The Hidden Cost of “Good Enough” Hiring

Most hiring mistakes do not come from carelessness or poor intentions.

They come from relief. 

The role has been open too long. The team is stretched thin. The interviews feel promising enough. So a decision gets made. 

Then, weeks or months later, frustration quietly sets in. 

The employee is not failing outright, but they are not delivering what the role truly requires. The leader starts compensating. The team adjusts expectations. Performance slowly erodes.

This is the hidden cost of “good enough” hiring.

Why Hiring Mismatches Happen So Often

Many leaders are surprised by how frequently strong interviews lead to disappointing performance. Traditional hiring practices tend to reward confidence, communication style, and preparation more than actual capability.

Several patterns show up repeatedly.

Interviews rely heavily on hypothetical questions that invite rehearsed answers rather than real examples. Candidates describe who they want to be instead of how they consistently operate. Hiring managers lean on instinct rather than observable behavior. Work samples are skipped because they feel inconvenient. Expectations remain vague because defining them takes time.

When clarity is missing, almost anyone can sound like a fit.

Clarity Is the Real Hiring Advantage

Strong hiring decisions begin long before interviews start. They begin with a clear definition of success.

Before posting a role or screening candidates, leaders should be able to answer a few critical questions.

What must this person consistently deliver in the first 90 days?

What does great performance look like, not just acceptable performance?

What would clearly signal that this hire is not working?

Without clear answers, interviews become exercises in impression management rather than evaluation.

Interview for Behavior, Not Potential

One of the most common hiring mistakes is interviewing for potential instead of proven behavior.

Questions such as “Tell me about yourself” reveal very little about how someone actually performs in a role. More useful questions focus on real experiences.

Ask candidates to describe times when expectations were unclear and how they responded. Ask them to walk through mistakes they made and how they handled the impact. Ask what a difficult day in the role would look like for them.

Past behavior is the strongest indicator of future performance. Confidence without evidence is not a reliable signal.

Use Work That Reflects the Real Job

Even a small work sample can provide insight that no interview question can.

This does not need to be complex or time-consuming. A short exercise such as drafting an email, responding to a realistic scenario, or prioritizing role-specific tasks can reveal how a candidate thinks, communicates, and approaches pressure.

The goal is not to test perfection. The goal is to observe capability under realistic conditions.

Align Interviewers on Evidence, Not Preference

Hiring risk increases when interviewers evaluate candidates through different lenses.

Every interviewer should be answering the same core question.

Based on evidence, can this person do this job as it is defined?

Too often, feedback centers on likeability, comfort level, or perceived culture fit rather than demonstrated ability. When interviewers are not aligned on success criteria, decisions become subjective and inconsistent.

Name the Risks Before Making the Offer

Strong hiring teams are willing to discuss concerns openly before extending an offer.

What hesitations came up during the process?

Are the gaps related to skills that can realistically be developed, or are they assumptions based on hope?

What support would this person need to succeed?

If these questions cannot be answered clearly, it is often a sign that the decision needs more thought.

The Cost of Getting It Wrong

Hiring someone who is “good enough” rarely feels like a dramatic failure. Instead, it creates ongoing friction.

Leaders spend time compensating for gaps. Teams adjust expectations downward. Accountability becomes harder to enforce. Eventually, the role may need to be refilled, costing time, morale, and credibility.

The cost is not just financial. It shows up in leadership strain and organizational trust.

Better Hiring Starts With Better Signals

Strong interviewing skills do not automatically translate into strong job performance. If organizations want better hires, they need better signals.

Clear success criteria, behavior-based questions, realistic work samples, and aligned interviewers create a hiring process that favors performance over polish.

Clarity beats charisma every time.

How I Support Better Hiring Decisions

If you are interested in improving your hiring approach or strengthening manager decision-making, I offer consulting and training designed to reduce hiring mistakes and improve performance outcomes.

You can explore services or request a conversation using the contact information on this site.

Here is a link to out services page:  https://www.julie-taylor-soltes-hr-consulting.com/services