This is about how not to select a new employee.

It's about how a selection committee for an employer picked the finalist for the executive position...using the traditional selection process. And in doing so wasted a lot of time and risked selecting the wrong person.

The committee asked me to guide it in the recruiting and selection process. I walked the eight-member committee through my 12-step Objective Hiring Procedure. The committee chose not to do the following four steps: Define the Work Behavior Style needed by the ideal candidate. Do an initial interview by phone with pre-finalists to verify objective qualifications and experience. Do background/employment history investigations on pre-finalists, using an outside service. Test pre-finalists for their work Behavior Style.

In other words, in four essential areas the committee chose to use the traditional, labor-intensive, subjective (not objective) hiring process.

So, instead of outsourcing the background/employment history investigation, four committee members spent up to eight hours checking out the seven applicants who appeared to be best qualified based on the written resumes they submitted. What was the value of the time spent by four people doing the work themselves? Assume $75 an hour for eight hours. That's $600. Investigations by a background service, done by experts in getting usable information, might have cost $490.

Then, instead of defining the Behavior Style needed by the ideal candidate...and instead of testing finalists for their work Behavior Styles...the committee chose to go right to the final interviews with five finalists. (If the pre-testing had been done it would have eliminated three of the five finalists who were interviewed.)

On my own, I analyzed the position using a Work Environment form, which gave me a "picture" of the ideal Behavior Style for this executive position. This told me the ideal candidate needed Direct-Leadership (D) and Influencing-by-talking-not-by- doing (I) strengths...and that Steady-patient-friendly (S) and Compliant-task-and- detail-focused (C) styles would be much less important. Actually strong S and C styles in this position would be counter productive.

So the ideal candidate for the executive position would be high in D and I, and low in S and C. That is, the ideal candidate would be strong in Direct-Leadership and in Influencing-by-talking-not-by-doing...and low in Steady-patient-friendly and Compliant-task-and-detail-focused traits.

I participated in these interviews and took notes. Based on the responses of applicants to questioning I felt I was able to come close to identifying the Behavior Style of each person.

Candidate V is an extremely high I and a very low C. In the interview V repeatedly told us he was an "idea man" and "I leave the details to others." In fact, he proudly told us he knew nothing about the employer he was hoping to lead, and that he intentionally chose not to learn about the firm before the interview. It was obvious he believed he could influence us by talking and not by what he knew. A very high I, too high an I, in fact.

Candidate W is an extremely high C and a very low I. Just the opposite Behavior Style of the leadership position needed. She told us "I tend to be a perfectionist."

That's a high C person for sure. (I thought, "She is a very competent administrator but what this firm needs is a dynamic leader.)

Candidate Xis high in S and C strengths. He acknowledged that "I gather the facts, and then act. There may be someone more action-oriented."

Candidate Y is definitely high in D and I strengths...but also strong in C characteristics. Five minutes into the interview I wrote in my notes, "Would be effective public speaker." Fifteen minutes into the interview I wrote, "Reminds me of a strong Catholic school principal."

Candidate Z is high in S and C strengths. She said, "I can be very task-oriented." A clear mark of a high C strength.

Result: After seven hours of interviewing the eight committee members selected candidate Y. Her high D and I strengths come closest to matching the strengths needed in the firm's leader.

But...the committee members clearly wasted valuable time by not using a Behavior Style test to screen out pre-finalists. A Behavior Style test almost certainly would have eliminated W, X and Z...saving the committee members from wasting five hours interviewing them. That's a total of 40-person-hours wasted. Imagine the value of this wasted time. Assume $75 an hour for 40 hours. That totals $3,000. Behavior Style testing might have cost $500.

The committee's traditional selection process saved the firm about $990 by not using an outside background check service and by not doing the Behavior Style testing. It cost the firm at least $3,000 in wasted time! Doesn't make sense.

Finally, why do most employers and supervisors still use the traditional hiring procedure...not doing any testing and relying on interviews, to make the hiring decisions? Because "it's always been done this way." And because it "feels" right.

It's the way most employers and supervisors were hired, it's the way they've always done it. It's also thought to be less expensive, because there's no money spent on "unnecessary" outside help and testing. Wasted time isn't seen as an expense. And one other reason: Traditional interviews are distractions from an employer's and supervisor's usual, mundane job. It can be fun to meet new people, and have lengthy conversations with them. It can be fun to "match wits" with applicants. It can be more interesting and pleasant than doing a disciplined, final, objective interview.

This experience convinces me, again, that the traditional hiring process is far too subjective and wastes far too much time. The Objective Hiring Procedure saves time and money and increases the chances of selecting the best person.