[nordsieck]

> If the person was a fraud, how did he get through the technical and management interviews? Surely talking to someone for 5 mins would help you figure out if they were technically competent. So apparently the interview process had zero decision value. Why bother interviewing candidates then? They should just check references and get on with it. Or fix your interview process.

There are many things people evaluate during the interview process. One of them is technical competence. Another is integrity.

From the story, it doesn't appear OP's interview process is broken.

[jiofih]

How does it not appear to be broken, when they approved the guy as a Director even though he had nearly zero experience as a manager?

[nordsieck]

> How does it not appear to be broken, when they approved the guy as a Director even though he had nearly zero experience as a manager?

There are diminishing marginal returns on better screening. Most people are pretty honest, and of those people who aren't honest, most of those people will mess up their deception; this means that a pretty basic level of screening brings a lot of value while only letting through a few bad apples.

One could intensify the screening to avoid more bad apples, but that costs money and increases the false positive rate. At some point, it's better to just hire people and fire them when it doesn't work out.

[woodrowbarlow]

you give two examples, and the interview process in the article failed spectacularly on both counts.