Why are 1 in 4 hiring managers hiring the wrong people?

More than one in four hiring managers in Canada say they made a hiring mistake last year by onboarding an employee who quickly left for a higher wage or more flexibility, or who was otherwise not a good fit for the organization.

That’s according to a recent Robert Half survey that also reported 50 percent of Canadian employees said they have started or are going to start looking for new employment this year.

So, how can hiring managers and HR combat the unwelcome turnover when it comes to new employees?

Variety of assessment tools for hiring

Using a variety of assessment tools can improve the predictability of hiring success, says Julie McCarthy, professor of organizational behaviour and HR management at the University of Toronto Scarborough.

"If we have a battery of tests, we can improve that predictive validity. In other words, we can improve the chances that the person we're hiring is really going to be a successful hire," she adds. "A structured interview is one piece of the puzzle, but you might also do, for example, a work sample."

She suggested combining various methods, such as ability tests, personality instruments, and structured behavioural interviews, both in person and online, to maximize predictive accuracy.

Even professional recruiters don’t always get it right, she says, explaining that research has shown that recruiter ability to predict candidate success is only around 10 percent or less.

“You're never going to be able to predict 100 percent, but if you use a combination, then we can maximize that predictive validity number.”

Use data and get feedback

Face-to-face recruiting is making a comeback as a valuable tool for assessing candidates' interpersonal skills and organizational fit, as HR professionals are recognizing that in-person interviews can minimize digital “faking” and provide a more rounded assessment of “those interpersonal things, the communication, the personality, the fit with the organization,” says McCarthy.

Organizations have vast amounts of data at their disposal, but not all are analyzing it effectively, which is a missed opportunity for assessing where its hiring systems might be going wrong and leading to costly mistakes in hiring, she says.

“Analyze your system: What is the predictive validity of these assessment systems that you're using? Are there differences in terms of age and other variables?”

McCarthy also recommends seeking feedback from candidates to make informed changes: “Ask candidates, after they've been through the process, ‘What are your reactions to our assessment system?’ And make changes based on those candidate reactions.”

AI screening reduces bias but might select out senior applicants

Another way to find good candidates is through the use of AI. Some of the documented advantages of using AI to screen job applicants is the anonymity which it creates, meaning unconscious or cognitive bias does not have a chance to creep into the hiring process, says McCarthy.

“If you have a younger Gen Z, or even a millennial, and you throw an automated virtual interview at them … it doesn't phase them as much,” she says. “Boom, they do it, because they're used to this, they've grown up with technology.”

AI screening tools can help reduce bias by not requiring face-to-face interaction. McCarthy notes, "If we don't have to see somebody face-to-face, we don't have to collect data on their gender or their ethnicity. So it can actually reduce bias, because we know humans have innate cognitive bias."

However the same scenario could be anxiety-causing for older Millennial, Gen X or Boomer job applicants who aren’t as comfortable being on camera and interacting with technology spontaneously, she says.

A simple way that employers can even the playing field with virtual screening tests is by giving applicants an opportunity to “practice” first, says McCarthy.

“I think it's essential to enable that practice, and not everybody does it, but we know from research that it doesn't diminish the predictive validity by letting them practice. It's not going to hurt your selection tool,” she says. “Definitely let them practice, because I could see how more senior candidates would then feel more comfortable in doing it.”

McCarthy adds that in addition to allowing candidates to practice screening tests beforehand, assessing whether such tests are necessary in the first place can also be useful in helping qualified senior candidates through the gates.

“Being really careful about what exactly are you asking them to do, and is that really the best way to get at what it is you're doing, and if you're missing these highly-trained candidates in the initial screening, why is that the case?”