Why More Candidates Weren't Improving Hiring Results
An Entry-Level Role That Wasn’t Easy to Fill
A growing electronics manufacturer needed a more consistent way to hire for a specialized production role. Employee referrals had helped build the team, but they were not a predictable source of candidates as hiring needs grew.
The position was entry-level. Candidates did not need a degree, a certification, or experience in the same industry.
But that did not make the role easy to fill.
The work required patience, focus, and the ability to handle precise, repetitive tasks for long periods of time. Someone coming from retail, production, or a completely different background could be successful. The problem was that a resume could not reliably show who would be comfortable with the work—or who could learn it.
More Activity, Same Result
The manufacturer made time to meet and evaluate more candidates. In theory, a larger group would create more opportunities to find the right people.
Instead, only a small share moved forward.
Some candidates realized the work was not what they expected. Others were interested but did not demonstrate the ability the role required. The client had blocked time for its team to conduct evaluations, but too many of those evaluations ended without a hire.
And passing the evaluation did not always lead to a lasting hire. Some employees initially did well after starting but did not remain in the role.
More candidates were moving through the process. Hiring and retention results were not improving with them.
Looking Earlier in the Process
Verstela could have responded by sending even more people. Instead, the team looked at why so few candidates were making it through the client’s evaluation.
The role was open to people from many different backgrounds, but previous experience alone could not show who would be comfortable with the work or able to learn it. The client needed better information before setting aside time to meet someone.
Working with the manufacturer, Verstela moved part of the qualification process earlier. Candidates received a clearer understanding of the work and an opportunity to demonstrate relevant abilities before being referred.
That gave Verstela clearer evidence of who could succeed—even when a candidate’s previous experience came from somewhere unexpected.
Fewer Evaluations. Better Hiring Results.
The client began seeing fewer candidates, but a much larger share were ready to move forward.
Roughly 20% of candidates moved forward under the earlier process. In the most recent group, nearly every candidate who reached the client received an offer.
The manufacturer spent less time on evaluations that went nowhere. Candidates arrived with a better understanding of the work. And people with transferable ability still had a path into the role, even if they had never held the exact job before.
A Better Definition of Qualified
By focusing on what the work required—not only where someone had worked before—the manufacturer could consider candidates from a wider range of backgrounds without lowering the bar. It simply had a better way to recognize who could succeed.