Use weighted scoring with guest service 40%, reliability and physical capability 35%, and professional presentation 25% whilst evaluating performance across behavioural interview, practical demonstration, and team integration using consistent criteria. Establish minimum threshold requirements and clear performance descriptors for objective candidate comparison and bias prevention.
Common misunderstanding: Scoring based on personal feelings instead of clear criteria
Many hiring managers score candidates based on whether they "like" them without using specific measures for guest service skills and job performance. This leads to unfair and inconsistent hiring decisions.
Let's say you are interviewing Bellhop candidates. You give higher scores to people who seem "nice" without measuring their actual luggage handling skills, guest communication ability, or professional presentation. Use specific criteria like "greets guests within 5 seconds" and "maintains posture whilst carrying heavy bags."
Common misunderstanding: Focusing too much on strength without checking guest service skills
Some managers give most points for physical ability without equally testing guest communication and hospitality attitude. Both matter for bellhop success.
Let's say you are scoring Bellhop candidates. You give 80% of points for lifting heavy bags and only 20% for guest interaction. But a strong person who is rude to guests will create problems. Balance physical tests with guest service assessment equally.
Implement 5-point scale scoring for each competency area with detailed performance descriptors whilst weighting practical demonstration 50% and interview discussion 50% for balanced hospitality assessment. Use property-specific criteria that reflect your guest service style and assistance expectations for accurate capability evaluation.
Common misunderstanding: Using the same scoring system for different hotel types
Some managers use identical scoring criteria for luxury hotels, budget properties, and resorts. Different properties need different service standards and guest assistance approaches.
Let's say you are hiring Bellhops for a luxury hotel. You use the same scoring system as a budget motel. But luxury properties need formal language, detailed property knowledge, and elegant presentation. Adjust your scoring criteria to match your specific service requirements.
Common misunderstanding: Making scoring systems too complicated
Some managers create complex scoring systems with too many categories and detailed calculations. This makes assessment confusing and reduces consistency between different interviewers.
Let's say you are designing Bellhop scoring. You create 15 different categories with mathematical formulas. Interviewers get confused and score inconsistently. Better approach: use 3-5 main areas with clear descriptions of what each score level means.
Establish clear performance indicators for guest assistance, physical capability, and professional presentation whilst using standardised scenarios and identical assessment tasks for fair candidate comparison. Document specific behavioural examples for each scoring level and maintain consistent evaluation environment across all interviews.
Common misunderstanding: Changing tests for different candidates
Some managers give different trial activities to different candidates, making fair comparison impossible. All candidates should complete identical tasks using the same scoring criteria.
Let's say you are evaluating Bellhop candidates. You ask one person to carry three bags, another to carry five bags, and a third to carry bags plus give directions. You can't fairly compare their performance. Use identical trials for all candidates.
Common misunderstanding: Scoring personality instead of job performance
Some managers score based on whether candidates seem "outgoing" or "friendly" without measuring actual job skills like luggage handling technique and guest assistance ability.
Let's say you are scoring Bellhop candidates. You give high marks to someone who jokes and chats during the interview but low marks to someone who is quiet but demonstrates excellent guest service skills. Focus on observable job behaviours, not personality traits.