Luiz Tessarolli

The fix is structured interviews, fixed criteria and evidence over impressions.

• The science has been available for more than 80 years, but, they say, it did not reach ordinary teams because it required too much manual work.
• The post cites Schmidt and Hunter's review of 85 years of selection research, reporting .51 predictive validity for structured interviews against .38 for unstructured ones.

In one post, Luiz Tessarolli writes that applicant tracking systems solved logistics—posting roles, tracking applicants, moving cards—but never touched the interview, which still runs on gut: 'Whoever talks best, connects fastest, feels right.'

Read original · Original 2 · Original 3

A vague criterion like 'communication' fails because interviewers can hear the same answer and score it against definitions they invent on the spot.

• A usable criterion leaves almost nothing to interpret.
• Luiz Tessarolli says writing four to six criteria takes 60 to 90 minutes for a role you already know and produces the role definition, opening questions and rubric at once.
• For small-business owners, a shorter version takes 30 minutes and a piece of paper.

For an administrative assistant role, the criterion is 'prioritizes under volume without needing the manager to make every call.' The opening question is 'Tell me about a week when more requests came in than you could handle.

• How did you prioritize?' Strong evidence includes the logic used to prioritize, what was communicated to whoever had to wait, and how pending work was tracked.
• Weak evidence includes 'I tried to get to everything' or total dependence on the manager.

Read original · Original 2 · Original 3

The five-phase process uses one ruler: the Strategist sets evaluation criteria, an app reads evidence in each answer during the interview and tells the interviewer where to probe, and a final report ties every criterion to what the candidate said.

• The report backs the decision rather than making it; there is no interview fit score, and audio is never stored.
• The product aims to keep a decision defensible later, even to people who were not in the room.

Luiz Tessarolli writes: 'No interview fit score.

• No precision theater.
• The report backs your decision, it does not make it for you.' A separate post states two non-negotiables: 'it assists the interviewer, it never decides.
• And audio is never stored.'

Read original · Original 2

Luiz Tessarolli names SMB owners with no HR team who hire only now and then; recruiters and hiring managers who want every interview run against the same structured criteria; recruitment agencies interviewing at volume that must justify each hire to a client; and big companies that lack structure during interviews.

• The advice is deliberately low-process: before the first interview, spend 30 minutes writing four to six concrete criteria.
• The bilingual post makes the same argument in Portuguese and English for Brazilian SMB owners and English-speaking readers.

The bilingual post says: 'Doesn't need HR.

• Doesn't need a process.
• Needs a piece of paper.' It describes the difference when comparing candidates as 'absurd' and says the 'polished self-promoter' stops winning over the genuine candidate just because they spoke better.

Read original · Original 2

Luiz uses a single word, “communication,” to show why most hiring criteria fail.

• Two interviewers hear the same answer and score it against different invented definitions.
• The fix is to write criteria that leave almost nothing to interpret.
• The post contrasts a weak criterion, “communication,” with a usable one: “can explain a technical decision to a non-technical stakeholder without losing precision.”
• It then works through a full example for an administrative assistant role: criterion “prioritizes under volume without needing the manager to make every call”; opening question “Tell me about a week when more requests came in than you could handle.
• How did you prioritize?”; strong evidence includes the logic used, what was communicated to whoever had to wait, and how pending work was tracked; weak evidence includes “I tried to get to everything” or total dependence on the manager.
• Luiz says writing four to six criteria takes 60 to 90 minutes and produces the role definition, opening questions, and rubric at once.
• The post cites Schmidt and Hunter's review of 85 years of selection research: .51 predictive validity for structured interviews versus .38 for unstructured ones.

For brands planning a campaign

A recruiting tech partner could build a short-form series around one role per episode, using this weak-versus-usable criterion format and ending with a downloadable four-to-six-criteria worksheet. It gives the audience a complete, repeatable exercise rather than a product pitch.

Luiz writes for small and medium business owners who keep hiring the wrong person despite spending real time on interviews.

• Asked what the role actually needs, they answer vaguely: “someone proactive with an ownership mindset.”
• Every candidate then answers a different version of the role.
• Luiz recommends sitting down for 30 minutes before the first interview to write four to six concrete criteria: what counts as strong evidence and what counts as weak evidence.
• “Doesn't need HR.
• Doesn't need a process.
• Needs a piece of paper.”
• They say the difference when comparing candidates is dramatic, and the “polished self-promoter” stops winning over the genuine candidate just because they spoke better.
• The post appears in Portuguese and English.

For brands planning a campaign

A partner could localize this exercise for Portuguese- and English-speaking SMB owners, pairing a printable criteria sheet with a live or recorded walkthrough. It fits a campaign aimed at businesses that hire occasionally and need a low-process first step.

