Hiring a promising candidate doesn’t guarantee a successful collaboration. Despite structured processes, impressive CVs, and multiple interviews, recruitment mistakes remain frequent.
According to a study by Leadership IQ, 65% of hires fail within 18 months — not because of a lack of technical skills, but due to behavioural, cultural, or motivational mismatches.
So how can we explain this paradox? And more importantly, how can we prevent it?
A vague definition of the “right candidate”
Behind every failed hire is often an overly vague or consensus-based brief. Employers say they’re looking for someone “autonomous, dynamic, able to work under pressure” — but rarely define what that actually means in the context of the team.
The risk: hiring a candidate who ticks generic boxes but doesn’t match the true nature of the role or the unspoken expectations of the manager or team.
What to do: define clear, specific, and measurable success criteria. These should be developed collaboratively with key stakeholders (manager, team, etc.) to ensure relevance and buy-in.
For example, these criteria could include:
- “Able to make independent technical decisions after three weeks”
- “Capable of leading a client meeting in English by the second month”
Defining and regularly reviewing these criteria not only helps evaluate integration and performance, but also guides any necessary support or development measures.
Ubiquitous evaluation bias
Even experienced recruiters are not immune to cognitive bias. These mental shortcuts — often unconscious — can distort judgement and significantly affect the objectivity of a candidate evaluation, especially in unstructured interviews.
One common example is the halo effect, where a dominant trait (such as natural charisma) influences perception of all other skills.
The risk: overvaluing strong communicators while underestimating quieter, yet equally competent candidates.
What to do: use a structured approach — standardised interview guides, diverse assessment methods (tests, role plays, peer feedback), and train recruiters to recognise and counter bias.
Such methods ensure the evaluation goes beyond technical abilities to include behavioural competencies and cultural fit.
Company culture: the missing piece
Job descriptions often overlook essential elements such as management style, communication norms, or the real level of autonomy expected. Yet cultural mismatch is one of the main reasons new hires leave during their probation period.
For example: a highly methodical person might feel overwhelmed in a fast-moving, agile environment. Conversely, a very independent profile may feel stifled in a hierarchical structure.
What to do: assess cultural fit early in the process. This can be done through targeted interview questions exploring how candidates handle conflict, collaborate in teams, or their ideal working environment.
Beyond interviews, psychometric tools offer deeper insight into a candidate’s compatibility with company culture, values, and leadership style. The goal isn’t just to confirm they have the technical skills, but to assess whether they will thrive and contribute positively to the existing environment.
Onboarding: often underestimated
Even the most promising recruitment will likely fail if onboarding is poorly managed. A lack of support, a disorganised induction, or no meaningful feedback can quickly erode the motivation of a new hire.
The risk: without a clear plan and regular touchpoints with their manager and team, new employees may struggle to find their place within the company culture.
What to do: implement a detailed onboarding programme with key milestones (e.g. first week, first month, third month). Involve them in team rituals to help build connections, and provide tailored support throughout the first three months to ensure a smooth skills ramp-up.
What can we do to reduce hiring mistakes?
To significantly reduce recruitment errors, organisations need to adopt a more strategic approach — one that goes beyond simply “recruiting better”. It involves three key elements:
- Reliable assessment tools: for accurate evaluation of both technical and behavioural competencies
- A deep understanding of the role: identifying specific success factors for that function
- Focus on integration and alignment: ensuring the candidate fits with the team and company culture
The aim isn’t perfection, but to reduce uncertainty — through data, thoughtful analysis, and a healthy dose of humility about our own human biases.
