When Ego Hinders Efficiency

Both job seekers and HR professionals are watching as the hiring process, in length, is drawn out exponentially. Companies are striving to secure the purple unicorn [perfect candidate], the number of interviews and steps involved in hiring has ballooned, which leads to frustration for all parties involved. Front line managers want them to start tomorrow, middle managers want to feel included in the process, and top level management often time only sees the bottom line effected. An under-discussed factor contributing to this trend is the reluctance of front line managers to admit they may have made an incorrect choice, often driven by ego. This article delves into the impact of this phenomenon on the hiring process and advocates for a more efficient approach: hiring fast and firing faster when necessary.

The Inflation of Interview Stages

In recent years, the hiring process has become notoriously protracted. I experienced this when I was looking for a job and I know countless people who are searching after layoffs and are experiencing 9 rounds of interviews. According to a report by Glassdoor, the average length of the hiring process in the United States was 23.8 days in 2017, up from 22.9 days in 2014. The number of interview stages has also increased, with some candidates enduring upwards of five to seven rounds before a decision is made. Here is a breakdown of several interview processes I found:

• Screening interview with a recruiter
• Interview with a senior team member
• Front line manager interview
• Front line manager interview (from a different team)
• Case study, project, or presentation of some kind
• Middle manager interview
• VP or C-Suite "meet & greet"

This trend is not just a byproduct of thoroughness; it reflects a deeper issue of front line managers’ reluctance to acknowledge mistakes.

The Role of Ego in Hiring Decisions

Hiring is inherently risky, and the pressure to make the right decision can be immense. For front line managers, admitting that a new hire isn't working out can feel like a personal failure. I get it, a font line manager doesn't want a blemish on their record, they are newly appointed just getting the taste of management and corporate America is cutthroat, they want to grow and have a false sense that if they admit they made a mistake it will look poorly on their evaluation or promotional chances. A study by Leadership IQ found that 46% of new hires fail within the first 18 months! Despite this high failure rate, many front line managers hesitate to admit a mistake due to ego and fear of tarnishing their judgment. This hesitancy leads to extended hiring processes as front line managers attempt to overcompensate by seeking an elusive "perfect" candidate.

The Cost of Prolonged Hiring

A prolonged hiring processes have tangible costs. For organizations, a lengthy hiring process can lead to lost productivity, increased workloads for existing staff, and higher recruitment costs. A report by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) estimated that the average cost-per-hire is $4,129. Lengthier processes inflate these costs and can result in losing top talent to more agile competitors. For candidates, extended hiring processes can lead to job offer declines and a negative perception of the company. The interview process I referenced above is at minimum a 7 hour investment by the candidate and that is being generous with low preparation hours.

A Better Approach: Hiring Fast, Firing Faster

Gary Vaynerchuk coined the mantra "hire fast, fire faster, and promote fastest" which advocates for swift hiring decisions and equally prompt action when a hire doesn't work out. This approach requires a cultural shift within organizations, where making a hiring mistake is viewed as a learning opportunity rather than a personal failure. Here are key strategies to implement this approach effectively:

1. Streamlined Interview Processes: Reduce the number of interview stages. Aim for a maximum of three rounds, ensuring each round has a clear purpose and contributes meaningfully to the decision-making process.
2. Clear Evaluation Criteria: Establish clear, objective criteria for evaluating candidates. This reduces reliance on subjective judgment and minimizes the risk of ego-driven decisions.
3. Trial Periods: Implement trial periods for new hires, with defined performance metrics and regular feedback sessions. This allows both the employer and the employee to assess fit early on.
4. Foster a Learning Culture: Encourage a culture where mistakes are seen as opportunities for growth. Provide training for managers on how to handle hiring missteps constructively.
5. Transparent Communication: Maintain open communication with candidates throughout the process. If a hire isn't working out, address the issue promptly and professionally.

The Benefits of a Proactive Hiring Strategy

Adopting a "hire fast, fire faster" approach can yield significant benefits. It reduces the time-to-fill positions, allowing organizations to maintain productivity and agility, enhances the candidate experience by providing timely decisions and reducing the uncertainty associated with prolonged hiring processes. Furthermore, it cultivates a culture of accountability and continuous improvement within the organization.

The reluctance of front line managers to admit hiring mistakes, often driven by ego, contributes to unnecessarily lengthy hiring processes. This inefficiency not only burdens organizations with higher costs and lost productivity but also frustrates job seekers and tarnishes the employer brand. By embracing a "hire fast, fire faster" approach, organizations can mitigate these issues, fostering a more agile and resilient workforce. It's crucial to ask: How can we shift our mindset to prioritize efficiency and learning over ego, ensuring a more effective and humane hiring process for all?

References

• Glassdoor Economic Research. (2017). "Why is Hiring Taking Longer?" Retrieved from Glassdoor
• Leadership IQ. (2018). "Why New Hires Fail." Retrieved from Leadership IQ
• Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). (2016). "2016 Human Capital Benchmarking Report." Retrieved from SHRM