A weak selection process will identify bad candidates as good, whereas a good selection process will identify good candidates as good and bad candidates as bad. That’s the difference. And it’s a costly one.
The reason poor hiring processes persist is that they don’t fail all the time. They still produce good hires. They still create the impression that the process works, i.e., outcome bias. Over time, that becomes enough. The occasional mishire is accepted as part of the process. An unavoidable cost of doing business.
But it’s not the successful hires that define the quality of your process. It’s the mistakes.
A mishire is expensive for any organisation, but the impact is amplified in small to medium businesses. If you employ 20 people and two of them are underperforming, that’s 10% of your workforce not contributing effectively. That loss is felt in productivity, culture, and time. Larger organisations may absorb this more easily, but that doesn’t make it acceptable, especially when it is preventable.
To understand why this happens, you need to look at the typical or traditional hiring processes involved.
The typical approach begins with reviewing applications, whether by yourself or AI, and selecting candidates who present well on paper. These applications are carefully constructed to highlight strengths and minimise weaknesses, especially the AI ones. From there, candidates are invited to interview, where they present a refined version of themselves, supported by rehearsed answers and selectively chosen examples.
By the time the candidate walks into the room, they have already shaped the narrative. The panel, on the other hand, is meeting a stranger. First impressions form quickly,
biases come into play, and decisions are made based on a combination of what the candidate has chosen to share and how they are perceived in the moment.
This process will identify good candidates. But it will also identify some bad candidates as good. And those are the hires that create problems.
A good selection process changes this dynamic. It ensures that by the time you reach the interview, the candidate is no longer a
stranger.
Instead of relying on one-sided information, the process introduces structure and data earlier. A brief telephone screen clarifies key requirements, motivation, and expectations. Psychometric testing adds another layer, providing insight into personality, cognitive ability, and behavioural tendencies. Together, this creates a more complete picture of the candidate before the interview even begins.
The interview then becomes something different. It is no longer the primary decision-making tool, but a stage where hypotheses are tested, assumptions are challenged, and deeper insights are explored.
Importantly, this approach does not make hiring more complicated. It simply changes the sequence:
- Screen first
- Test second
- Interview last
The outcome is not just that you continue to identify strong candidates. It’s that you significantly reduce the likelihood of the wrong candidates getting through.
Better hiring decisions are more than spotting talent in an interview. They are also about building a process that prevents costly mistakes before they happen.
