Olivia: Your last bad hire didn't just cost you some wasted salary. According to one study, that $100,000 employee who didn't work out? They actually cost your company about $1.5 million. That’s not a mistake; it’s a catastrophe. Jackson: Whoa, hold on. One and a half million dollars? For one bad hire? That sounds insane. How do they even calculate that? It can't just be salary and recruitment fees. Olivia: It’s everything. It's the hard costs, the lost productivity, the damage to team morale, the projects that get derailed, the customers you lose. The ripple effect is enormous. And that catastrophe is exactly what Geoff Smart and Randy Street tackle in their bestselling book, Who: The A Method for Hiring. Jackson: Right, and these guys aren't just consultants. I saw that Geoff Smart has a Ph.D. in psychology and even studied under the legendary management thinker Peter Drucker. They built their whole firm, ghSMART, around fixing this one, massive problem. Olivia: Exactly. They analyzed data from thousands of interviews, including with billionaires and CEOs, to create a system to stop the bleeding. And it all starts with realizing that most of us, most of the time, are practicing what they call 'voodoo hiring'.

Jackson: Voodoo hiring? What does that even mean? It sounds like something you'd do with pins and dolls, not resumes. Olivia: It’s almost as scientific! Voodoo hiring is their term for all the unproven, gut-feel methods we use. Things like asking trick questions, relying on your intuition, or being overly impressed by a slick presentation. The book argues these are about as effective as a coin flip. The hiring success rate for most managers is a dismal 50 percent. Jackson: That’s terrifying. So half the time, we might as well just be guessing. I've definitely been in interviews where they ask things like, "If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?" I never know what to say. An oak? Am I sturdy? A willow? Am I flexible? It feels like a trap. Olivia: It’s a trap that catches the interviewer, not the candidate. The book tells this great story about Nate Thompson, the CEO of a company called Spectra Logic. In his early days, he was constantly putting out fires. He hired a sales VP who ended up embezzling ninety thousand dollars. His family vacations were ruined year after year because he’d have to fly home to deal with a crisis caused by a bad hire. He was doing what he thought were thorough interviews, but he was still getting it wrong. Jackson: That’s a nightmare. It’s not just a business problem at that point; it's destroying your life. Olivia: Precisely. And the authors have this perfect analogy for it. Do you remember that classic I Love Lucy episode in the candy factory? Jackson: Of course! Where Lucy and Ethel are on the assembly line and the chocolates start coming faster and faster, so they start stuffing them in their mouths and their hats. Olivia: Exactly. The supervisor comes by, sees an empty conveyor belt, and says, "Great job, ladies! Let's speed it up!" The problem looked like a "what" problem—the speed of the belt. But it was actually a "who" problem. Lucy and Ethel were the wrong people for the job. And that’s the book's core insight: we spend all our time trying to fix the conveyor belt—the strategy, the process, the product—when we should be fixing the team. Jackson: Okay, but isn't it a bit obvious that hiring the right people is important? I've seen some reviews of the book that say it states the obvious. Olivia: That's a fair critique, and the authors would probably agree that the idea is simple. But the book's value isn't in telling you that you should hire A-Players; it's in giving you a rigorous, step-by-step system for how to do it. It’s about moving from knowing it's important to actually having a method that works. And the first step is to stop guessing what you're looking for.

Jackson: Okay, so if voodoo hiring is the problem, what's the first step of the exorcism? How do you build a system? Olivia: You start with what they call a Scorecard. This is the absolute foundation of the A Method. It’s a document that replaces the typical, vague job description with a crystal-clear blueprint for success. It has three parts: a mission, measurable outcomes, and competencies. Jackson: So it's not just a list of "responsibilities" like "manage a team" or "drive sales"? Olivia: No, it's brutally specific. The mission is a short summary of why the job exists. The outcomes are the 5 to 8 most important things a person must accomplish, and they have to be measurable. For example, not "increase sales," but "Grow domestic sales from $500 million to $600 million by December 31st while maintaining a 45% gross margin." Jackson: That is specific. It’s like the difference between telling someone to "drive north" and giving them a precise GPS coordinate. Olivia: That’s a perfect analogy. And without that GPS, you get disasters. They tell the story of Nick Chabraja, the CEO of General Dynamics. He hired a guy who was, on paper, a superstar—an "all-around athlete" with an incredible resume. The problem was, General Dynamics had a huge backlog of orders and needed an operations expert to execute. The guy they hired was a brilliant business developer. Jackson: Oh no. So he just went out and sold more, making the backlog even worse? Olivia: Exactly. He put more orders in the backlog, and operating margins went down. It took two years to fix the mistake. Chabraja said he learned a crucial lesson: "I think success comes from having the right person in the right job at the right time with the right skill set for the business problem that exists." He hired the resume, not the person who could solve the actual problem defined by a scorecard. Jackson: That makes so much sense. But does creating such a specific scorecard create rigid boxes? What about hiring for potential or creativity? Olivia: That’s the beauty of it. The scorecard defines what success looks like, not how you have to achieve it. It gives people freedom within a framework. And it forces you, the manager, to get deadly clear on what you actually need. Are you hiring a visionary to create new products, or an operator to streamline a process? Those are two different people. A vague job description attracts both, and you end up hiring the one who interviews better, not the one who can actually do the job. The scorecard prevents that. Jackson: So it's about finding the right superstar, not just any superstar. Olivia: Precisely. And once you have that GPS, that scorecard, you need a vehicle that can actually get you to the destination. That's where the interview process comes in, and it's nothing like what most of us have experienced.

