A screening call should answer one question: is this person worth an hour of a hiring manager's time? Most recruiters I speak to treat it as a mini interview instead, and that's why so many weak candidates reach the shortlist and so many good ones fall off it. Keep the call to fifteen or twenty minutes, decide in advance what you need to know, and ask the same core questions of everyone. That's the whole argument, and the rest of this piece is the reasoning.
Why a screening call isn't a small interview
An interview tests depth. A phone screen tests fit against a short list of facts: can they do the core of the job, will the money and notice period work, do they want this role or just any role. Those are checkable in minutes. Whether they'd be brilliant in month six isn't, and trying to find out on the phone is how you end up with a rambling forty-minute chat and nothing written down.
If you're a hiring manager doing your own screening for the first time, this matters even more. You'll be tempted to probe technical detail because it's the part you enjoy. Resist it. Save it for the stage where you've got a second person in the room.
Beyond Tick Boxes: Diversity Recruitment Strategies That Actually Transform UK Workplaces
Master the Virtual Hot Seat: 7 Video Interview Techniques Recruiters Don't Tell You
AI Governance Careers Surge in 2026: Why This Role Will Define the Next Decade
Decide the pass mark before you dial
Write down three or four non-negotiables from the job spec before the first call. Not eleven. Three or four. For a payroll role that might be experience with a specific system, a realistic salary range and the ability to start within eight weeks. Everything else is a bonus.
This sounds obvious and almost nobody does it. What happens instead is that the first strong candidate sets the benchmark, and the next five are judged against someone's charm rather than the job. A written pass mark also protects you under the Equality Act 2010: if every candidate is scored against the same criteria, you can show why one went through and another didn't. The CIPD publishes sensible guidance on structured selection if you want something to hand to a sceptical line manager.
The questions that earn their place
You don't need a clever list. You need questions that get specifics.
Start with motivation, because it tells you more than the CV does. Ask: "What made you look at this role, and what would you want to be different from your current one?" A vague answer about "new challenges" is information. So is an answer that names something concrete about your company.
Then ask for one recent example against your first non-negotiable. "Tell me about the last time you ran month-end close on your own" beats "Are you experienced in finance?" every time. Listen for the detail: tools, team size, what went wrong. People who've done the work can't help giving it.
Cover logistics early rather than at the end, when you're rushing. Salary expectations, notice period, location or hybrid arrangements, right to work. If the numbers don't line up, say so kindly and stop. You've saved both of you a week.
Close with: "What questions do you have for me?" What they ask tells you what they care about.
Red flags, and the ones that aren't
Some signals are worth taking seriously. Answers that stay general however you rephrase the question. Not being able to say what their current employer does. Speaking badly of every previous manager. Dodging the salary question twice.
But be careful about the ones that feel like red flags and aren't. Nervousness is normal, especially if the call arrives with little warning. A thin phone manner says nothing about how someone performs in the actual job. And a gap on the CV is a question to ask, not a verdict. Recruiters sometimes mark down a candidate for sounding flat when the real cause was a bad line and a baby in the next room. (You'd want that person's trust later, wouldn't you?)
If you're unsure, ask the same question a different way and see whether the answer changes.
Objection: isn't this too rigid?
The fair objection is that scripts make calls robotic and you'll miss the unusual candidate who doesn't fit the template. There's something in that. A rigid script read aloud is miserable for both sides.
But structure isn't the same as stiffness. Fixed core questions, free conversation around them. The unusual candidate still gets heard, and you've got notes comparable with everyone else's rather than a memory of who was friendliest. Without structure, the people who get through tend to be the ones who sound like you, which is a bias with a nice name.
Where to take your screening next
Two changes are worth making as the year closes. First, send candidates a short message before the call saying how long it'll take and what you'll cover. It lowers the temperature and gets you better answers. Something like: "This is a twenty minute call about your experience with X and the practical side of the role. No preparation needed." Second, record your scores the same day, in the same format, on the applicant tracking system you already use, or a shared sheet if you don't have one. Video-first applications can also give you a feel for communication style before you dial, which makes the call itself shorter.
The longer-term question is whether phone screens survive at all as recorded responses and async tools get better. Some will. The ones that do will be the calls where a human listens for the thing a form can't capture.
This week, pick one open role, write down its three non-negotiables, and run your next five screens against only those.