Luiz opens by saying that in 2026 most companies still hire the way they did decades ago: the candidate who interviews well wins, not necessarily the one who can do the job.

• The science of structured interviews, fixed criteria, and judging evidence instead of impressions has existed for over 80 years; what was missing was a tool to put it to work from the first job draft to the final call.
• Recrutador is described as a system with five phases and one ruler.
• First, the user and the Strategist set evaluation criteria and define what “good” looks like for the role.
• During the interview, an app reads the evidence in each answer in real time and tells the interviewer where to push harder.
• At the end, an interview report ties every criterion to what the candidate actually said, so the decision holds up later, even with people who were never in the room.
• Luiz explicitly rejects an interview fit score and “precision theater”: the report backs the decision; it does not make it.
• It stays private to the interviewer, and audio is never stored.
• The post asks whether running the interview or defending the decision afterward is harder, and links to a methodology page.

For brands planning a campaign

A content collaboration could focus on the pain of defending a hiring decision, with a product demo showing criterion-by-criterion traceability without implying automated selection. Because Luiz rejects fit scores, partner messaging should avoid that language and emphasize interviewer support.

Luiz introduces the post as “Luiz, solo bootstraped founder from Brazil, and engineer behind Recrutador.”

• The argument is that applicant tracking systems solved logistics: posting roles, tracking applicants, moving cards across a board.
• They never touched the interview, which still runs on gut.
• “Whoever talks best, connects fastest, feels right.”
• The science to fix this has existed for 80+ years but required too much manual labor for normal teams.
• Recrutador is building the layer that helps a human make the call in the room based on evidence instead of impression.
• The post describes the attached carousel as a neutral hiring memo generated by the product.
• Intended users include SMB owners with no HR team who hire occasionally; recruiters and hiring managers who want every interview run on the same structured ruler; recruitment agencies such as RPO/BPO interviewing at volume and needing to justify each hire to a client; and big companies that lack interview structure.
• Luiz states two lines that will not be crossed: the product assists the interviewer and never decides, and audio is never stored.
• Early adopters are described as coming on board, and the post offers free credits through the app or by email.

For brands planning a campaign

A partner could build founder-led “why I built this” content, then split follow-up material by segment: SMB owners, RPO/BPO agencies, and enterprise hiring teams. Free credits can serve as a trial call to action, while the two stated boundaries should stay central to product-related claims.

Their recurring answer is structured interviews with fixed criteria, judging evidence instead of impressions.

• One post cites Schmidt and Hunter's review of 85 years of selection research, reporting .51 predictive validity for structured interviews versus .38 for unstructured interviews.
• They describe this science as established for more than 80 years but inaccessible to normal teams because it required too much manual work.

References selection research and links to a methodology page, rather than relying only on personal opinion.

For brands planning a campaign

A recruiting tech partner can build content around why structured interviews outperform unstructured ones, using practical before-and-after examples instead of generic hiring advice. The creator's framing suits educational explainers, webinars, or lead magnets for teams that already interview but lack consistency.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

An example for an administrative assistant role contrasts weak "communication" with a usable criterion: explaining a technical decision to a non-technical stakeholder without losing precision. The post says this takes 60 to 90 minutes for a role you already know and produces criteria, opening questions, and a rubric.

A short pre-interview writing exercise: choose 4 to 6 criteria, define strong and weak evidence, and generate opening questions from the criteria.

For brands planning a campaign

A strong workshop or downloadable template angle: a brand can sponsor a "write your rubric in 90 minutes" resource, with Luiz Tessarolli walking through criteria, evidence, and scoring. It gives the audience a portable artifact rather than just an opinion.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

They emphasize that the report backs the decision rather than making it, that there is no interview fit score, and that audio is never stored. The stated benefit is a decision that holds up later, even with people who were never in the room.

For brands planning a campaign

For a recruiting tech company, the partnership can focus on defensible hiring decisions and client-ready interview documentation, especially for agencies or teams that must justify hires. Keep the creator's boundary clear: the tool assists the interviewer and never decides.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

One post says the method needs no HR team or formal process, just a piece of paper and 30 minutes to write criteria.

For brands planning a campaign

The creator's audience framing supports content for small and midsize businesses that cannot adopt heavyweight recruiting software. A collaboration could pair simple hiring templates with product-led education for teams without a dedicated talent acquisition function.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

The product is positioned as a layer that helps a human make the call, not another candidate storage system or ATS.

The product is explicitly not an ATS or candidate storage system; Luiz Tessarolli positions it as a decision-assist layer.

For brands planning a campaign

A partner can create product-adjacent content that explains the five phases through a real hiring scenario rather than a feature tour. The creator's ATS-versus-decision-layer distinction gives a recruiting tech audience a clear category story.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

Other posts include carousels and a full guide with references.

