Most people will agree that when employees are more concerned aboutmakinga mistake than doing a good job, performance suffers. Employee selection is really no different. So why then do so many companies continue to add layer after layer to the selection process (specifically at the individual contributor level) merely in hopes that they don't hire an individual who will fall short of their expectations?

Themain reason companies continue to add layers is because they've madeless than stellarhiring decisions in the past and ended up bringing in employees that didn’t fit on either a technical or interpersonal level. So the knee jerk reaction is to add more layers to the process when the real work should go into designing the right process and how to evaluate the effectiveness of the process. Instead that’s not done and it simply becomes a longer more ineffective process that makes everyone feel good that they are doing their “due diligence”, but unfortunately it doesn’t bring about any better results over the long haul.

The kicker, of course, is how companies justify to themselves that the process works when the few people who make it though the mazelike selection process "do well" only"prove" it to be effective. Unfortunately the scrap heap of “failed” candidates is littered with many people who also would have been successful, but never had the opportunity due to a poorly designed interview structure.

Furthering the difficulty for companies is that complex, multi-layered, confusing hiring processes reflect poorly on them which of course is something that few companies can afford. So take a hard look at your process and see what it says about you, and remember two good steps is better than 10 bad steps in the hiring process.