Good on paper ≠ Right Fit

Dear Employers, you are missing out on great talent.

If you only hire what looks *good on paper*

Quick scenario:

A big-name employer is recruiting for their early career programmes.

They sort through applications and identify two candidate types:

Candidate A: Good on paper

→ Top-ranking university

→Exemplary academic record

→Multiple internship experience

Candidate B: The total opposite

→Average grades

→ Low-ranking university

→Only retail experience

Candidate A is deemed to be more qualified based on their profile.

So they are automatically put through the recruitment process.

Candidate B’s profile is average, and they are typically screened out.

However, on this occasion, they are given the benefit of the doubt.

In the practical exercise of the recruitment process, candidate B performs better.

Therefore, they are given the opportunity and go on to be an asset within the firm.

I’ve always identified as candidate B throughout my whole corporate career.

Put through the recruitment process on a technicality and end up being good at the job.

The truth of the matter is that I was lucky on every single occasion.

Because the reality is that the majority of big-name employers mostly interview candidates who look good on paper according to arbitrary criteria like grades and educational status.

This is not an inclusive way of recruiting candidates.

I’ve recently engaged with many Talent Acquisition heads frustrated that their early career programmes result in the same *good on paper* hires year after year.

Often, these hires are not diverse by way of background.

The Solution: Screen more candidates based on potential and less on arbitrary credentials. Conclusion: Potential > Credentials

I am a calendar invite away if you want to discuss how to make your recruitment process more inclusive.