The bad news, there are three big hiring mistakes and everybody makes them. The good news, if you spot them early, you can avoid most of them. These three mistakes fall into two categories – hiring people you shouldn’t have and not hiring people you should have. Managers and recruiters all have stories of people they’ve hired, many even technically competent, who shouldn’t have been hired. Some are unmotivated. Some don’t work well on teams or don’t fit they culture. Others fail to deliver consistent results. And then there are the people who should have been hired, but weren’t. These include the good people who were somehow misjudged during the interview. Also included here are those top people who opted-out early or took other offers. With the right techniques in place, these mistakes are all avoidable.

To start eliminating hiring mistakes, a broader definition of competency is required. Here’s a 1-5 ranking scale we use as part of our candidate assessment scorecard with some quick definitions. Each of these definitions is based on comparison to real job needs. Based on this type of comparison a candidate great for one job, a Level 3.0 or better, might be a very weak for another job and score a 1.0 or 2.0. A Level 2.5 is an average candidate on this scale. From a practical standpoint most underperformers are Level 2.0 and 2.5, and, as you’ll see, Levels 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 are all great hires.

Basic Candidate Types
1.0 Incompetent or unmotivated or uncooperative or demotivator.
2.0 Competent, presentable, persuasive, unmotivated, needs urging to be cooperative, needs extra coaching to be meet expectations.
2.5 Reliable, consistent, cooperative, competent, motivated, not promotable. Meets most expectations.
3.0 Reliable, consistent, cooperative, very competent, motivated, promotable. Meets all expectations.
4.0 Highly reliable, consistent, extremely cooperative, especially competent, highly motivated, promotable quickly, exceeds expectations.
5.0 Brilliant, engaging, exceptional achievements, natural leader, competitive, motivated to excel, highly promotable.

A broader definition of competency, as shown above, will go a long way towards eliminating hiring people who are underperformers. Not being affected by a candidate’s interviewing presentation is part of an accurate assessment. Don’t assume that a well-prepared, enthusiastic candidate with a great first impression is a top performer. Conversely, don’t assume a nervous or soft-spoken candidate, or one who is unprepared, or one who doesn’t “look the part” is an underperformer. Getting past the presentation is a critical aspect of minimizing errors attributed to bad assessments. Collecting complete evidence across all job factors is essential whether the person makes a great initial presentation or not.

While increasing assessment accuracy is a critical piece of minimizing many hiring mistakes, the “good person, not interested” problem requires still another solution: better recruiting skills. In today’s competitive market, recruiting skills and the ability to attract top people are becoming more and more important. Unfortunately, many corporate recruiters and few managers are effective here. The key to better recruiting is to influence the candidate to value the long term career opportunity over the short term issues.

Following are some specific ideas on how to overcome assessment and attraction errors associated with each type of candidate.

From a practical standpoint, the Incompetent, Level 1.0, is easy to spot. All you need to do is review the candidate’s resume and conduct a 30-minute interview. The shortfalls will be apparent. Most managers don’t need training to avoid hiring the Incompetent. However, while rare, sometimes a good candidate can seem to be Incompetent. A candidate who is a weak interviewer or one who doesn’t make a great first impression can sometimes be perceived as a dullard. Lack of preparation, being late, or lackadaisical can earn an otherwise worthy candidate a quick spot on the reject list. Conducting a work history review and obtaining a list of the candidate’s major accomplishments will erase any misgivings. This is easily done in 30 minutes, so give everyone the benefit of the doubt for at least this long.

The Competent, but Unmotivated, Level 2.0, is not so easy to spot. These candidates make strong presentations, sound sincere, interview well and seem enthusiastic. However, it’s hard to tell in an interview if the person is fully-balanced across all job needs, works well in a team environment, is self-motivated, consistent, and reliable. On the other hand, it’s relatively easy to tell in an interview if the person is technically competent. As a result, too many interviews make yes/no decisions based on a narrow set of factors, rather than assessing competency across all job factors. The key to prevent hiring the Competent, but Unmotivated is to conduct longer, more balanced interviews. As part of this, assess self-management, the ability to work in comparable teams and cultural fit.

