When I was in high school Biology during the early 90s, my teacher spoke of a new emerging technology called the Internet.  It had been around for a while but had not really caught on outside of scientific and academic circles as computers were for geeks, and most people didn’t see their benefit over using a typewriter.  He spoke of the ability to access information about  breakthroughs in science as if you you were down the hall from the actual experiment and having immediate access to information from all over the world.  Most people thought this type of technology was for large companies like AT&T and IBM, and the idea a personal computer could retrieve information from some nebulous place on the other side of the world was completely foreign and pretty much inconceivable.

In my naiveté, I did not realize he was really referring to the emergence of the global community.  The Internet is something which joins everyone together and enables interaction with someone across the world without ever leaving the comforts of the living room.   Transactions can be conducted by anyone with access to a computer, and what was once an exotic item from a foreign country is now a few clicks away on sites like Amazon and EBay.  All that is required is the belief that the person on the other side of the connection is legitimate.  

In the past, the beginning of trust was largely based on who people commonly knew.  If a friend endorsed someone, that person was probably trustworthy.  This concept propelled earning a college degree into being a popular activity, as it was a kind of voucher indicating that a person is diligent and has a strong work ethic.  A potential employer could look at an academic record or ask a colleague and, based on the results, know if the company found a good fit for an open position.  Along with the person’s interview, most people felt secure in knowing they made the right hiring decision.

Today, this isn’t necessarily true.  Attracting and hiring potential candidates has become a global search for the right person.  Twenty years ago, a company would place an ad in the local newspaper or engage a staffing agency to seek the ideal employee.  Now, organizations post jobs on their web site or with companies like Dice and Monster, and a candidate’s ability to find the perfect job is only limited by a willingness to explore the web.  Although this is favorable for the both the employer and the employee, the employer ultimately faces a new hurdle, filtering through a pool of global candidates.  Moving to any part of the world has become an almost trivial matter. This, coupled with technological breakthroughs removing the need to enter the office, the probability of working with people who are all from the even the same country is small. As a result, verifying assumptions about person’s character through traditional means is difficult at best.  Hiring managers can no longer depend on an employee knowing a potential candidate or having heard of the university he or she attended.  Employers are forced into trusting a façade and must ultimately face the truth that it is almost impossible to spot a character flaw in an interview as very few candidates will share firsthand experiences of their own inappropriate behavior.

Companies like Google, Microsoft, and Apple have a decent solution, and it’s termed “When in doubt, no hire.”  This is perfect for them, because they literally have thousands of applicants.  They look for a very specific type of person and are most likely going to find at least two or three. Their interviews are long and brutal and focused at learning everything possible about a candidate.  They can afford to discount someone because that person likes the color blue, and blue is considered the enemy, because someone else of equal caliber will more than likely be available.  Most companies don’t have that luxury because they haven’t achieved an exalted status in the eyes of potential employees.  They don’t have thousands of people trying to interview simply so they can glimpse inside the secret haven of a celebrity company. As a result, they are often compelled to hire who is available, not who is ideal.

A bad hiring decision can be one of the costliest mistakes an organization can make.  Between the lost productivity of other coworkers during the former employee’s tenure and the work required to clean up the mess left behind, removing a bad apple can be a long and painful process.  Some dodge the situation by not firing the employee in hopes the situation will correct itself.  For others, justice is swift; if a new employee isn’t working out, the company quickly reacts trying to prevent as much damage as possible.  Either way, the recovery process is often expensive.

For some organizations, hiring may be little more than an educated guess. Others take a systematic approach and utilize assessments. This way, a candidate’s strengths can be viewed in light of the competencies required for a position. As a result, a number of factors are considered in addition to work history and is based on the realization that the new hire must  work well within the established culture to advance the organization’s agenda.  

Currently, companies can ponder over candidates and extend the amount of time needed to make a hiring decision.  As the economy emerges from the recession, candidates will regain the advantage over employers in terms of finding new jobs, and companies will have to quickly make tough decisions as other companies will attempt to hire the same candidates.  If only armed with cursory knowledge an applicants’ background, these decisions will essentially result in flipping a coin with potentially expensive consequences. In the end, organizations will benefit once they realize it is very much to their benefit to carefully understand a candidate's potential strengths and weakenssses before extending an employment offer.

Kevin Miller