Insights on hiring, careers, and the future of work.Written by Stori's founder, Fraser Hill.
Hiring Myths 21 of 40
A polished, confident answer feels like enough. It tells you almost nothing.
Hiring Myths 20 of 40
Everyone says they hire for potential. Nobody can honestly define it.
Hiring Myths 19 of 40
Most companies think better hiring comes from more information. It comes from *better* information.
Hiring Myths 18 of 40
Great companies are great at interviewing. Not so fast.
Hiring Myths 17 of 40
Isn't it interesting that we only started demanding explanations for hiring decisions once a machine was involved?
Hiring Myths 16 of 40
Some of the best people I've worked with had ordinary resumes — until you heard the story behind them.
Hiring Myths 15 of 40
'Tell me about a time you demonstrated leadership' assumes you can search your memory like Google. You can't.
Hiring Myths 14 of 40
Great companies aren't necessarily great at hiring. They're great at *attracting* — and that's not the same thing.
Hiring Myths 13 of 40
Leadership: 84. Communication: 91. Those numbers feel reassuring. What do they actually mean?
Hiring Myths 12 of 40
'Culture fit.' I've never been convinced anyone can actually define it.
Hiring Myths 11 of 40
The tough interview is a badge of honour. I've never understood it.
Hiring Myths 10 of 40
'AI is biased.' Biased according to whom? It learned everything it knows from us.
Hiring Myths 9 of 40
Nobody remembers their career as a list of competencies. Hiring has spent decades pretending we do.
Hiring Myths 8 of 40
'What's your favourite interview question?' The idea that one brilliant question reveals brilliant people is one of hiring's biggest myths.
Hiring Myths 7 of 40
Mention a bad manager or a conflict in an interview and you become the red flag — as if the trouble must have been you.
Hiring Myths 6 of 40
If one interviewer isn't producing good evidence, adding four more won't magically fix it.
Hiring Myths 5 of 40
Competency interviews don't measure competence. They measure who can produce a fitting story on cue.
Hiring Myths 4 of 40
Companies love to say they hire the best people. They usually hire people who are good enough — and those aren't the same thing.
Hiring Myths 3 of 40
We keep believing that one day — better AI, better tests — we'll finally *solve* hiring. We won't.
Hiring Myths 2 of 40
AI shouldn't replace human judgement in hiring. It should replace everything that *stops* humans judging well.
Hiring Myths 1 of 40
We keep believing that refining the same interviews, frameworks and tools will finally fix hiring. It won't.
For decades, companies could reject you in silence - legally. Then AI entered hiring, and a right to an explanation appeared. What that asymmetry reveals about who the law trusts, and whose interest it forgot.
The real problem with AI hiring isn't the machine. It's what it learned from us - and who gets to audit whom.
For a century, no one had to explain a hiring rejection. Then machines made hiring legible — and exposed the fiction every hiring system was built on: that there was ever a best candidate to find.
We have been led to believe that our unconscious biases are corrupt and cannot be changed. A whole training industry has been born out of this misled belief.
We often hear, "Don't hire for what they've done. Instead, hire for what they can do." This article sheds light on how there couldn't be a worse idea when it comes to leadership hiring.
Competency interviews, still used by most companies, are doing nothing for the DEI agenda. Different interviewers are asking different questions, with different agendas and biases.
Software that redacts diversity indicators like gender and race have been touted as a solution to better DEI hiring, but, in fact, the opposite is true.
Is the Harvard University test, the Implicit Association Test (IAT), right to be telling us all about our unconscious prejudices? Are we identifying and combating our unconscious biases the right way?
Great cultures cannot survive without great ideas and innovation. This article looks at the big five personality traits and their role in fostering creative thinking within organizations.
Does leadership intuition exist? If it does, how do we define it? Is it useful, or is it just corrupting our decision making like our unconscious biases allegedly do?
Fortune 500 companies often use thirty or more so-called traits to assess leaders. Are these really all traits, though? A scientifically derived twelve-item trait model is proposed.
Companies continue to believe there's some magical way to peek beyond the curtains of one's psyche to discover traits that will provide infinite wisdom about a candidate's potential.
The leadership assessment fallacy is the affirmation of leadership assessment processes because chosen candidates go on to do well. But does success really validate the process?
What part does personality play in a successful leader's ability to perform? How do we even define personality, and what is the optimal balance of traits to be a great leader?