The Competent, but Unpromotable, Level 2.5, is an average hire. While not a complete mistake, since the person is reliable and consistent, the person has little upside. The difference between a Level 2.0 and Level 2.5 is motivation to do the work and an ability to work well with team members. So if you find yourself speaking with someone who appears technically competent, make sure you focus in on areas where the candidate has excelled and compare these to your real job needs. For example, don’t hire a systems architect for a detailed design position. Also, dig into team accomplishments and find examples of cooperation with different types of people and where the person has taken the initiative to help others. Look for consistency in both cases.

The Competent, Motivated and Promotable, Level 3.0, is a great hire. This person needs little direction, will deliver great results on a consistent basis, is flexible, reliable, works well with all types of people and fits right into your culture. The key to identifying this type is by conducting multiple, in-depth interviews probing into the person’s biggest accomplishments in great detail. Put these accomplishments on a virtual time line to observe growth in overall impact and an ability to influence larger and more professional teams. While hiring a Level 3.0 is a great hire, not hiring this person is a huge mistake. Sometimes Level 3s aren’t great interviewers. Sometimes they’re not interested. Unfortunately, too many managers quickly associate lack of interest with incompetence and ignore these potential stars. To overcome this problem recruiters need to prep their candidates better, provide more facts and supporting detail to their clients and be confident enough to defend their candidates from quick, superficial decisions. They also have to be able to prevent these same candidates from dropping out of the process if they make quick, superficial decisions based on lack of the correct information.

The High Performing, Highly Promotable, Level 4.0, is super hire. This person consistently exceeds expectations, doing more, doing it better and doing it faster. The key difference between a Level 4.0 and 3.0 is the potential for growth, either on a technical or managerial track. Multiple in-depth interviews by multiple interviewers covering all job factors is the only way you’ll be able to accurately discern these differences. While accurately identifying a Level 4.0 is a challenge, hiring them is often much more difficult. They tend to have multiple opportunities, they’re very selective, they take longer to decide and they will always receive a counter-offer. Superficial interviews combined with aggressive unsophisticated recruiting is a turn-off. Even if you do manage to hire a Level 4.0, you’d better make sure you provide an environment where the person can thrive, or else your great hire will wind-up being one of your turnover statistics.

The Brilliant, High-potential Leader, Level 5.0, is a rare hire. This person takes the lead, inspires others, fits the culture and consistently far exceeds expectations. Not only are these people hard to find, they’re even harder to hire than a Level 4.0. Worse, they’re often harder to keep satisfied. Sometimes they’re even more difficult to manage than a Level 2.0 requiring a free hand, additional resources and unfettered access to everyone. Early in their careers they need to be nurtured, developed and given the opportunity to succeed, and fail, in a big way. If you hire a Level 5.0, expect this person to be your boss within a few years. If you try to keep them down, they’ll be out before you know it.

I’m not sure which is the best hire in the long run, a Level 3.0, 4.0 or 5.0. Each one has their pluses and minus. On balance they’re all great hires. The key to great hiring is not making one of the three big hiring mistakes:

• No 2s! These are the people who seem great in the interview, but are unmotivated to do the real work required or flawed in some important way.
• Don’t overlook 3.0s, 4.0s, or 5.0s disguised as 2.0s or 1.0s. Sometimes the best people aren’t the best interviewers. Get past the presentation and dig into performance. When you do, you’ll find some hidden gems everyone else has ignored.
• Don’t lose the best to the competition. Recruiting top talent is a sophisticated process that few managers understand. It’s not selling. It’s proving that your company can provide more growth, impact and opportunity with a competitive compensation.

Eliminating hiring errors due to assessment and attraction requires increased objectivity, extra effort and more discipline. As the talent shortage gets more severe, not only will it be worth, it will be essential.