Hire Top Talent

A large part of hiring failure can be attributed to asking the traditional, standard, stupid, inane, canned interview questions. If you want to determine if someone can achieve your desired goals, outcomes, deliverables, expectations, KPIs, and metrics - then you need a set of interview questions designed to extract that information to predict future performance and fit.

Where did most of us learn what interview questions to ask - perhaps these were the questions you were asked 20 years ago when you were hired, or perhaps you plucked them off a random Google list. What are the right questions that get at whether someone can achieve your desired results and do it with a set of behaviors that are consistent with your culture and values?

Do you make it a rule to Google everyone you are considering interviewing? Are you in shock over some of the things you see candidates post as their profile pictures in places like Twitter and LinkedIn?

Counterintuitive article on whether looking at "cultural fit" is overrated. Do you think it's important and should have the same focus as measuring success traits, comparable performance, and other abilities? OR would you give it a minor effort? My experience has been that it's equally important as the performance side. Unfortunately, most companies screw up the measurement of "fit".

Most interviews have a very low correlation to success since the vast majority of hiring managers focusing on measuring how good of an actress/actor is sitting across from them. Usually the interview is based on rapport, chemistry, and likability. Layered onto that inaccurate assessment is that fact that you're not even seeing their true personality.

Study after study has proven the value of referrals in the recruiting and hiring process. Yet most companies efforts in referrals generation of candidates is lackluster at best. Referrals should represent at least 50% of your hires. If you're not making 50% of your hires through referrals, maybe it's time to take a check-up on your referral program.

Interesting article by Liz Ryan basically indicating that whether you get hired or not is completely random, subjective, and biased on a hiring manager's personality or experience.

She's not far off from the truth. Most hiring managers have never been formally trained in how to hire. Most do a random-terrible job of hiring. Most studies show that hiring is not much better than rolling dice down the felt in Las Vegas = primarily because most of the people who are doing it don't have a clue what they are doing.

It's not "art" as Liz Ryan indicates. It does tend more toward science - yet most people who are doing it don't know the science so they'll guessing or playing at hiring.

What are the most common frustrations in hiring we've heard from over 25000 CEOs and Senior Executives in the last two decades? Do any of these match up with your frustrations?

Traditional job descriptions masquerading as advertisements repulse, reject, 

The vast majority of CEOs and senior executives have told me over the last 20 years that they think 100 percent of candidates they interview tend to lie, embellish, and exaggerate. The big question is HOW DO YOU GET TO THE TRUTH?

Many studies of hiring show that the dominant reason for hiring decisions are things like rapport, chemistry, and like-ability. None of these has any correlation to success on the job. In fact, measuring candidates with first impressions of these traits usually results in hiring errors and mistakes.

Most executives and hiring managers have admitted to me in our workshops over the last 20 years that their personal track record on hiring people who HIT or EXCEED expectations is somewhere in the 25-33 percent range. 50 percent is what most of the studies have shown in formal surveys and research. Where does that leave us in the current state of hiring accuracy and success?

After 30 years of executive search, I am still amazed by the low to non-existent correlation between interviewing, as it is traditionally conducted by most hiring managers, and on-the-job performance. Are you measuring how well a candidate performs in the interview, or how good of an employee will they be in that job in your company?

Why do we play this mental headgame of "Let's Give it Another 30 Days?" We know it's not going to work out - but we keep deluding ourselves that it's going to get better.