Hire Beware!

Several months ago, a former associate of mine was hired by a very large company into a very senior role.

Now I know this guy. And I don't have a very strong opinion of him. I knew him to be vain, somewhat paranoid, highly political and quite devious. Many of his peers felt he was somewhat dysfunctional. He would avoid dealing with any confrontation directly, instead delegating all tough issues to his staff.

His major talent, was his ability to "manage up" - fooling his boss into believing he was effective.

Almost everyone else knew differently. He was not a guy I felt proud to be associated with. Yet a successful company is now excited to have him on board.

It makes me wonder about recruiting. How does one really know the person they're about to hire?

Hiring mistakes at the senior level can be so expensive. Termination is expensive. Damage to the hiring manager's reputation is expensive. Damage to the department or to corporate morale is expensive. There's a lot at risk.

Yet hiring decisions, in many cases, comes down to "feel" - in essence, a beauty contest. Are we comfortable with the candidate? Does he seem to know his stuff? Does his experience fit our needs?

"Steve" (not his real name) definitely knew his stuff. That wasn't the issue. His issues surfaced in the way he went about his job. And typically, that doesn't show up in an interview.

References aren't a great way to weed out candidates either - who offers up bad references?

Some companies use scientific testing (although not usually at the senior level), some use "gang interviews", some use 360 interviews, with the candidate being interviewed by superiors, colleagues and subordinates. But none of these techniques come with any guarantees.

I think there's a huge business opportunity out there for anyone who can come up with a better way of making hires - especially at the senior level. And in about 12 months from now, I'm betting there will be at least one major company who'll want to second that motion.