There are words that sound more objective than they really are.
“They chose the best candidate.”
Maybe they did.
But that raises a more interesting question.
Best according to what?
We tend to talk about hiring and promotion decisions as though there is a single scale somewhere measuring every candidate from worst to best.
There isn’t.
There is a selection system.
That system decides what information matters, how that information is collected, which qualities are rewarded, who gets to make the decision, and ultimately what “best” means.
Best Is a Measurement
Consider two candidates for the same position.
One may understand the work better.
Another may interview better.
One may have a stronger record of solving difficult problems.
Another may have more visibility with leadership.
One may challenge assumptions.
Another may feel like the safer choice.
None of those qualities automatically makes someone the right or wrong candidate.
But they are not the same qualities.
So when an organization says it selected the best candidate, what it really knows is that it selected the candidate who performed best against whatever criteria its process actually rewarded.
Those criteria may be deliberate.
They may also be largely invisible.
The Process Creates the Outcome
A hiring process is a system.
So is a promotion process.
Like any other system, the design influences the result.
If interviews dominate the process, people who interview well gain an advantage.
If previous visibility matters, people who have worked closely with decision-makers gain an advantage.
If credentials are heavily weighted, credentials gain value.
If managers are punished heavily for a bad selection, familiarity and predictability may become more attractive than uncertainty.
Again, none of those things necessarily means the process is unfair.
It means the process has incentives.
And incentives shape outcomes whether we acknowledge them or not.
What Are We Actually Measuring?
This is where the question becomes useful beyond hiring.
Whenever a system claims to identify the best person, product, idea, or solution, it is worth asking what the system actually measured.
- What characteristics were considered?
- Which characteristics were ignored?
- How was the information collected?
- Who decided what mattered?
- What behavior did the process reward?
- What assumptions were built into the decision?
- What constraints affected the available choices?
Those questions do not prove the decision was wrong.
They tell us what the decision actually means.
Then Measure the Decision
There is another part of selection systems that interests me even more.
Organizations can spend enormous amounts of time evaluating people before making a decision.
Applications.
Interviews.
Panels.
References.
Assessments.
Scoring systems.
Then the decision gets made.
What happens next is more important.
Does anyone go back and determine whether the selection process actually predicted the outcome they wanted?
If the person succeeds, what did the process correctly identify?
If the person struggles, what did the process miss?
If the same kinds of candidates keep getting selected, do they consistently produce the desired results?
Without that feedback loop, an organization can repeat the same selection process for years without knowing whether it is particularly good at selecting people.
The process becomes proof of itself.
We chose the best candidate because our process chose them.
And we know the process works because it keeps choosing the best candidates.
Someone says:
“They chose the best candidate.”
/null considers the evidence.
“I’m sure they did. Again.”
The interesting part isn’t whether he believes them.
It’s the word again.
Because repeated outcomes tell us something about a system.
The question is what.
