BAD HIRES
Bad hires aren’t bad luck. They’re process output.
Every mis-hire passed your interviews. That’s the clue.
23 questions. About ten minutes. A scored read of where your hiring breaks.
THE RECOGNITION
The last bad hire interviewed well. So did the one before. At some point the pattern stops being about candidates and starts being about the machine that keeps approving them.
TRANSLATION
You call them bad hires. We call the pattern drift - a process whose standards bend under pressure. The fix isn’t more interviews. It’s evidence.
Research heritage since 1999 · 60%+ of the Fortune 500 have used Qualigence · 85% retention on placed candidates over 24 months
THE SCIENCE
Why selection - the science under every service.
Most firms compete on access - who they know. We compete on evidence - what a candidate has actually done under pressure, tested against a definition of winning your team wrote down before the search opened. That is the 6-Step Performance Engine™: define winning, test identity and behavior against it, protect the standard through feedback and the decision.
It’s why 85% of our placed candidates are still performing at 24 months, and why 60%+ of the Fortune 500 have used Qualigence since 1999.
WHAT WE INSTALL
The engine's screens and write-ups
Every candidate evaluation runs through the same six-step sequence. Behavioral screens test against the definition of winning. Write-ups document evidence and gaps. The debrief has a referee.
The mis-hire cost calculator
Ninety seconds to a number your CFO will want to see.
Calculate what your last mis-hire cost →The Definition of Winning Template
The intake form that defines what success looks like before any candidate enters. Written, signed, and used to score every evaluation that follows.
Take the template with you
The Definition of Winning Template. Free, no form.
THE PLAN
Book a strategy call - bring the role, the market, or the problem.
We run it through the engine - research first, evidence over opinion, a standard that holds.
You get performance - not activity reports. A hire still delivering at 24 months.
Bad hires aren\u2019t a sourcing failure. They are a decision failure. Put evidence under the decision before the offer goes out.
QUESTIONS
Why do bad hires keep passing our interviews?
Because your interviews measure how well a candidate performs in an interview, not how they perform in the role. The two are different instruments. Interview performance is a function of preparation and polish. Role performance is a function of behavior under pressure. Results-Based Interviewing™ is the bridge - questions built from the definition of winning that test what the role actually demands.
Is it possible to eliminate bad hires entirely?
Not entirely - some risk is irreducible. But the goal isn't zero. It's predictability. When you can say which decisions carry risk and why, you make better bets, set better 90-day integration plans, and recover faster when a hire underperforms. Organizations that can't name their risk can't manage it.
What's the difference between a bad hire and a bad fit?
Usually nothing. 'Bad fit' is what you say when the hire is bad but the process approved them and nobody wants to own the decision. The exit interview says culture. The manager says fit. The file says everyone agreed. Nobody owns the decision - so nobody learns from it. A written definition of winning makes the decision ownable.
How long does it take to see results from fixing the hiring process?
The intake can be fixed in one search. The decision quality improves within 90 days of running evidence-based evaluations. The retention number proves at 12 and 24 months. Most organizations that fix the intake see meaningful improvement in manager satisfaction with hires within the first search cycle.
Stop paying for the same hire twice.
23 questions. About ten minutes. A scored read of where your hiring breaks.
