Very good research article in the MIT review.

My experience over 30 years of hiring and performance management consulting, and over 1000 executive search projects is that there is NO test that is predicative of future performance.

The intellectual tests do not predict future performance. They simply give you a perspective on raw intelligence – the ability to logically and rationally process information.

The personality assessments do not predict performance – they simply give you insight into a person’s preferred behavior/communication style in a work setting. Most of the tests are easily manipulated by the candidate into answering questions or checking words that the hiring manager wants to hear – not the real candidate.

Both of these are still useful tools and insights even with their flaws.

However, the ONLY way to predict future performance is to conduct a performance or success based structured interview that correlates with the outcomes desired in the role. Adding role plays, homework, and working/practical sessions/real case studies – along with deep and intrusive reference checking can boost interview accuracy from what most of the studies show is basically a 50/50 success rate into the 80-90 percent range.

A lack of a good rigorous hiring process results in outcomes that are comparable to rolling dice in Las Vegas - crapshoot hiring. Are you willing to bet your company on average and mediocre processes around talent?

The number one frustration I hear as a do 60-70 talks a year to CEO groups is "we can't find enough good people. There's a reason for this - you're going about it all wrong. Your old, tired, traditional, and tribal techniques are now bringing the bottom 1/3 of the candidate pool to your doorstep.

Over 20 years, 1000 presentations to CEO and Executive Groups, I've discovered that there are some common frustrations that drive hiring managers crazy.

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?

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?

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?

The interview, when conducted with focused structured questions that correlate to job expectations, can be a very reliable predictor of future success. Unfortunately, most hiring managers don't define the expectations so the interview questions are in doubt. Secondly, the biggest mistake is that most hiring managers have never been trained how to conduct an accurate interview - so they are just winging it based on their life experiences. No wonder, the studies show that interview accuracy is basically as effective as rolling dice.

This article triggered my thinking again of why introverts have so much trouble "winning" a job interview. I wrote an article a number of years ago titled "Why Introverts Are Doomed to Fail in the Interview".

Most hiring managers have a preconceived notion that the best candidates exhibit traits of extroversion in the interview - outgoing, warm, talkative, able to answer silly questions on the spot, or get deeply introspective and personal very quickly.

My experience with over 30 years of executive search and hiring coaching/consulting is that introversion or extroversion is not indicative of performance and success. I think many executives make wrong biased assumptions about introverts. So, now the question is how do introverts overcome this natural bias of most hiring managers - particularly in an interview format.

One of the greatest frustrations in hiring is having candidates lie convincingly, or exaggerating-embellishing what they've done. Most CEOs and Executives believe that at least 100 percent of candidates fake it in the interview. How do you overcome this tendency to misrepresent and get to the TRUTH?

The number ONE frustration I've heard over 2 decades is around the idea of what are we measuring in people - how do we know we're hiring a winner vs. falling victim to "You're NOT the Person I Hired".

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.

Recognize, acknowledge, and understand the implications of making a first impression during interviewing. Most hiring managers make mistakes on 2/3 of the candidates they meet due to wrong first impressions.

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?

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.