Rethinking Recruitment: Why Your Hiring Isn't Failing, But Your Evidence Is

Ever felt like you just can't seem to get hiring right? You tweak the job description, you refine your interview questions, maybe even add a new step, and still, that perfect candidate often feels elusive. It's frustrating, isn't it? We tend to blame the 'hiring process' as a whole, but what if I told you the problem isn't the process itself, but rather the quality of the 'evidence' we're collecting during it?

Think about it. Hiring is, at its core, a prediction problem. We're trying to forecast how well someone will perform in a future role, based on a handful of interactions and some paperwork. And a lot of what we traditionally rely on – those free-flowing interviews, the quick scan of a resume – well, they're often surprisingly weak predictors of actual job performance. It's almost like trying to predict the weather by looking at a single cloud; you might get lucky, but it's not exactly robust science.

Let's be honest, many of us, myself included, have been guilty of making hiring decisions based on 'gut feelings' or 'cultural fit' that, in hindsight, didn't quite pan out. That's because our brains are wonderfully complex but also prone to biases. We're influenced by charm, by perceived similarities, or even just by how someone presents themselves in a high-pressure interview. The traditional interview, in particular, often creates a ton of 'noise' and very little reliable 'signal' about a candidate's actual capabilities.

So, if the process isn't inherently flawed, what is? It's the evidence. We're often not collecting the right kind of information, or we're not evaluating it effectively. Resumes can be embellished, interviews can be inconsistent, and references can be overly positive. These aren't solid pieces of evidence; they're more like hazy impressions.

Imagine if instead, we focused on gathering tangible, performance-related evidence. What if your hiring process prioritized methods that actually show you what a candidate can do? Things like well-designed work sample tests, where candidates perform a small, realistic piece of the job, can be incredibly insightful. Or structured interviews, where every candidate is asked the same questions, and their answers are scored against predefined criteria – that really cuts through the bias and gives you objective data.

Cognitive ability tests, when used responsibly and ethically, can also be strong predictors of learning speed and problem-solving skills. And even something as simple as a realistic job preview, where candidates get an honest look at the day-to-day realities of the role, helps ensure better alignment and reduce turnover. These methods, you see, are about reducing the 'noise' and amplifying the true 'signal' of a candidate's potential.

The key takeaway here is not to abandon your hiring process altogether, but to critically examine the evidence-gathering components within it. Are your interviewers properly trained? Do they know what good answers look like? Are you asking questions that genuinely reveal skills, or just questions that test someone's ability to 'interview well'? By shifting our focus from merely conducting interviews to actively collecting valid, reliable evidence, we can move from hopeful guesswork to data-driven confidence in our hiring decisions. It's about being intentional, systematic, and, frankly, a little more scientific about finding the right person for the job.