Quality of hire gets measured everywhere. Quality of interviewer gets measured almost nowhere. This is strange because the second is upstream of the first.
The reasons are practical. There is no obvious metric. Hires are infrequent. The signal is noisy. Most companies just track interview load and assume more interviews equals more skill. This is wrong in obvious ways.
A better measurement framework has four dimensions.
Coverage. Did the interviewer assess the rubric items they were assigned. This is measurable from any decent transcript analysis.
Calibration. How does their scoring distribution compare to the team mean. Outliers in either direction warrant a conversation.
Predictive accuracy. For the candidates this interviewer evaluated who got hired, how did their on the job performance correlate with the interviewer's scores at six months. This requires linking interview data to performance data, which is non trivial but increasingly possible.
Candidate experience. Independent of the hire decision, how did the candidate rate the interview. The strongest interviewers consistently get rated highly even by candidates who were rejected.
A platform like Mazle automates the first two and provides hooks for the second two. The result is a quarterly interviewer scorecard that looks more like a sales rep dashboard than a vibes check.
The companies measuring interviewer quality have a quiet advantage. They know who their best interviewers are. They route the most important hires to them. They develop the weakest ones. Most companies do none of this because they cannot see who is who.
Measure what matters. Interviewer quality compounds across every hire that follows.
