What employers look for when deciding who to hire
For interview requests, click here
Speaking from personal experience, a bad hire isn’t a good look. The last thing you want is to hear, “Who the hell hired Bob?” and have your hiring judgment questioned.
The job seeker who’s empathetic to the employer’s side of the hiring desk, which controls the hiring process, is rare.
One of the best things you can do to enhance your job search is to practice perspective-taking, which involves seeing things from a different perspective.
It’s natural for employers to find candidates who are empathic and understand their challenges and pain points more attractive. Candidates like these are seen as potential allies rather than individuals only looking out for themselves. Since most job seekers approach employers with a ‘what’s in it for me’ mindset, practicing perspective-taking sets you apart.
Perspective-taking makes you realize that from an employer’s point of view, hiring is fraught with risks that employers want to avoid; thus, you consider what most job seekers don’t: How can I present myself as the least risky hiring option?
 Photo by Nick Fewings |
| Recommended |
| Rare is the jobseeker who does their homework
|
| Resume trickery never works
|
| Hiring is fundamentally a process of elimination
|
Here’s an exercise that’ll help you visualize the employer’s side of the hiring process.
Candidate A or B?
Imagine you’re the Director of Customer Service for a regional bank with 85 branches. You’re hiring a call centre manager who’ll work onsite at the bank’s head office, overseeing the bank’s 50-seat call centre. In addition to working with the call centre agents, the successful candidate will also interact with other departments, your boss, and members of the C-suite leadership team; in other words, they’ll be visible throughout the bank.
The job posting resulted in over 400 applications. The bank’s Applicant Tracking System (ATS) and human resources (phone interview vetting, skill assessment testing) selected five candidates, plus an employee referral, for you to interview. You aim to shortlist the six candidates to three, whom you’ll interview a second time, and then make a hiring decision. Before scheduling the interviews, which will take place between all your other ongoing responsibilities, you spend five to 10 minutes with each candidate’s resume and review their respective digital footprint and LinkedIn activity.
In your opinion, which candidate deserves a second interview?
Candidate A: Their resume provides quantitative numbers – evidence – of the results they’ve achieved. (Through enhanced agent training, reduced average handle time from 4:32 to 2:43 minutes, which decreased the abandon rate from 4.6 per cent to 2.2 per cent.)
Candidate B: Their resume offers only opinions. (“I’m detail-oriented,” “I learn fast.”)
Candidate A: Looks you in the eye, has a firm handshake, smiles, and exudes confidence.
Candidate B: Doesn’t look you in the eye and has a weak handshake.
Candidate A: Referred by Ariya, who’s been with the bank for over 15 years and has a stellar record, having moved up from teller to credit analyst and is tracking to become a Managing Director.
Candidate B: Applied online. Based on your knowledge, they did nothing else to make their application more visible. (for example, reaching out to you or other bank employees)
Candidate A: Well educated, grew up as a digital native, eager and energetic. Currently manages a 35-seat call centre for a mid-size credit union. They mention they called the bank’s call centre several times and suggest ways to improve the caller experience.
Candidate B: Has been working in banking for over 25 years, managing the call centre at their last bank for 17 years before being laid off eight months ago. They definitely have the experience to run a call centre. However, you have a nagging gut feeling that they’re just looking for a place to park themselves until they can afford to retire.
Candidate A: Has a fully completed LinkedIn profile (picture, eye-catching banner) packed with quantifying numbers. It’s evident how they were of value to their employers. Recently, they engaged constructively with posts and comments and published a LinkedIn article on managing Generations Y and Z call centre agents. Their Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter/X accounts aren’t controversial, sharing between ‘Happy Birthday’ and ‘Congratulations’ messages, their love of fine dining, baseball, and gardening.
Candidate B: Their LinkedIn profile is incomplete. The last time they posted on LinkedIn was seven months ago, ranting about how the government’s latest interest rate hike will plunge the country into a deep recession. Conspiracy theories abound on their Facebook page.
Candidate A: Notices the golf calendar on your desk, the putter and golf balls in the corner, and a photograph of Phil Mickelson putting on the green jacket at the 2010 Masters hanging on your wall. While nodding towards the picture, they say, “Evidently, you golf. Not being a golfer myself, what made you take up golf, which I understand is a frustrating sport?”
Candidate B: Doesn’t proactively engage in small talk. Waits for you to start the interview.
Which of the above candidates presents the least hiring risk? Will likely succeed (read: achieve the results the employer needs)? Will show your boss, upper management, and employees you know how to hire for competence and fit?
Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned veteran of the corporate landscape, offers advice on searching for a job.
The views, opinions, and positions expressed by our columnists and contributors are solely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of our publication.
© Troy Media Troy Media is committed to empowering Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in building an informed and engaged public by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections, enriches national conversations, and helps Canadians learn from and understand each other better.
