A critical function of hiring feedback is to reveal when a process consistently dismisses strong candidates. The team that admits the errors of its ways and tweaks its hiring criteria to prevent recurrences of these mistakes is better positioned for the next hiring round. In some cases, simply changing the hiring process isn’t enough – by bringing in a new type of hire, the day-to-day operation of the team might need to change as well.
Not all hiring errors are related to the overall system. A hiring team that concludes its consistent dismissal of strong candidates has nothing to do with the system must take a closer look at how it analyzes candidates. I favor Lombardi’s approach of encouraging talent evaluators to discuss candidates solely in the context of the role they would fill for the team. The basic task, after all, is to find candidates who can perform a specific function.
If an evaluator carelessly dismisses a candidate, he or she should be reminded that the job isn’t about rejecting prospects. Instead, the evaluation should focus on looking for the best in a candidate. I think it works much better in the long run when the hiring team focuses on finding the best in a candidate rather than looking for weaknesses for two reasons. First, hiring someone who lacks weaknesses guarantees a new hire who will not make certain types of errors but says nothing about whether this person can perform the job. Second, hiring someone who has the strengths needed for the role puts the onus on the existing team to create the conditions required for the new hire to succeed. From my experience, I’d much prefer to bet on the existing team to help a new person rather than put all my chips on having hired the right person after just a few hours of exposure during the hiring process.
