Sometimes, others say it better than we, and leave us nothing to do but quote them.

Thank you @Dr. John Sullivan for hitting the nail on it's head, and so accurately describing exactly what we do:)

"46% of hires fail, and Google found interviews can have a lower predictive value than a coin flip. Also, research by Gallup found that “Companies fail to choose the candidate with the right talent for the job 82% of the time.” In my experience, you can fairly blame the common hiring interview for many of these hiring failures.

Interviews are the most dominant and, at the same time, the most flawed candidate assessment tool. The most common interview flaws that should be documented range from untrained interviewers, illegal questions, not keeping track of interviewer scores, and an interview process that has no built-in process for continuous improvement.

Moreover, everyone knows that without adequate documentation, you can’t continually improve using failure analysis to determine the root causes of most interview failures. Both statistical correlations and AI are ineffective without documenting data covering what specific factors accurately predicted the new-hire’s on-the-job performance.

Unfortunately, very few interview processes, whether in corporate or small businesses, keep more than the most basic documentation and data after the candidate starts the job. Without that documentation in important areas like the scores given by each interviewer, the questions asked, and the answers provided. No one will be able to go back and find the flaws that occurred. And then fix them for upcoming interviews.

In this brief article, I am highlighting the many areas where hiring interviews should be better documented and why it’s necessary."

#interviews #informedecisions