You're not in the gaming industry, nor are we.

Hiring errors are costly. In the past, companies got away with making crucial errors in their leadership hiring decisions or recruiting processes because the market was forgiving and it was easy to rectify the mistake (usually a wrong-hire) by finding a replacement. But this is no longer possible- the huge management costs in terms of time wasted & money spent, the pain of miss-hiring is no longer that easy to overcome. Is there a way then to avoid these mistakes or at the least, reduce these errors ?

Yes, we strongly believe that reducing the randomness quotient from the hiring process & decision brings about significantly reduced hiring mistakes. After all, Science has a big role to play in leadership hirings & it is not about judgement alone. Every one of us believes that our judgement capabilities are perfect & comparing two judgements is after all a judgement in itself !

So what is this randomness factor & how does it creep in ?

Randomness in a hiring process is like a systematic error in a statistical sampling process, it is both difficult to identify or accept & correct. Only a detailed analysis of your hiring process alerts us to its presence. And if does exist, given any particular hiring scenario & company set up, it doesn't matter how many more candidates you interview for a position, the error remains unchanged. Such errors can be located & minimized with careful analysis and design of the hiring process, or by adhering to our benchmarked & set hiring practices for which have a known reference value of success & adjusting the process to obtain the desired results. Here are a few examples of the process points where such errors seep in:

Lack of a clear objective: Often, clients are not be specific enough about the duties, skills, and competencies required. Some other times, they concoct “wish lists” of super-human attributes, combined with unrealistically low compensation relative to expectations of the experience needed; and then there are hazy, ambiguous descriptions along with generalities, all of this creates havoc in a talent search. It is much easier to hit a clearly defined target, hence together with the client, we ensure our presence at the drawing board of developing the job and person specifications.

Having unrealistic ideas of what kind of candidates might be available: There is no such thing as the perfect candidate, and waiting for one is as unrealistic as searching for one. The only way to become realistic  about  what  the  market  might  bear  is  to  research it & we do a great job of it. We counsel you with authority on what and who is available and the commensurate earnings expected. Each and every mandate we undertake is treated as an original search, thanks to our systematic identification research process and mapping of all the members of the relevant market. These results are supplemented by appropriate members of our own extensive database from previous searches.

The confused objectives of too many or inappropriate decision makers: Studies have gone beyond mere anecdotal evidence & have shown that once the number of people in the interviewing process exceeds three, the probability of a bad hire is greater. While the client may wish to spread the risk of decision-making, but objectivity is lost as a result. Having the wrong people in the decision making process is equally risky. We interject to ensure this goes right.
Process that take too long: When a hiring process takes too long, good candidates are lost to more decisive companies, it reflects badly on your brand and it gets harder and harder to fill the vacancy. Slick, quick process impress candidates and make them feel worthy of that job in the organization. The “shelf life” of quality candidates is increasingly short. We ensure you maintain the hiring momentum.

Poor interviewing techniques: Preparing for the interview, analyzing & comparing responses (quickly) equates to efficient and objective recruitment. Sadly, this rarely happens. We handhold you to make that happen, after all, you were hired to run a business & not recruit leaders every day. We prepare structured, disciplined interview techniques that when applied to every candidate in exactly the same manner is the most objective way to compare candidates.

Referencing & Background Checks: Like the candidate interview itself, reference checks are most effective when they are well-structured and integrated thoughtfully into the hiring process. Most often than not, we observe informal or casual conversations yielding impressions only & not objective assessment data which can be analyzed. We help you answer important questions such as who is an appropriate referee, what qualifications should be assessed, what type questions to be asked are permissible under law, we help you in assigning competency ratings, integrating references & reference methods & a final analysis. Thereby, a structured intervention increases the hiring manager's confidence in the results obtained and enhance the legal defensibility of the process.

These are only some of the facets of intervention from our end which reduces the error bias in any hiring process we get involved. For more information, talk to us.