Good hiring holds the key to a company's success
It pays to hire well: A bad hire can equate to costing an employer as much as 30% of an employee’s salary, while another survey estimates that poor mental health can cost up to €2,000 yearly per employee.
Interviews are a two-way experience. A dance of sorts. One in which job-seekers and hirers simultaneously evaluate the merits of hooking up. While each might endeavour to impress, only one leads. Lying is not allowed.
It takes skill on the part of an interviewer to hire the right person.
As Hilt founder and CEO, Sinead English, says: “While initial screening is often carried out by HR specialists who are skilled at assessing applications, the task of interviewing can then go to individuals, who, while they may be heads of operations, finance, or marketing, may not have the skills required.
“Being a good judge of people, or a good conversationalist, does not automatically make someone a skilled interviewer. Because that is a learned skill, and small mistakes can cost organisations the best talent, it makes sense to leave hiring to those who have trained for the task.”
Nepotism and cronyism are just two of the factors that can influence hiring managers to hire the wrong person. Whatever the reason, it happens a lot. CareerBuilder research indicates it’s something 75% of employers have experienced.
As for the cost of a bad hire, the jury’s out. According to Business.com, it can be as much as 30% of an employee’s salary. Separately, IBEC estimates that poor mental health can cost up to €2,000 yearly per employee.
While they might be more aware of it than most, trained interviewers are – like everyone else – prone to bias. Whether this is of the positive or negative sort, it’s always unfair. Which is why, if you’re in the market for a job, you’re in a battlefield. One in which smarts, beauty and skills, battle bias, machines and error.
We’re told that in the recruitment game, the beautiful, tall and male are professionally advantaged. What we’re not told – and it’s probably safe to assume – is that the aforementioned favourable bias is primarily reserved for cisgender men. Why? Because even in the unfairness battle, all is not equal, with workplace prejudices regularly impacting minorities more than others.
“Being aware of bias is important,” says English. “It can creep in, even when interviewers believe they are being objective. Hiring managers often give more weight to a candidate’s years of experience than to the quality of their skillset. Job adverts often specify a minimum of ten years’ experience in a similar role.
"Yet, ten years on paper could be one year’s experience repeated ten times. For this reason, it’s advisable for employers to focus instead on what candidates can demonstrably do and on all they can bring to a role.”
Asked about how employers view a frequent change of jobs, she replies: “When they see this on a CV, they often see it as evidence the candidate is a job-hopper. This can be the assumption, even though that individual might have been working on short-term contracts or rapidly growing their experience.”
As for those who have spent decades in the same job, she says recruiters should not automatically deem them to be too set in their ways to take on a new role.
People favour people who share similar interests, backgrounds and experiences. Hiring managers are no different. “It’s common for them to favour people similar to themselves,” says English. “They think they are ‘the same’ and that because of this, they will fit in with their team. This sort of thinking can cloud their judgment.”
To avoid this and to ensure a fairer and more objective comparison between candidates – one that minimises bias and allows for consistent data collection, she recommends structured interviews – the standardised assessment process under which every candidate is asked the same questions and evaluated against the same criteria.
While this interview tool has merit, English acknowledges its ability to predict job performance can be low.
Recruiters know they have to be careful with their words, with some being better at asking suitable questions than others.
On the wisdom of beginning an interview with a welcome, she says: “This can be followed by something along the lines of: ‘Congratulations on getting to the interview stage for a role in which there was lots of interest’.
“That said, employers might next remark that the candidate’s CV made interesting reading. They might then ask that person to use the next couple of minutes to share how they think their experience to date would be of benefit to the organisation.”
Revealing how hiring managers can easily trip up, she gives the example ‘Can you tell us a little bit about yourself?’.
“It’s a good idea to avoid asking that at an interview,” Sinead English says. ‘Can you talk us through your CV?’ is no better.
Explaining why, she says: “Questions like these can make candidates nervous. This may lead to them blurting out irrelevant personal information.
“At an interview, small details matter. Concise instructions and maintaining focus on relevant questions can make a positive difference. It’s good to keep comments neutral. ‘Nice day out there today,’ is good. So too is avoiding questions about personal matters such as family, travel, or religion. At every touchpoint, employers should be aiming for a professional, respectful, and consistent approach.”
Sharing that follow-up questions are essential to uncovering the depth of a candidate’s experience and for distinguishing candidates who are genuinely capable from those relying on rehearsed or AI-generated responses, she says: “To get around scenarios of that nature, hiring managers might ask something along the lines of: ‘You say you spent six months doing that. Tell us what else you had on your plate during that time.’ Or: ‘You mentioned resources. Tell us more about that.”
She says that when interviewing, employers should pay attention to red flags such as excessive pauses, overly polished answers and inconsistencies between what a candidate’s CV states and what they are saying at interview.
“AI tools have changed the recruitment landscape,” she says. “80 per cent of candidates are using these platforms to prepare their CV. This is absolutely fine once they’re not getting AI to lie for them.”
Lying is as old as time. Interviewees answering questions online with real-time AI prompts, not so much. To manage this until recently unheard of scenario, hirers are pushing back. Some adopt policies such as ‘camera on for the duration of the interview’ and perform regular screen-sharing checks.
Using machines to generate replies at interview is not a good idea. It might give one candidate an unfair advantage over another. Worst case scenario it might facilitate lying about experience. But employers’ responding by taking the liberty, at online interviews, to gawk while a nervous candidate obediently pans their camera around their room is invasive. Outrageously so. Whether they’re sitting in a tiny studio rental, or aboard a yacht on the high seas – assistance dog at their feet – should be their business only.
Any good hiring manager should notice if an interviewee is attentive and speaking from memory, rather than making stuff up and relying on machine prompts to sound convincing. They should notice if they are repeating the questions asked, so as to instigate a typed response from AI, which they then read aloud.
There’s much that employers can do to attract the best talent to their organisation.
As English says: “Because recruitment outcomes are impacted by candidate perception of the hiring process, hiring managers should think about how well written the job ad is and whether it reflects clearly what’s required for the role. Sometimes the responsibilities list is four times longer than it should be and companies take too long to get back to people after they apply, or interview. Negative experiences can turn candidates away – even from senior roles.”
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
