Our Obsession With Perfect Hiring

Obsessing Over Perfect Hires?

The hiring process has become a ritual that many businesses follow without ever questioning its efficacy. Organisations pour resources into finding the ideal candidate, aiming for perfection at every step. But what if the quest for the ‘perfect hire’ is actually detrimental?

Why Fear Imperfect Hires?

Hiring ‘bad’ or ‘questionable’ candidates often gets bad press. Prevailing wisdom urges caution to avoid the pitfalls of a bad hire. However, this overlooks the potential benefits of what organisatiosn fear as ‘bad hires‘. Focusing solely on the downside carries its own set of costs, such as stagnation and aversion to taking calculated risks.

What Can We Learn from ‘Bad’ Hires?

The belief that we can predict an individual’s future performance is an illusion. Cognitive biases affect how we evaluate candidates, and even someone who initially appears to be a bad fit can grow, learn, and contribute meaningfully to the organisation. In fact, sticking with a questionable hire can build loyalty and encourage a culture of growth and adaptability.

Is Quick Hiring Really That Bad?

If we accept making imperfect hires as part of the process, this can enable a more streamlined hiring procedure. By iterating quickly — hiring and adjusting as needed — organisations can adapt faster and reduce the stigma associated with riskier decisions. It’s a similar approach to agile methodologies: release early, get feedback, and improve.

Who Owns the Hiring Decisions?

The traditional approach puts the responsibility of hiring squarely on managers’ shoulders. But if the organisation can adapt to the idea of making imperfect hires, then others in the team can also take part in the decision-making process. This democratises hiring and may lead to more diverse and robust teams.

Does System Matter More Than Individuals?

If you consider W. Edwards Deming’s proposition that 95% of an employee’s performance is due to the system they work in, then the difference between a good hire and a bad hire minimises to insignificant. Therefore, focusing on improving the system within which new hires will work yields better results than fixating on individuals and their abilities, character, etc.

His provocative statement poses a direct challenge to traditional hiring philosophies. In most organisations, an enormous amount of energy is expended on selecting the ‘right’ candidates based on qualifications, skills, and personality traits. Yet, if Deming’s assertion holds true, this focus is hugely misplaced.

How Systems Influence Behaviour

Firstly, what do we mean by ‘system’? In an organisational context, the term refers to the set of policies, procedures, and culture that guide employee behaviour. This encompasses everything from the company’s values and mission to its performance review procedures and internal communications. Employees are part of this intricate web and their behaviour—good or bad—is often a byproduct of the system in which they operate.

For example, consider an organisation that has a poor culture around deadlines. Projects often run over time, and there’s no real accountability. In such a system, even the most punctual and responsible new hire is likely to struggle with deadlines, not because they lack the skill or will, but because the system doesn’t support or reward timeliness.

Rethinking Hiring Criteria

If the system carries such weight in determining performance, the focus during the hiring process might better shift from scrutinising individuals to evaluating how well they would adapt and contribute to the existing system. In fact, this takes the pressure off finding the ‘perfect’ candidate. Instead, organisations might choose to find individuals who are most likely to interact beneficially with the existing system, or even better, improve it.

System Improvement Over Individual Perfection

Given the outsized impact of systems, organisations would do well to invest in improving these structures rather than in the endless quest for the ideal candidate. The irony is that by creating a better system, businesses can make it easier to find ‘better’ candidates. That’s because in a well-designed system, people have a clearer understanding of expectations, greater access to resources, and more opportunities for professional growth—all factors that contribute to improved performance.

The Ripple Effect

The emphasis on systems over individuals has a ripple effect across the organisation. It shifts the accountability from the employee to the leadership, placing the onus on management to create a system that fosters excellence. When issues arise, instead of questioning the individual’s capability, the first point of inspection becomes the system. This perspective fosters a healthier work environment, encouraging continuous improvement rather than blame allocation.

A Paradigm Shift is Due

The argument is not that individual skills and characteristics are irrelevant, but rather that they are hugely secondary to the system in which a person works. Adopting this viewpoint demands a shift in focus: from hiring the ‘perfect’ candidate to optimising the system for all employees, existing and new. This approach not only aligns better with Deming’s insights but also paves the way for a more adaptive and resilient organisation.

Wait. What? Are We Hiring For The RIght Positions In Any Case?

In the midst of dissecting the pros and cons of current hiring practices, an even more fundamental question arises: are we even hiring for the right positions? Organisations often default to traditional job titles and roles without deeply questioning what they actually need.

For instance, companies clamour to hire testers when the underlying aim is to improve quality. Yet, quality is an organisational issue, not just a testing problem. Instead of hiring more testers, it might be more useful to look at systemic issues affecting quality and address those directly.

Similarly, organisations seek to hire software developers when what they might really need are ‘attendants’: individuals who can understand and cater to users’ needs, ensuring the product or service genuinely solves a problem. A coder can write endless lines of impeccable code, but if they’re not attending to what people need, all that coding effort is futile.

In a nutshell, the dilemma is not merely about hiring the right people for existing roles but re-evaluating what those roles should even be. Reimagining positions to better align with actual organisational needs could well be the first step toward a more effective and meaningful hiring process.

Conclusion: Time for a New Perspective?

The traditional approach to hiring, with its emphasis on avoiding ‘bad’ hires, is increasingly questionable. Opting for a more fluid, pragmatic and less judgmental approach not only encourages a more inclusive culture but also speeds up organisational learning. It might be time to re-examine what we’ve long considered the ‘correct’ way to hire and be more open to the advantages of imperfection.