I think it’s important to distinguish between two key functions in the hiring process, which are often conflated.
Let’s start by defining recruiting and selection as distinct, sequentially ordered processes. Recruiting is the process of making candidates aware of job openings, influencing their decision to apply, and maintaining interest in the company until they accept an offer (Breaugh, 2008). Selection is the process of evaluating candidates for a role and deciding whom to hire. While recruitment typically precedes selection, sometimes selection can be followed by placement — i.e., assigning someone to a specific position. The term “recruitment” is often used as a catch-all term for all steps involved in hiring, from sourcing through to onboarding, but this leads to confusion about what exactly we’re doing at each stage.
The expectations that candidates form during recruiting directly affect downstream retention and performance outcomes. When initial job expectations are later fulfilled, employees tend to experience higher levels of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intent to stay, retention, and job performance. So while recruiters may not have direct control over whether a candidate gets hired or how well they perform, they do play a critical role in setting up future success. This means that if you want to make your organization more successful, you need to invest in your recruiters.
Why common selection methods fall short
Unfortunately, many organizations default to using résumé-led screening and unstructured interviews when selecting candidates. These approaches produce unreliable and biased hiring decisions. Unstructured interviews feel natural because they’re just free-flowing conversations, but they’re also inconsistent and unfair. Résumé review optimizes for polish, not performance. As one Chief People Officer put it:
In our industry, we see people who have been through hundreds of thousands of dollars of training…[and] we're making a decision based on a résumé? That doesn’t make sense. I don’t know why anyone would use a résumé to make a decision. It's just a piece of paper. It tells me nothing about the person.
Better practices: structured interviews and selection testing
Structured interviews are a better way to select candidates. One of the most important elements of effective recruitment and selection is structured interviews. Structured interviews give hiring teams a common language and shared benchmarks, reducing unnecessary interview rounds and backtracking. Instead of relying on intuition, they allow us to back instincts with evidence from multiple sources. Psychometric assessments are a great example of this; they provide a data point that isn’t swayed by intuition.
Selection testing is another important part of the hiring process. Selection testing refers to any structured assessment that evaluates candidates beyond their résumé and interview. In other words, these are tests that measure problem-solving ability, job-specific skills, judgment, behavioral tendencies, etc. Used thoughtfully, selection testing improves the quality of hire, reduces risk, and supports fairer outcomes. Used poorly, however, it creates friction, confusion, or even legal exposure.
Effective testing respects candidates’ time, is clearly connected to the role they’re being considered for, and is positioned as fair and thoughtful.