# Bases _Fishing 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 head hunter insists their process was robust: structured interviews, competency scoring, a case study, references. They say their screening catches good candidates 90% of the time, and you paid good money for expertise. It sounded like good odds. So why does hiring keep feeling like a coin toss? --- This might explain it. What's the realistic proportion of top salespeople in the market - the kind who build pipeline, consistently hit target, and stay? Let's say one in ten. So 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 genuinely good candidates in your final pool. Nine who passed the screening but won't deliver. Fifty-fifty. The head hunter wasn't lying. Their process really can be 90% accurate, and you can still end up with a coin flip. (I've hired the top-scoring candidate from exactly this kind of process, and replaced them within the year.) --- The "base rate" is the important variable here - how common top performers are in your market shapes the outcome more than how good the screening is. | Top performers in your market | A 90% screening 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. Her pool is different. Her candidates come from her network, not a LinkedIn screening exercise. She knows who's delivering, who's restless, who'd move for the right role. Maybe one in three would genuinely perform in your business. But she doesn't have the big firm's competency framework or their structured scoring. Just experience and gut-feel that works out 80% of the time. If we run the same maths on thirty candidates from her network. | | Good candidates | Bad candidates | | ------------------ | --------------- | -------------- | | In her network | 10 | 20 | | Pass the screening | 8 | 4 | Eight genuine, four false positives. Two out of three on your shortlist are the real thing - the odds have shifted in your favour. --- 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, but success 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% | Screening and interview processes - just like [[Beyond margins|margins]] - are more visible and feel easier to control. In a mid-sized business you're usually hiring in a rush anyway - fewer candidates than you'd like, no HR team running assessments. But sometimes you don't need to improve the process - you can even afford a worse one - you should focus on improving the pool. ---