• 
• Training
• Consulting
• Resources
• Store
• About Us

• » Articles
• › The Official Rules for Hiring Top Talent
• › Newsletters

Hot Tip #7 - Problem of the Week: Hiring Managers Making Superficial Judgments.

By Lou Adler, April 10, 2007

Last week I saw the play 12 Angry Men starring Richard Thomas and George Wendt. This is a great play to see if you want to become a better recruiter and be entertained at the same time. From a recruiting perspective, you'll quickly learn what it takes to defend your candidate from dumb decisions. This is very important if your clients or those on the interviewing team have ever made incorrect assessments using superficial information, wrong information, or on the quality of the candidate's interviewing skills.

Read more articles by this author.

Related Topics:

Interviewing, Recruiter Hot Tips

Related Articles:

Hot Tip #29 - Humongous Techniques to Boost Your Recruitment Advertising Efforts

Hot Tip #28 - The Anatomy of a Great Ad

Hot Tip #27 - Double Your Placement Rate in Half the Time

The play itself involves a jury of 12 white males arguing the fate of a 16 year-old African-American accused of murdering his father. As the jury deliberations start, a quick up/down vote is taken - 11 guilty, one not sure. In a jury trial with a mandatory death penalty a unanimous verdict is required either for or against or there's a hung jury and a new trial.

The whole play involves heated discussions among the jurists justifying their votes. It's quickly clear that the initial votes were just quick emotional judgment based on each person's personal biases or emotional needs. One man is a true bigot, another one hates his son, another one wants to get to the ball game on time and a few don't really care; they'll just follow the crowd. The lone protagonist doesn't believe the evidence, which is flimsy at best, so suggests reviewing the evidence in more depth. The rest protest. "Why," they shout, "the evidence is clear." "The boy is guilty." As the play unfolds evidence emerges that puts the original - and apparently clear cut evidence - into increasing doubt. The woman who was sure she heard the shouting and saw the boy run from the building became questionable evidence once the jury realized a loud train passed-by at the same moment. A man who said he saw the boy run past his apartment became an unlikely witness when it was clear the man had a bad limp and could not go the required 53 feet in 15 seconds. As the facts emerged, the jurists one-by-one changed their vote to not guilty. As the play ended and the curtain came down all 12 men were sure of the boy's innocence - just as sure as they were of his guilt an hour before.

In my early recruiting days, I was confronted with a dominant CFO who thought my cost manager candidate was not strong enough either technically or in personality. While I was somewhat intimidated by the charge, I stood my ground because I had the facts. My candidate had recently led a successful and complex activity-based costing implementation project at a major multi-plant industrial manufacturing company. When I presented this information in the debriefing session, the CFO agreed that he might have made a superficial analysis based on the candidate's initial low key style. Over the next three years I made 12 placements with this CFO, all director and controllership positions. He trusted my judgment and would see any candidate I presented to him without question. He knew I always did my homework and had the facts to justify my reasons for presenting any candidate.

The lesson here: use evidence to justify and stand-up to your client's superficial analysis, if you believe a mistake has been made. Don't defend your candidate using BS, a loud voice, generalities or feelings. These are as bad as emotional decisions based on personality, presentation or gut feelings. Stand your ground, provide facts and details. You'll make more placements this way and gain a great reputation.