Hiring mistakes start earlier than you think

72

HR Perspective with MEMORY NGUWI

MOST organisations assume hiring mistakes happen during interviews, but that is not where the problem begins. The real issue starts much earlier, at the point where job adverts and re­quirements are drafted. This is the foundation of the entire hiring pro­cess, and if it is flawed, everything that follows is compromised. Many organisations underestimate how much damage can be done at this early stage.

When you examine job adverts closely, a clear pattern emerges. Requirements are often inflated, ir­relevant, or copied from previous adverts without much thought. You will see degrees listed where they are not necessary, years of experi­ence specified with no clear link to performance, and vague competen­cies that are never defined. This rais­es a serious concern about whether organisations truly understand what drives performance in the roles they are trying to fill.

A job advert should be a precise filter based on the actual demands of the role. It should clearly identi­fy the capabilities, knowledge, and attributes required for success in a particular role. When this is not done properly, the organisation starts by looking for the wrong things. As a result, the pool of candidates attract­ed is already misaligned with the job before the process even moves to the next stage.

The next major breakdown hap­pens during shortlisting, and this is where many strong candidates are lost. In many cases, shortlisting is treated as a quick administrative task rather than a structured evaluation process. CVs are reviewed by one individual, often without clear crite­ria or a scoring framework. This lack of structure opens the door for bias to significantly influence decisions.

At this stage, candidates are of­ten screened based on personal preferences rather than job-related evidence. Factors such as names, ed­ucational institutions, previous em­ployers, or even CV presentation can influence decisions. These factors may have little or no relationship with actual job performance. The consequence is that capable candi­dates are eliminated early, while less suitable candidates progress simply because they fit a certain profile.

The absence of oversight makes the problem even worse. When one individual controls the shortlisting process without checks and balanc­es, errors go unnoticed. Good talent is filtered out before it has a chance to be properly assessed. By the time interviews are conducted, the organ­isation is already working with a compromised shortlist.

Even when candidates make it past shortlisting, the process contin­ues to rely on weak methods such as reference checks. Many organi­sations still depend on referees pro­vided by the candidate, assuming this will give an accurate picture of past performance. In reality, this approach is fundamentally flawed. Candidates naturally select referees who are likely to speak positively about them.

This creates a situation where the information gathered is biased from the outset. Negative or bal­anced feedback is rare, and the pro­cess does little to differentiate strong candidates from weak ones. Despite this, organisations continue to use reference checks as if they are a crit­ical decision-making tool. In most cases, they simply confirm existing assumptions rather than provide new insights.

The interview stage is often seen as the most important part of hiring, yet it is where many organisations struggle the most. A consistent issue is that many people who sit on inter­view panels have never been trained in how to conduct interviews. They are expected to assess candidates without a clear understanding of what to look for or how to evaluate responses. This lack of preparation leads to inconsistent and unreliable assessments.

At the same time, many organi­sations do not use structured scoring rubrics with clear expected answer guides. Panel members ask ques­tions, but there is no agreed standard for what constitutes a good response. This creates confusion and incon­sistency in scoring. Different panel members may interpret the same answer in completely different ways.

The problem becomes more obvious when panel members are asked to assess areas outside their expertise. For example, an HR man­ager or finance director may sit on a panel interviewing an engineer. Without a predefined framework, it becomes difficult to evaluate tech­nical responses accurately. In such cases, scoring is often based on con­fidence or presentation rather than substance.

This is where interviews lose their value as an assessment tool. When there is no structure, deci­sions are driven by impressions rath­er than evidence. Candidates who speak well or present themselves confidently are rated highly, even if their technical capability is lacking. Meanwhile, capable candidates who are less polished may be overlooked.

Unstructured interviews are par­ticularly problematic because they lack consistency. Different candi­dates are asked different questions, and there is no uniform basis for comparison. This makes it difficult to evaluate candidates fairly. The outcome is often a hiring decision that reflects personal bias rather than objective assessment.

Hiring failures are not caused by a lack of talent in the market. They are caused by weak processes that fail to identify the right people. When organisations fix the process, they fix the outcome.

• Nguwi is an occupational psy­chologist, data scientist, speaker and managing consultant at In­dustrial Psychology Consultants (Pvt) Ltd, a management and hu­man resources consulting firm.