The number of founders I've heard claim they're good at hiring because they just *know* when someone is right is alarming. The same people often think the 'beer test' (is this someone you would like to share a beer with) is a good way of selecting people. This is just wrong. 1/n
Dropping in at the end of a recruitment process to drop the final judgement is highly flawed. How are you going to make a better call in 15 minutes of chat than your team did through a whole process? 2/
And I see so many people bigging up their killer approach to reference getting - despite the evidence showing they are a really poor predictor of actual performance. 3/
The issues are that:
1) Years of experience don't really determine how good at something someone is (someone could learn practically nothing in 5 years and someone else could have amazing learnings in 1) 4/
1) Years of experience don't really determine how good at something someone is (someone could learn practically nothing in 5 years and someone else could have amazing learnings in 1) 4/
2) Some1 doing a good job for a competitor doesn't mean they will be good for you. You have a unique culture that may not suit them. The competitor may have supported them differently/have a bigger brand. Don't confuse their value with the value of the seat they are sitting in 5/
3) Interviews are a very poor way of selecting people. Most only really test how good people are at interviews, not how good they are at the job you are hiring for 6/
Yet, years of experience at a relevant company and assessment by interview are 90% of the way people generally choose to hire people. 7/
Hiring better really can be your super power. For more on this, check out @LaszloBock's great book "Work Rules" amazon.com/Work-Rules-Ins…
Thank me later. /ends
Thank me later. /ends
