an average hiring process yields average results
What was really distressing was the statement that some companies are "in a hurry." That ensures problems... UNLESS... they design a more efficient Hiring Process. And they will repeat ' we don't have time.' Well... you have time to blow $50,000 on the mistake ? Engage someone else to do it that has experience with IT people. DO NOT expect the average HR department to do it. (not a popular opinion)-> They should be handling the mechanics the hire AFTER they clear the improved process.
We were a rapidly growing business app software company and needed two people a month. Being engineering-minded, we worked the numbers backwards; to get one GREAT hire , we would need to interview 5, review 25 and sift through 50 - 75 if we did an open market ad.
We re-built our previous Hiring Process ( which was processing 1/4th that number ) and smartly distributed the workload across our teams. We also educated our teams in how to review, interview. We created a new numerical scoring system that focused on the technical skills, people skills and the business acumen, not the usual generic HR stuff. We made each of the final five take an exam ( THAT weeded out several potential 'poor fits' ). The final five was made aware that IF they were hired, they would be on Probation for six months and would have to work out of it. ( that also got rid of a few 'poor fits' ). We also laid out the process in a flowchart and spreadsheet to calculate the time allowed for the hiring tasks for everyone to follow. And we did cast nets in our networks, personal and business.
It worked very well. It can be done. And it will save money and angst and lawsuits.
p.s. I love it / cringe when I hear tech startups who just got funded say " we need to hire 140 in the next month." Do they realize how many people they will have to process to get the best ? No. They usually just hire anybody close to the criteria, and then waste time un-hiring them.