Hiring managers naturally put a lot of thought into the selection process when working to fill a position with a perfect hire. They know that choosing the wrong candidate for the job is something to be avoided – at all costs.
This is so critical because hiring is, well, costly.
Glassdoor for Employers estimates that the average cost per hire is nearly $4,000. Hidden costs associated with onboarding a new employee include:
- Onboarding Paperwork and Administrative Time
- Employee Training
- Deferred Productivity/Learning Curve
- New Employee Provisions
As you can see, valuable resources are expended with each new hire and hiring mistakes impact the bottom line. Yet, many hiring managers still rely on fallible guidelines when in pursuit of the best candidate.
Are you depending on any of these predictors in your search for the perfect hire?
Bad Predictor #1 – Relying on First Impressions
Although it may seem counter-intuitive to those who abide by the rule of thumb that the first 90 seconds (or 30 seconds, or 7 seconds …. depending on which specific thumb rule you abide to) of an interview are the most crucial, a hiring decision based on first impressions isn’t the crystal ball many believe it to be. First impressions can be deceptive and are poor indicators of actual job performance.
Think of that consummate performer who dazzles with their poise and self-assurance, which is an indicator of nothing significant.
Bad Predictor #2 – Quantitative (vs. Qualitative) Experience
While it is common to require “X number” years of experience performing a relatively identical position to the one being filled, strictly adhering to quantitative stipulations is unnecessarily limiting. Just because someone has, let’s say, been a bookkeeper for 7+ years, they won’t unequivocally be the best choice. For example, what if they have been practicing dubious accounting methods all along? Or their overall conscientiousness leaves something to be desired?
In other words: How do their “soft” skills compare with those of another candidate, who just happens to be relatively new to the field?
Bad Predictor #3 – Focusing on Passive, not Active, Candidates
When comparing “passive” vs. “active” job seekers, hiring managers often share the perspective that the most desirable candidate can’t possibly be the one who is actively reaching out to them.
Industry lore (falsely) maintains that:
- Since you narrow your focus to those who are (you assume) successfully doing the job, you can secure the best fit only among passive candidates.
- Passive candidates are “better” than active job seekers and are “good” employees. After all, if they aren’t actively looking they must be superstars creating value for their employer, right?
- Active job seekers must be “desperate.” They have inflated their resume and qualifications.
These common misconceptions about passive vs. active job seekers can lead to a false sense of security and the unintended consequence. You may in fact miss out on the actual “rockstar” employee (who is, incidentally, actively seeking a new job).
Ultimately, the above “predictors” of a good hire are unreliable. Instead, focus on factors that truly increase your likelihood of choosing the best hire, the first time.
Check back next week for the 5 Great Predictors of a Good Hire.