The Two-Thirds Gap

Peter Drucker says two-thirds of hiring decisions may be mistakes.

PII reports:

• two-thirds of employees say they would rather work somewhere else
• two-thirds of employees will disappoint their employers within the first year

The obvious question is, then, what is going wrong? How can so many people wind up in the wrong place of employment? The answer falls in one of two or both of these areas: (1) How the job candidates compete for job positions; (2) How the organization selects employees.

The Candidate's View: Outshining the Competition

During the selection process, most candidates are not focused on showing the "real" them so the hiring manager can find the job that is the right fit for them--a place where they will be successful and a significant contributor to the organization they join. The reality is job candidates are focused on getting the bigger paycheck or the better title, or just outshining the competition so they get the job. That competitive focus tends to drive certain posturing behaviors to make a favorable impression on the hiring manager. According to research from Hire Rite, 34% of all applications contain outright lies about experience, education, and ability to perform essential functions on the job.

The Organization's View: Separating the Glitter
from the Gold

To make successful hires, hiring managers must know what is necessary for individuals to thrive within their organization, what is necessary to thrive in the job position, and they must be able to discriminate posturing behavior from authentic representations of individuals' capabilities. As the statistics in the first paragraph reflect, the selection process most organizations use is not effective at doing any of those things. It's no surprise, then, that organizational leaders complain the hiring process tends to:

• Select individuals who know how to look and sound good, but prove to be a poor fit for the position. In other words, posturing and "interviewing well" works for the candidate.
• Rely heavily on computers or low-level individuals to screen for particular words on a resume instead of attempting to understand the complete body of work behind the person. They often screen for discrete skills that can be learned in a matter of days, rather than capability and character factors. This gives a paper-thin view of an individual's true capability.
• Rely on the hiring manager's instinct (read subjectivity and arbitrariness), camouflaged within a highly-structured interview process. (Research shows, regardless of the interview structure, hiring managers routinely hire people who closely resemble themselves. The structure, then, allows hiring managers to select those with whom they feel comfortable, rather than those who are most capable.)

As a result, a full 66% of the time, the wrong person winds up in the wrong job. The frustrating reality is that many organizations have no idea how to change it.

Is Competency Modeling the Answer?

There is a great deal being said these days about "competency modeling" and its power to overcome recruiting and selection problems. While I agree there is value in looking at competencies, most "experts" make the process far more complicated than it needs to be. (Of course, this is simple economics at play here. It is in the financial best interest of these outside consultants to present the process as difficult, if not impossible, for organizations to take on themselves. The organizations feel they must hire the outside expert to do anything effective involving competencies.) Thus the gurus, at great cost and with much complexity, enthusiastically go about killing a flea with an elephant gun. The organization feels good because that elephant gun sure looks powerful. And, as time passes, the organization realizes its hiring effectiveness is still not where it needs to be.