@[email protected] @[email protected] I spoke to one manager who (with rare insight and humility in my experience) pointed out that if he couldn't be 100% confident in the accuracy of his interview process - which he was not - it was much more important for him to focus on "not hiring someone bad" than "not missing the best possible person". After all - hiring someone bad is an immediate negative impact, hiring someone who wasn't "the best" was at worst a small opportunity loss.
Having come to that conclusion, he then thought about what made a hire "bad" and immediately prioritised personality over technical skill, with the only immediate way to fail the interview process being to reveal yourself as an arsehole to the interviewers. You still might not get the job enough other candidates appeared to have better technical skills, but no amount of apparently technical skill would get you through if you (for example) answered questions a female interviewer asked you by speaking exclusively to their male colleage.
Apart from the fact I agreed with his priorities, it did give me pause for thought on a lot of the ideas around "objective hiring" (and I've worked in local government, so I've seen... things... done in an attempt to make hiring objective). Apart from the fact we're terrible at assessing competence, in many cases it feels like it shouldn't even be the most important factor.