Why your sales hiring process is failing you (and what to do about It)

Humans are emotional animals. This is a proven fact in sales and one that is too often overlooked by salespeople. But it is also a fact in recruitment, which means that many biases cause us to make decisions that are not the most beneficial. And that prevents us from having the best possible sales team. Why and how do these biases work against us?

How can biases impact your recruitment?

When an organisation uses a CV at the start of the recruitment process, it skews the decision on many levels. Typically, a recruitment process seeks to validate a candidate's skills. But reading the CV skews this if the candidate's name is, for example, from a different culture. I still remember a French-Mexican friend who graduated from an excellent London MBA programme telling me about his difficulty in finding work in the French market despite being completely bilingual.

Or the name of a former employer or school can tip the scales one way or the other. I've lost count of the number of sales managers who tell me they've recruited a salesperson or salespeople from a "big company" or who only want salespeople from their own sectors, only to realise that the people they recruit are not delivering the expected results. This obviously costs time, money, energy and opportunity, the amounts of which, in hard cash, can be astronomical.

It has been proven that order has an impact on decision-making. Recruiters remember the first and last candidates more. Studies prove this, and in sales, this is also why salespeople, when presenting and competing, are required to present last. This increases their chances of success.

The last example among many biases is biological aspects. It has been proven that a more symmetrical face sends an unconscious message of efficiency, just as a deep voice makes us think that a person is more efficient than someone with a less deep voice.

The process in place is also often flawed 

Beyond human bias, the recruitment process that I see in many companies is also often the source of numerous errors.

All too often during the recruitment process, there is a certain amount of improvisation during interviews (for example, is there a script that introduces appointments in the same way, word for word? And are the questions asked in the same order?). This is very similar to sales representatives, who also improvise during customer appointments.

This can result in interviews that are radically different depending on whether the manager is experiencing problems at work or in their personal life. The type of questions asked, the ability to assess the other person, etc., will not be the same if, for example, the manager had their car stolen the day before, received bad news recently, or got up on the wrong side of the bed, etc.

When a recruitment process begins with a video interview or a face-to-face meeting, numerous studies show that a recruiter takes five minutes to decide whether or not to proceed with a candidate. Examples of biases that impact sales recruitment decisions can be found here or here.

Is the right information being sought?

One last thing. Processes that are "fronted" by traditional interviews (such as with a TAM or other) do not seek out the right information. Success in sales depends on factors that are difficult to assess quickly in an interview. For example, a salesperson must be able to handle rejection. They must be able to challenge their prospects and not seek emotional validation. Therefore, their "need for approval" must not be strong. It is important to know their motivation, whether extrinsic or intrinsic. It is rare, very rare, for recruiters, TAMs or companies to seek out this information. And yet, it is key to success.

More details here, here, or here

So what should we do?

A meta-analysis of research spanning more than 85 years has proven that when selecting candidates, the predictive effectiveness of the most frequently used methods is disastrous. In particular:

Le CV: 18%

Traditional interviews ("gut feeling"): 20%

Personality tests: 20%

References: 23%

The meta-analysis entitled "The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology" can be found at this link, among other places.

I find it difficult to think of any other professional field in which such low success rates would be acceptable. And yet, in recruitment, these methods, which have no predictive value, are used on a daily basis. Here are a few recommendations to improve your sales representative recruitment process:

1- Implement candidate assessment based on pure skill criteria. Personally, I recommend OMG, the global leader in this field. Based on several decades of activity and 2.2 million profiles, when recommended candidates are recruited, in 92% of cases they are top A-players in their first year. Compare this with, for example, the 18% predictability of a CV. As they say in English: the mind boggles...

2- Do not initiate the recruitment process with a meeting, whether virtual or in person, as this can lead to the biases mentioned below. And do not use the CV as a criterion for deciding whether or not to consider the candidate.

3- Implement structured interviews that prevent managers responsible for recruitment from varying in their judgement based on their personal and professional circumstances and that allow for overall transparency.