EQ and counterproductive metrics

It’s not just AI. We hallucinate too.

We wonder why ChatGPT and other AI models sometimes “hallucinate.”

They learned it by watching us.

Recruiting is a numbers game. Except we’re in the people business. We look at numbers of screens, submissions, interviews, time to fill, submission to fill ratios, offer acceptance ratios, etc. Over time, when these numbers are optimized, hiring organizations see positive results.

But all people are different. If we were all interchangeable modular parts like Tom Wambsgans (if you know, you know), metric optimization would be the only thing that matters.

Yet if you ask 100 recruiters to follow the same script, working the same openings, for the same amount of time, you’ll find wildly different results. Some have ‘it’ figured out.

That ‘it’ being EQ.

They intrinsically realize there’s another level to this bizarre work of corporate matchmaking. They close their mouths, open their ears, and realize when they talk to other job seekers with the same EQ talent.

Yes, there are job seekers who are better able to present themselves to a wider interviewing audience than others. Regardless of how many boxes they do or don’t check. Because they too know when to close their mouths and open their ears.

There are certain people who seem to have an easier time finding jobs than others. And there are certain recruiters who seem to find these people more frequently, too.

Both groups, I suspect, realize that firing off 100 resumes or blasting 100 InMails has its limits.

We’re creatures of habit. It’s not our fault that we’re pre-programmed to continue pushing the rock up the hill. And it’s a tough market, no doubt.

If you feel like it’s Groundhog Day, dump the playbook and listen for what you’re missing.

James Hornick

Partner at Hirewell. #3 Ranked Sarcastic Commenter on LinkedIn.