Jackson: I’m almost afraid to ask. If the 'tree' question is out, what's in? Olivia: The centerpiece of the A Method is something they call the 'Who Interview'. It’s a structured, chronological deep-dive into a candidate's entire career. It can take up to three hours. Jackson: Three hours? For one interview? Who has time for that? Olivia: The book's answer is: you don't have time not to. Remember the $1.5 million cost of a bad hire? A three-hour investment to prevent that is a bargain. The goal of this interview isn't to hear rehearsed answers; it's to uncover patterns. Jackson: Patterns of what? Olivia: Patterns of behavior. For every single job a candidate has had, the interviewer asks the same five core questions: What were you hired to do? What accomplishments are you most proud of? What were some low points? Who were the people you worked with? And the most important one: Why did you leave that job? Jackson: Why is "Why did you leave?" so important? People always have a polished story for that. Olivia: Because A-Players are pulled to new opportunities; B and C-Players are often pushed out of their old ones. A-Players are valued, and their bosses are disappointed when they leave. C-Players are often managed out, and their bosses are relieved. The Who Interview is designed to uncover which one it is. And they have a brilliant technique for getting the truth. Jackson: Okay, I'm intrigued. What is it? Olivia: It's a tactic they call TORC, which stands for Threat of Reference Check. When you ask about a previous boss, you don't just say, "Tell me about your old boss." You say, "Okay, your boss was Richard Smith. What was it like working with Richard? And when I call Richard, what is he going to tell me were your biggest strengths and your biggest areas for improvement?" Jackson: Oh, that's clever. You're not just asking a question; you're signaling that you're going to verify the answer. It forces honesty. Olivia: It creates what they call an environment of inevitable truth-telling. And the stories that come out are astonishing. They tell this one story, which they call "The $3 Million Slap." Jackson: The what?! Olivia: They were interviewing a candidate for a CEO role. They get to the "Why did you leave?" question for one of his past jobs. The candidate says he had a "philosophical disagreement" with his boss. The interviewer, using the 'Who' method, just keeps probing. "Tell me more. What happened?" Jackson: And what happened? Olivia: The candidate eventually admits that during a board meeting, he told his CEO he was an idiot in front of everyone. The CEO fired him on the spot. As the candidate was being escorted out, he walked back to the CEO and slapped him across the face. Jackson: Wait, he admitted to slapping his CEO in an interview?! Olivia: He did. He called it his "$3 million slap" because he was terminated for cause and lost all his stock options. You would never, ever get that story from a standard interview. But the chronological, persistent nature of the Who Interview makes it incredibly difficult to hide the truth. The patterns just emerge. Jackson: Wow. That's a powerful tool. It's less of an interview and more of a forensic investigation of someone's career. Olivia: That's a great way to put it. It's about gathering facts, not feelings. It’s about seeing the movie of their career, not just looking at the poster.

Jackson: So we've gone from this chaotic, superstitious 'voodoo' hiring to a precise Scorecard, and then to this almost forensic 'Who' Interview. It’s a complete system. Olivia: Exactly. The book's genius is that it's not just about asking better questions. It's about creating a system where the truth naturally reveals itself. It shifts hiring from a performance, where candidates act out a role, to an investigation, where their real patterns emerge. You stop hiring the best actor and start hiring the best person for the job. Jackson: It really reframes the entire goal. The central idea isn't just about avoiding bad hires; it's about recognizing that finding the right 'who' is the single most important strategic decision a leader can make. Olivia: The big takeaway is that your number one job as a leader isn't strategy—it's getting the 'who' right. Because the right 'who' will fix a broken 'what'. They'll figure out the strategy, they'll innovate the product, they'll solve the problems. The wrong 'who' will break even the most perfect strategy. Jackson: So the one thing to do this week is to look at a job description in your own company. Does it have clear, measurable outcomes? Or is it just a list of vague responsibilities? That's the first step to moving away from voodoo. Olivia: A perfect place to start. And for all our listeners, it leaves you with a powerful question: are you hiring resumes, or are you hiring real, patterned human beings? Jackson: This is Aibrary, signing off.