Wall Street & Technology is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Careers

09:30 AM
Andrew Waxman
Andrew Waxman
Commentary
Connect Directly
LinkedIn
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

The Bad Hiring Decision Is Worse Than None At All

Managers need to make sure they make good hiring decisions, or they risk long-term damage to their entire group.

How important is it to make good hiring decisions? Particularly when it is a strategically significant hire, hardly anything is more important. The risk or downside of bad hires, however, tends to be consistently underestimated, or discounted completely. Typically firms are more focused around the risk of not hiring and of lacking the resources to enable them to meet their goals. That however can be a better situation than bringing onboard the wrong person.

So what are the risks in taking on potentially the wrong person for a new role? Firstly, the person does not know the field in which s/he is supposedly an expert. Background checks and interviews are the key controls to mitigate this risk. Today with social channels such as LinkedIn, it should be fairly straightforward to check a person's background. Yet, it is still something that firms frequently fail to adequately do. A LinkedIn profile and a resume with obvious gaps are red flags that are often missed. To avoid this, make sure before making a hiring decision your organization does the due diligence required to cross-check requirements with experience and skill set. Any issues should be flagged to address during the interview process. Automation and the use of certain analytical tools can certainly play a role in this.

Nevertheless, the risk of technical incompetence pales in comparison to the problems that can arise by hiring the behaviorally challenged. Hiring someone who is a poor fit within an organization’s culture or team can negatively impact the performance of the whole team. An overly self-promoting personality, for instance, can serve to undercut the performance and contribution of others. To protect against such hires, interviews, behavioral tests and reference checking are important tools but are hardly foolproof and attention needs to be paid to the stories they tell. Analysis of job change should lead to questions. Similarly, red flags should be raised by a candidate fussing too much about status, the size of an office, for example, or flip-flopping on whether or not to accept an offer.

Many of these red flags should be obvious to experienced managers, but often hiring managers will at times choose to hire in spite of them. Why, one might ask? In some cases, it may simply be desperation to hire and hire quickly to fill a gap in the team. Another case is the reluctance or failure of a long-term successful CEO, organization head, or even sports team coach, to pick an effective successor. Envy and jealousy are powerful motivators for negative behaviors. For instance, the CEO has an enviable record but may still be somewhat insecure about his place in history. Would another talented individual, given the same resources at his disposal, be able to match or even exceed his results?

A realistic mitigation strategy has to address these powerful realities of human behaviors that undercut business logic. Somehow, the envious must be shown that hiring or promoting the less talented will in the long run not help their own case for promotion. Psychologist Naomi Schragai, writing in the Financial Times, argues that one should aim to leverage these seemingly negative emotions for powerful positive use. View the hire of a talented colleague as a means to raising one's own and the team's performance, rather than as a negative thing. Instead of being responsible for another expensive mistake, making these changes to hiring habits and processes will help organizations improve their performance.

Andrew Waxman writes on operational risk in capital markets and financial services. Andrew is a consultant in IBM's US financial risk services and compliance group. The views expressed her are those of his own. As an operational risk manager, Andrew has worked at some of the ... View Full Bio
More Commentary
A Wild Ride Comes to an End
Covering the financial services technology space for the past 15 years has been a thrilling ride with many ups as downs.
The End of an Era: Farewell to an Icon
After more than two decades of writing for Wall Street & Technology, I am leaving the media brand. It's time to reflect on our mutual history and the road ahead.
Beyond Bitcoin: Why Counterparty Has Won Support From Overstock's Chairman
The combined excitement over the currency and the Blockchain has kept the market capitalization above $4 billion for more than a year. This has attracted both imitators and innovators.
Asset Managers Set Sights on Defragmenting Back-Office Data
Defragmenting back-office data and technology will be a top focus for asset managers in 2015.
4 Mobile Security Predictions for 2015
As we look ahead, mobility is the perfect breeding ground for attacks in 2015.
Register for Wall Street & Technology Newsletters
Video
Exclusive: Inside the GETCO Execution Services Trading Floor
Exclusive: Inside the GETCO Execution Services Trading Floor
Advanced Trading takes you on an exclusive tour of the New York trading floor of GETCO Execution Services, the solutions arm of GETCO.