For brands planning a campaign

A collaboration can be produced in both Portuguese and English without rewriting the core idea, which may suit a recruiting tech company expanding in Brazil or serving bilingual teams. The creator's existing mix of posts, carousels, and linked guides can be adapted into co-branded assets.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

The product uses five phases on one evaluation ruler: setting criteria with a Strategist, reading evidence from answers during the interview, and producing a report that ties each criterion back to what the candidate said. Posts direct readers to app.recrutador.com for free credits and recrutador.com/methodology for the research basis behind structured interviews.

Original disclosure

I'm Luiz, a bootstrapped founder from Brazil who built Recrutador solo and engineered the product.

View example

Both argue that the person doing the work should own the analysis: Diego Lorenzo Carvalho wants sellers to bring their own root-cause analysis of the numbers to pipeline reviews, while Luiz Tessarolli wants hiring teams to define criteria and evidence before interviews so decisions do not rest on a manager’s impression.

Diego Lorenzo Carvalho writes about sales management, pipeline reviews and prospecting coaching. Luiz Tessarolli focuses on interview design and hiring decisions, not sales execution.

Read original · Original 2

Ana Luiza Paes Araújo das Neves says procurement quality starts before the purchase, with requirements and acceptance criteria defined up front.

• Luiz Tessarolli says teams should document criteria and strong versus weak evidence before the first interview.
• Both teach through an ordered process and warn that the cheapest or fastest option is not necessarily the best outcome.

Ana Luiza Paes Araújo das Neves focuses on supplier quality management, procurement and supply chain reliability. Luiz Tessarolli focuses on recruiting and how interviews are run and scored.

Read original · Original 2

Paulo D'Elia says AI is cosmetic without clean data, documented processes and RevOps foundations; Luiz Tessarolli says hiring relies on gut instinct until criteria and evidence are defined. Each describes their operating system as a sequence of phases, and both publish in Portuguese for founders and business leaders.

Paulo D'Elia writes about GTM engineering, RevOps and using AI as an operating layer across marketing, sales and customer success. Luiz Tessarolli writes about structured hiring and interview decisions.

Read original · Original 2

They’re a better choice when the campaign shifts from running interviews to reviewing a sales team’s performance.

• In the two posts here, they argue that managers should stop owning the entire quota problem and ask each seller to bring a detailed funnel analysis and at least one root cause to a pipeline review.
• The manager can then focus on coaching specific skills and developing the conversion metric agreed on with the seller.
• The posts apply a principle also found in Tessarolli’s hiring content — judge people by structured criteria, not by how well they sound — to sales management.
• They similarly warn that sellers who don’t analyse their own numbers hand the problem back to the boss.

The posts do not say anything about hiring, interviews, criteria writing, or candidate evaluation, so a recruiting-tech partner cannot run a campaign aimed at structured hiring with this creator without changing the campaign itself.

• The audience is sales managers and revenue leaders rather than SMB owners and hiring managers, and no audience demographics, engagement figures, or commercial terms are present in the posts here.
• Choosing this creator means accepting a sales-performance campaign instead of a hiring one, or accepting that the structured-interview method is not the subject.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

They’re a better choice when the campaign shifts to supplier management: two posts published minutes apart on 17 September 2026 argue that quality work should start before the purchase order, not during pre-audit season.

• They outline a five-step supplier quality sequence — qualify, specify, measure, treat deviations, develop — and argue that on-time-in-full delivery alone can hide rework, rejections, repeat non-conformities and emergency buying, making the cheapest supplier the most expensive.
• The approach echoes Tessarolli’s hiring posts: define what good looks like before the decision, not after.

The posts focus on supply-chain and quality decision-makers, not SMB owners or hiring managers.

• A partner seeking structured-interview content would need to shift to a different function and audience.
• The two posts are near-identical versions of the same argument, offering little evidence of range.
• Ask for audience demographics, engagement data and commercial terms before deciding whether this audience fits.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

They’re a better choice when the campaign shifts to revenue operations: one post describes an agent that checks whether CRM records make sense for their funnel stage, whether the expansion pipeline has enough volume and timing to hit target, which teams are slipping, and which client ad accounts are losing performance without corresponding optimisation work.

• The other describes a GTM engineering and theory-of-constraints certification, built around a three-layer pyramid — revenue operations as the base, revenue in the middle, engineering and AI on top — and argues that most companies start at the top and accelerate the chaos.
• The practical advice is to standardise data, unify methodology and document processes before adding AI, a base-first argument comparable to writing criteria before booking interviews.

The posts focus on AI operations for revenue teams, marketing-sales-CS integration and GTM engineering, not hiring, interviews or candidate assessment.

• Their references to specific tools and models make this a technology-stack discussion rather than a hiring-method discussion.
• Ask for audience demographics, engagement data and commercial terms before deciding whether the fit works for an operational AI campaign.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2