# Bases _Fish where the fish are._ --- 12 months in and your new senior sales hire isn't working out. The market hasn't shifted, the territory hasn't changed, the targets haven't moved - but pipeline is thin, conversion is worse, and the weekly one-to-ones have turned into coaching sessions that aren't landing. The headhunter insists their process was robust: structured interviews, competency scoring, a case study, references. Their screening catches good candidates 90% of the time. You paid good money for expertise. It sounded like good odds. So why does hiring keep feeling like a coin toss? --- What's the realistic proportion of top salespeople in the market - the kind who build pipeline, consistently hit target, and stay? Maybe one in ten. If a hundred candidates apply for your role, you'd expect 10 good ones in the mix. Take the recruiter at their word on 90% screening accuracy. They'll correctly screen 9 of those top performers onto your shortlist. That same accuracy means they'll also incorrectly shortlist 10% of the 90 that aren't up to scratch. Another 9. | | Good candidates | Bad candidates | | ------------------ | --------------- | -------------- | | In your market | 10 | 90 | | Pass the screening | 9 | 9 | Nine genuine candidates in your final pool. Nine who looked just as strong but won't deliver. Fifty-fifty. --- The headhunter wasn't lying. Their process really might be 90% accurate, and it still gave you a coin flip. The base rate did the work. How common top performers are in your market shaped the answer more than how good the screening was. | Top performers in your market | A 90% process gives you... | |---|---| | 1 in 3 | ~82% | | 1 in 5 | ~69% | | 1 in 10 | 50% | | 1 in 20 | ~32% | Same process in every row. The only thing changing is how common what you're looking for is in the pool you're drawing from. --- You cut your losses and open the role up again. This time you skip the big firm. You call a solo recruiter who's spent fifteen years in your sector. His candidates come from his network, not a LinkedIn screening exercise. He knows who's delivering, who's restless, who'd move for the right role. His pool is different. Maybe one in three would genuinely perform in your business. He doesn't have the big firm's competency framework or their structured scoring. Call it 80%. Run the same maths on thirty candidates from his network. | | Good candidates | Bad candidates | | ------------------ | --------------- | -------------- | | In his network | 10 | 20 | | Pass the screening | 8 | 4 | Eight genuine, four false positives. Two out of three on your shortlist are the real thing. --- You ask your best salespeople who they'd hire. Not who's looking for a job. Who they've worked alongside, competed against, would vouch for. The names come in over a few weeks. Maybe twenty across the team. Your top performers know what good looks like in this territory. They're not putting forward someone who'd embarrass them. Maybe one in two would genuinely deliver. Your screening is simpler too. No competency framework, no case study, no scoring matrix. A conversation, a reference from someone you trust, your own read of the person in the room. Call it 70%. | | Good candidates | Bad candidates | | ------------------- | --------------- | -------------- | | From referrals | 10 | 10 | | Pass your screening | 7 | 3 | Seven genuine, three false positives. Seventy percent. --- Three approaches, screening accuracy going down each time, odds going up. | | Big firm | Solo recruiter | Referrals | | -------------------- | -------- | -------------- | --------- | | Screening accuracy | 90% | 80% | 70% | | Pool quality | 1 in 10 | 1 in 3 | 1 in 2 | | Chance hire is good | 50% | 67% | 70% | You didn't improve the process. You improved the pool. ---