Hire Top Talent

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?

Winning interviews is basically telling great stories that share key traits of success and answer quantifiable questions like dates, KPIs, metrics, outcomes, budgets, people, etc.

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?

Do you buy into this article that there is a gap between how men and women portray themselves on LinkedIn? Basically, the article is suggesting that men oversell themselves and women undersell themselves. This article would lead one to believe that men have an advantage over women in the area of recognition and job search on LinkedIn = do you accept that this level of gender bias still exists today?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Great article at HBR about balancing getting great results while raising employee engagement concurrently. The very best managers and executives are able to walk this fine line.

Good article published on The Ladders Job Board. Are you confusing perks like ping-pong tables and remote flexible work schedules with company culture issues around vision, values, mission/purpose? Do you emphasize how fun your work environment is - or how it aligns with employee values and desires? Most companies do a terrible of articulating and constantly communicating their vision, values, mission/purpose.