Hiring is a Game of Chance – Here are Your Odds

Imagine you’ve just met a person who is a recognized top performer in her/his current company. This is someone in the top third of her/his peer group and a person designated for stretch assignments and promotion. What’s the probability that this person applied directly to the job she/he now has via a posting on a major job board? 

Along with the graphic, the following assumptions about the effectiveness of various sourcing channels and hiring processes will help you determine the answer. 

Group A: 25% – Applied to a traditional job posting. 

Research shows that only one in six (1 in 6) people hired this way turns out to be a top performer for some not so surprising reasons: the job was ill-defined, the screening was done on criteria that doesn’t predict performance AND the person took the job largely for economic reasons. This is the criteria on the left in the graphic. As a result this group has the most turnover and the lowest job satisfaction. In this case the people aren’t the problem, the process is. 

Group B: 20% – Found via direct sourcing (searching for candidates).

One in five (1 in 5) are top performers in this channel. In this approach recruiters look for candidates who possess the required skills but who didn’t see the job posting. Regardless, on-the-job performance is still problematic since the people hired from this group were found using the same criteria as Group A. Worse, the typical interview and assessment process is biased and/or too generic since real job needs are still vague. Many good people are uncovered with this approach, but too often they either opted-out early in the process or became disappointed when they discovered the job wasn’t what was promised. The process is still the problem. 

Group C: 20% - Found using targeted direct sourcing and persistent recruiting. 

One in three (1 in 3) people in this group are top performers. This is an Outbound sourcing process designed to attract people by first identifying those who are performance qualified (can do the actual work) AND are likely open to switching jobs AND who would see the job as an obvious career move. The difference between Group B and C is that the sourcing was done using criteria that correlates directly with top performance. In addition, persistent recruiting is required to get these people to see the career opportunity as the reason for considering the job. This results in a high initial response rate and 60-70% conversion into interested candidates. As important, an evidence- and performance-based assessment was used to increase interviewing accuracy AND the job represented a true career move since expectations were clarified ahead of time. 

This is a process worth adopting. 

Group D: 35% – People who were promoted internally or highly referred. 

Over half of the people found and hired this way turn out to be top performers since they were already known to be top performers before they were contacted. As important, they were contacted to handle projects that mapped directly to their proven skillset and the job itself represented a true career move for the person. Most important, the interview process was bidirectional meaning both the hiring manager and the candidate were equal buyers. 

This is a great process and one more companies are using to fill their critical positions. 

Now given these four approaches for finding people, what’s the probability that a top performer applied directly to the job she/he now has via a posting on a major job board? 

The answer: Given the assumptions, let's also assume the company hired 100 people over the past few years. Of these, 25 applied directly and only 4 were top performers (1 in 6). This is 4% of the total number of hires but 12% of the 33 who were top performers since you initially met a top performer. 

In general, in most companies their best performers were either referred or internally promoted. This is Group D. The next best sourcing channel is Group C since these people were “cherry picked” as likely top performers and then heavily recruited. In terms of hiring great people traditional direct sourcing (Channel B) is not much more effective than hiring those who apply directly. The primary reason is that the factors searched don’t correlate too well with top performance. 

Of course, companies use a mix of these sourcing channels, somewhat different filtering and interviewing tools and a variety of recruiting methods, some more effective than others. Regardless, it’s clear based on this scenario that focusing on hiring people who are already identified as top performers (Groups C and D) is the process companies should emphasize when starting any new sourcing initiative. 

Savvy job seekers can reverse engineer this advice by using job postings as leads only. Then use the backdoor to find the department head and submit a sample of your work that best meets the true performance requirements of the job. This is how you bypass HR and find a great job based on your past performance rather than becoming a statistic. 

_____________________________________________________

Lou Adler (@LouA) is the CEO of The Adler Group, a consulting and training firm helping companies implement Performance-based Hiring. He's also a regular columnist for LinkedIn, Inc. Magazine, SHRM and BusinessInsider. His new Performance-based Hiring self-paced learning course - The Hiring Machine - is now available 24/7. His latest book, The Essential Guide for Hiring & Getting Hired (Workbench, 2013) provides hands-on advice for job-seekers, hiring managers and recruiters on how to find the best job and hire the best people.