if the best candidate you interviewed is a fraud: - either the candidate was competent: then why did he need to lie to get the job? maybe you're over-filterin

if the best candidate you interviewed is a fraud: - either the candidate was competent: then why did he need to lie to get the job? maybe you're over-filtering based on resume and years of experience. The variable your looking for is competence. Years of experience, is just a proxy. if the proxy is drying up your supply, maybe it's not an effective one. moreover, people are not born managers. why not give new talent a chance. - the candidate was not competent: The interview process is therefore broken and is not measuring competence. Maybe you're overvaluing confidence or the speed of answering. Maybe the questions are not Technical enough? I don't know. But notice that valuing anything that is irrelevant would lead to a lower expected value of candidate's competence. Using ineffective tools while searching for something rare is unsurprisingly hard. As a side comment, I'm kinda taken aback by the fact that interview results like "culture fit" are shared this way. I would've expected a higher standard of privacy. Is this commonly accepted? Another point, I've noticed that the hiring process involved a lot of "friend / wife of a friend". Wouldn't this if left unchecked cause some ethnic/age-based bias ( not necessarily in a legal sense)?