The first candidate, Anna, was friendly, personable, and charismatic throughout her interview. She showed up on time, looked professional, and even cracked a few jokes (which landed). She displayed a high degree of familiarity with your company’s mission and audience, and would fit right in with your culture. The one drawback? Her skills and work experience are nothing spectacular. She would be a great person to work with, but probably wouldn’t exceed expectations.
The second candidate, Ben, is eminently qualified. He has spent 10 years in similar roles at comparable companies. He knows what he’s doing, and it shows—executive management is already considering a couple of the ideas he brought up during his interview. But Ben is clearly aware of this as well, and his arrogance shows. He arrived 25 minutes late, interrupted his interviewers constantly, and spoke rudely about his prior employers. Worst of all, he took off his shoes and placed his bare feet on the desk. He might be a superstar, but he’s also a super-jerk.
Which hire—Anna or Ben—is better for your company in the long-term? Thanks to researchers at the Harvard Business School, we now have an answer: hire Anna, and you’ll save approximately $12,000.
Quartz reports (emphasis added):