I think I just solved hiring... atleast theoretically

Reality

Hiring has had been messed up since ages all across the globe. There is so much supply than demand in some domains and the absolute opposite in the others. It was already bad but especially in the field of tech it has never been worse. With interviews happening online due to costs and invisible cheating tools that help the interviewee in real time using AI growning rapidly, it is very difficult if not impossible to hire the best candidates for the job who is fit for the role. It has been always more of a communication game than skills and there are many skilled individuals that are not getting jobs of their potential just because of communication problems. At the same time there are many people that can convince you about skills they do not have, and these are even worse because they become a liability to the company.
And hence we now see the increasing layoffs in large multi-national corporations as after-effects of bad hiring in the past.

Why is hiring so difficult?

Hiring involves identifing the best candidates fit for a role from those that are interested. Identifying candidates implies the interviewers have to judge a candidate based on answers they give to questions, the way they communicate, their depth of understanding and so on. Judging here is the keyword. Judging is relative.

In a hiring process there are multiple interviewers interviewing different candidates, and the judgment depends not just on the interviewee but the mood of the interviewer, the environment, the setting and situation and which interviewer do you get from all those that are taking interviews. All these factors are the reason why hiring is so much more difficult and unreliable using traditional methods of technical and hr rounds.

A conversation is all you need

To judge a person best, there has to be a conversation between the interviewer and the interviewee. There should be no hesitation from both parties and the flow should be maintained. But most traditional interviews are interviewer focused, i.e. the questions are asked by interviewer first to which the interviewee replies. This is not good.

Let’s talk math

Judging a person I said before, is relative. And giving an absolute score/result to the conversation where ever interviewer has a different scale of talent is really bad. And this skews up the results. Whenever we come across relative things in math, there is a very good method that is used to resolve this issue and move ahead. That method is relatives of relatives.

Let me explain with an example :
Let us say we have some 5 candidates that we already know about. Let us also assume I am the interviewer and my scores for these 5 candidates are all set A. Lets say you are the actual candidate I need to interview. Now I’ll tell you to watch these 5 past candidate interviews and judge them out loud. Giving some score to those candidates, and explaining me why you gave the scores. Let this set of scores be B. (I guess you might have already started to feel where this is going). Now here is the magic, the absolute difference between these two sets |A-B| tells us how good a fit the candidate is to your requirement. If it is not clear as to how, understand that both A and B sets were relative in nature to me and you respectively. But |A-B| tells me an absolute value of how different is your judgement when compared to me/the company. The lower the absolute difference, the better fit the candidate is.

Benefits

• The judging process starts off with the cadidate themselves starting the conversation - their opinion on the person they are judging. That way a flow of conversation keeps going.
• To judge a person requires the right questions, observation and listening skills that are all equally important in the hiring process.
• This entire process can be in some ways even automated, where candidate is given the recordings in a test environment and has limited time and procturing where they have to provide their scores, after which the absolute scoring is just math and can be automated for scale.
• There are so many existing unique candidate recordings already done by companies which means there is almost infinite unique combination of people that can be given to new candidates to judge.