking a sales candidate is useful, since customers may like them too, but it isn't evidence they can do the job.
What is contrast bias in hiring?
Contrast bias is comparing candidates against each other instead of against the job's requirements ("Assessment Errors and Personal Bias," 2024). With two finalists, it can make a merely polished candidate look strong. Scoring each finalist against the job separately is designed to reduce it.
What if neither finalist feels right?
Measure both against the job profile. If neither meets the requirements, it's usually cheaper to keep looking than to hire the stronger of two weak options.
References
Assessment errors and personal bias. (2024). In Recruitment and selection (Section 10.3). eCampusOntario Pressbooks. https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/recruitmentselection/chapter/10-3-assessment-errors-and-personal-bias/
Dawes, R. M. (1979). The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making. American Psychologist, 34(7), 571-582. https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/sds/docs/dawes/the-robust-beauty-of-improper-linear-models-in-decision-making.pdf
Frieder, R. E., Van Iddekinge, C. H., & Raymark, P. H. (2016). How quickly do interviewers reach decisions? An examination of interviewers' decision-making time across applicants. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89(2), 223-248. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12118
Kuncel, N. R., Klieger, D. M., Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2013). Mechanical versus clinical data combination in selection and admissions decisions: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 1060-1072. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034156
McCarthy, J. M., Van Iddekinge, C. H., & Campion, M. A. (2010). Are highly structured job interviews resistant to demographic similarity effects? Personnel Psychology, 63(2), 325-359. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01172.x
O'Shea, P. G., & Fox Luscombe, A. (n.d.). Is cognitive ability the best predictor of job performance? New research says it's time to think again. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 60(3). https://www.siop.org/tip-article/is-cognitive-ability-the-best-predictor-of-job-performance
Public Service Commission of Canada. (2009). Structured interviewing: How to design and conduct structured interviews for an appointment process. https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/canada/public-service-commission/migration/plcy-pltq/guides/structured-structuree/rpt-eng.pdf
Rivera, L. A. (2012). Hiring as cultural matching: The case of elite professional service firms. American Sociological Review, 999-1022. https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/academics-research/research/detail/2012/hiring-as-cultural-matching-the-case-of-elite-professional/
Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M., & Lievens, F. (2022). Revisiting meta-analytic estimates of validity in personnel selection: Addressing systematic overcorrection for restriction of range. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(11), 2040-2068. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000994
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (n.d.). Structured interviews [Training presentation]. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/assessment-and-selection/structured-interviews/structured-interviews.pdf
Disclaimer: This article provides general HR and business information, not legal advice. Employment law turns on the specific facts and changes over time. Before acting on anything here, confirm it with an Ontario employment lawyer.
