Company B used the same hiring process they always use: sort resumes identify the people "on paper" or in their inbox; phone screens, resumes, rounds of interviews, reference checks and gut instincts.
The process included:
Multiple Interview Rounds
Each candidate had to navigate phone screens, 1:1s, and panel interviews, scheduled around the availability of busy people. Coordinating calendars delayed momentum.
Pitfall: Top candidates accept other offers during the lag time or become unengaged.
Manual Scorecards
Interviewers used subjective notes or loosely defined rubrics to assess candidates. Each stakeholder had a slightly different idea of what “good” looked like, leading to inconsistent evaluations and internal disagreements.
Pitfall: Bias, reliance on charisma and personality led to conflicting opinions of fit.
Delayed Decision-Making
With conflicting feedback and lack of clear data, leadership hesitated. Each round of discussion pushed timelines further, leaving critical roles unfilled while program needs mounted.
Pitfall: Slower hires increase workload on current team and the entire business suffers setbacks.
Reliance on Gut Feel
Ultimately, hiring decisions were made based on how well a candidate “felt” to the team not on data about how they’d actually perform or collaborate under pressure.
Pitfall: Mis-hires are common, and coaching plans (if any) are reactive rather than strategic.
.avif)
