Admiral Hiram G. Rickover, often hailed as the father of the U.S. nuclear Navy, was a man of brilliance, albeit an eccentric one. His methods for interviewing candidates for the elite nuclear submarine programme were notoriously unconventional and intense. Rickover famously said, “The more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war,” and he rigorously applied this mantra to his notorious stress interviews.
The madness behind his methods had a purpose: he wanted to see how individuals performed under extreme pressure, reserving spots only for those with the highest qualifications. His interviews included surprising stunts - he’d sometimes leap out of a cupboard to startle candidates or ask them to sit on a chair he had discreetly nailed to the floor. One favourite trick was to saw off a couple of inches from the front legs of a candidate’s chair, watching how they squirmed as they attempted to maintain composure while being bombarded with challenging questions.
While these tactics may sound outlandish, they prompt an important reflection for modern-day recruiters and hiring managers. How much preparation and consideration goes into your interviews? How well do you really know the candidates before they step through the door? Of course, sawing chair legs or leaping out from cupboards might be excessive, but putting candidates to the test should be a given - particularly when hiring for senior roles, where the stakes are high, and the impact on your organisation could be critical.
Rickover also said, “Responsibility is a unique concept... You may share it with others, but your portion is not diminished. You may delegate it, but it is still with you... If responsibility is rightfully yours, no evasion, ignorance, or passing the blame can shift the burden.” This principle is worth keeping in mind as a hiring manager. A poor hiring decision could cost your company greatly, and the responsibility for that hire remains with you.
Picture, if you will, an alternate reality - one where hiring the wrong person is not simply seen as an unfortunate mistake but instead treated as a gross misconduct offence. In this world, perfection in hiring is not a lofty ambition but the absolute minimum expectation. Poor hiring decisions, which in reality can damage a business both financially and operationally, are recognised as serious offences that demand accountability.
It may sound far-fetched, but let’s think about the potential impact bad hires have on a business. Poor hiring choices don’t just hit the balance sheet; they undermine opportunity, momentum, and, ultimately, commercial integrity. In this alternate universe, the numbers are scrutinised closely, and every hiring stakeholder is expected to achieve a success rate of over 90%. Success is defined as new employees remaining in their roles for two years or more. Failure to meet this benchmark would lead to internal disciplinary measures, holding all involved accountable for the financial repercussions of their decisions.
Now, imagine recruiters - both internal and external - are also subject to these expectations. They too would be held accountable for the long-term success of the candidates they place. Would this level of scrutiny alter how they approach recruitment? Picture the recruiter sitting next to you during a disciplinary meeting, facing the same critical questioning about a failed hire. Would this shift the way they conduct their candidate searches?
Now, let’s return to reality. If your organisation enforced such rigorous key performance indicators (KPIs) around hiring success, would you meet them? Could your recruiter confidently assure you, “Don’t worry, we’ve got this”? And could you, with hand on heart, say you could consistently meet such high expectations?
The uncomfortable truth is that most hiring managers and recruiters would struggle. The pressure would be immense, and the consequences of failure could be severe. So how do we address this risk and improve hiring success rates while also boosting employee retention?
The answer is simple in theory: hire right, the first time, every time. But, as we all know, achieving this level of precision is far easier said than done.