Picture an art gallery hiring painters based solely on their ability to follow a paint-by-numbers template, or an athletics team selecting sprinters through written examinations. Absurd as these scenarios sound, they mirror how many corporations assess talent today. The result? A recruiting process that systematically drives away the very people companies most wish to hire.
The context conundrum
The problem begins with context—or rather, the lack of it. “Every role has a single job description, a single skill set requirement, and a single assessment process. However, the context in which a role is performed greatly impacts success,” explains Satyajit Mohanty, VP-HR, Dabur India. He cites the example of territory sales managers: though the title may be identical, the skills required can vary dramatically between regions due to differing market dynamics and customer behaviours.
“Every role has a single job description, a single skill set requirement, and a single assessment process. However, the context in which a role is performed greatly impacts success.”
Satyajit Mohanty, VP-HR, Dabur India
This contextual blindness is compounded by what might be called the consultant’s curse. Many firms outsource recruitment to external agencies staffed by former corporate HR managers. Rather than bringing fresh perspectives, these consultants often replicate the same flawed practices they used in their previous roles, creating a closed loop of ineffective hiring strategies.
The SOP straightjacket
The devotion to Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) further exacerbates the problem. While SOPs aim to ensure fairness and consistency, they often achieve neither. “Such policies can stifle high-potential employees,” notes Viekas K Khokha, CHRO, Sharda Motor Industries. “Even if a new hire demonstrates exceptional readiness for a leadership role, they are often held back by procedural red tape.” By the time these talented individuals qualify for promotion under rigid tenure requirements, many have already departed for greener pastures.
“Even if a new hire demonstrates exceptional readiness for a leadership role, they are often held back by procedural red tape.”
Viekas K Khokha, CHRO, Sharda Motor Industries
The challenge is particularly acute at the ground level. While many business leaders recognise the contextual nuances of hiring, they lack the expertise to redesign assessment methods. “It’s like a family member understanding a patient’s pain but not being qualified to prescribe a cure,” Mohanty observes. This disconnect between recognition of the problem and ability to solve it perpetuates ineffective hiring practices.
The measurement mirage
Perhaps most troubling is companies’ reliance on what might be called surrogate metrics—indirect measures that poorly correlate with actual job performance. “How does one evaluate risk-taking ability in a structured setup? How do you measure a person’s ability to follow through on execution?” asks Mohanty. Even sophisticated tools such as Hogan’s personality assessments offer only 70 per cent predictive validity, leaving a substantial margin for error.
“Companies often conduct multiple rounds of interviews, but there is little correlation between one round and the next.”
Praveer Priyadarshi, senior HR leader
The interview process itself often resembles a theatrical performance more than a genuine evaluation. As Praveer Priyadarshi, a senior HR leader, observes, “Companies often conduct multiple rounds of interviews, but there is little correlation between one round and the next.” Each interviewer may interpret responses differently, leading to inconsistent assessments and missed opportunities.
The culture clash
Cultural fit, too, often falls victim to standardised processes. Khokha points out that “a candidate’s ability to thrive within an organisation’s unique culture is often overlooked during assessments.” This oversight frequently leads to the hiring of technically qualified candidates who struggle to integrate into their new environment.
The consequences of this cultural misalignment are significant. Beyond the immediate costs of recruitment and training, organisations face the hidden expenses of reduced productivity, team disruption, and eventual turnover. Yet many companies continue to treat cultural alignment as an afterthought rather than a core component of their hiring strategy.
Breaking free from the trap
Some companies are beginning to chart a different course. Project-based assessments and skill-based testing are replacing traditional CV screenings. Blind hiring practices help eliminate unconscious biases. Referrals, when properly managed, can provide valuable insights into a candidate’s capabilities and cultural fit.
Priyadarshi advocates for a more nuanced approach to referrals: “They can be a powerful tool in identifying candidates who are not only technically skilled but also possess the right cultural fit for the organisation.” The referrer’s firsthand knowledge of both the candidate and the company culture can provide insights that no standardised assessment could capture.
The technology factor
Progressive organisations are also leveraging artificial intelligence and data analytics to enhance their hiring processes. These tools can help identify patterns in successful hires, predict candidate success rates, and even reduce bias in initial screenings. However, technology should complement, not replace, human judgment in hiring decisions.
Companies are also moving away from rigid tenure requirements for promotions, instead focusing on demonstrated capabilities and potential. This shift acknowledges that talent development rarely follows a standardised timeline and that artificial constraints on career progression often result in losing high-potential employees.
The cost of inaction
The stakes in this battle for talent could hardly be higher. In an era where innovation and adaptability determine corporate survival, companies can ill afford to alienate skilled candidates through outdated hiring practices. The irony is that many organisations recognise these problems but lack the expertise—or perhaps the courage—to implement meaningful changes.
The solution likely lies in a more dynamic approach to talent assessment, one that combines structured evaluation with contextual understanding. This might mean different assessment criteria for identical roles in different markets, or varying evaluation methods based on the specific demands of each position.
But perhaps the most crucial change needed is in mindset. Companies must recognise that hiring is not a process to be optimised for efficiency, but rather an investment to be optimised for outcomes. In the war for talent, the winners will be those who can look beyond standardised metrics to see the real potential in each candidate.a