- The job description is non-existent or incomplete.
- The critical success factors of the job are not correctly identified.
- The interviewer is insufficiently qualified, not prepared or is rushed.
- The interview questions are not constructed so as to elicit a full understanding of the candidate’s skills, competencies and motivation.
- Insufficient probing is undertaken when vague or incomplete answers are provided by the candidate.
- The interview questions used, only elicit theoretical or opinion-based answers (eg ‘would do’, ‘could do’, ‘should do’ rather than behavioural based answers (eg ‘have done’ etc).
- Each candidate for the same job is asked different questions.
- Answers to questions are not graded or rated to enable comparisons to occur across competing candidates.
- Too much emphasis is put on existing skills rather than understanding what the candidate’s behavioural competencies (or transferable skills) and motivations are.
- Too much emphasis is put on hiring people who are just like everyone else in the team or organisaton.
- Insufficient or inadequate background checking is undertaken or the results of these checks are minimised or ignored (hello, Brisbane Lions!).
- The way a candidate ‘performs’ at an interview is taken as a reliable indication of how they will perform in the job. (Tip: Interviewing is a skill that can be learned by people who then, at the interview, ‘dazzle’ hiring managers who are unskilled at recruiting).
The Fevola saga still has some days to run, but regardless of what the outcome is, you can be sure that the Brisbane Lions will now be taking a more cautious and thorough approach to their hiring processes.
What potential gaps are there in your company’s hiring processes?