A recent article posted on ERE,net by Lou Adler reinforced the thesis advanced by Lynne Wallace in the September 2009 Prevue newsletter entitled The Hiring Process – What is the Target?

Lynne emphasized the importance of not hiring those people who are the poorer performers.

The Adler article notes that:

“Assuming the duds and the stars represent 10% of your total hires, it’s what you do with the other 90% that really matters.

To get a sense of the enormous financial impact of shifting people from the bottom half into the top half, first categorize the 90% into three big buckets — the Best, the Not Quite Best, and the Least-best. Based on these definitions they should be of equal size:

1. The best, or upper-third. These people represent the foundation of your company or organization. They work hard, frequently exceed expectations, do more than asked, achieve high-quality consistent results, can always be counted upon, need little direction, never make excuses, work extremely well with everyone, and can take over projects even when they have less expertise than normal. ……
2. The not quite best, or the middle-third. These are the partially competent. Generally they’re strong technically, but missing a key ingredient or two. On the other hand, they get the job done with limited direction, can be counted on in a crisis, work reasonably well with others, and get promoted when there’s no one else around, but they’re generally not the first choice. Sometimes they get hired because they seem safe.
3. The least-best, or the bottom-third. These are the people who just don’t fit somehow. Sometimes they’re good people in the wrong jobs. They need extra coaching and supervision to achieve average results. Often they cause unnecessary conflict. They are often hired because they interview well, are enthusiastic and affable, and have the requisite experience. If this group represents more than a third of your workforce, you have a real problem.

What’s surprising about the middle and bottom groups is that when they were hired they all seemed fully qualified. They all had the right experience, the right academics, and the right skills. Many of them even had the right behaviors and competencies specified on the job description. However, something happened after they were hired that caused a great many of them to underperform. This is typically due to lack of interest in the work, weak relations with the hiring manager, lack of team skills, poor cultural fit, and inconsistent work habits.

The cost of hiring these least-best people is enormous.”
Adler goes on at some length to try and quantify the cost based on examining average profit per new employee. But the real lesson in my mind for most of us should be the point made by Lynne Wallace. Lynne’s article simply concludes that we should make a real effort to make sure we Never Again hire “The least-best”.

The Lou Adler article concludes the best way not to hire the Least-best is to focus more attention on hiring “The best”. Although that is laudable and it certainly won’t hire to focus more effort on seeking people who will perform in the “upper-third” the article fails to emphasize the saving realized from not hiring “The least-best”.