The logic of it is addling my brain.

But it’s a concept worth considering when you think about probable outcomes in recruitment.

Imagine you are a contestant on “Let’s make a deal,” presented by Monty Hall.

In front of you are three closed doors, behind which are two goats and a precious prize, let’s say a shiny Chevrolet.

Monty tells you to pick one door, but instead of opening it he gives you a boost.

He opens one of the other two doors with the requirement it has to reveal a goat.

Then he asks if you want to switch your choice.

What do you do?

Hold or switch?

It’s simple probability, right?

A 50% chance between one door or the other that you’ll win your Christmas Car.

Wrong.

If you choose to switch doors, your odds of winning increase to 66.67%.

Such an outrageous proposition that when Marilyn vos Savant described it in Parade magazine in 1990 there were a few complaints.

10,000 of them. From readers, including world-renowned PhD Statisticians, who were happy to correct her Gambler’s Fallacy.

The mistake they all made was that she wasn’t wrong.

The crux of their error, and why this is so confusing, is that it’s not quite the simple probability problem it appears.

It’s a question of quality of information.

Monty Hall makes the decision, once a door has been chosen, to open a door hiding a goat.

He cannot open a door with a car.

And that affects the odds of switching being in your favour.

If you run it as an experiment you’ll see a switch works in favour of you two-thirds of the time. There also multiple in-depth explorations of why it is true online.

This is an example of a veridical paradox , which proposes absurd results that prove to be true. The link includes a video explaining the Monty Hall Problem in more detail.

When dealing with information in a volume-based process, it’s easy to neglect the importance quality of information has.

Not just the information itself, but how it has been derived and its context.

If you feel you are 50-50 on a candidate, the temptation might be to see what else is out there.

“Keep them warm.”

A logical decision that suits you yet neglects key elements of the overall puzzle:

Rather than fishing elsewhere, why not establish the full picture first?

Another example might be the comparison of CVs.

Let’s say you advertise directly, do outreach to your network and ask multiple agencies to send you CVs.

Surely this is the best way to fill your vacancy?

It might be, if

An intuitive approach may work against you.

Look at the journey a candidate has taken in becoming a CV on your desk, and you’ll get a better insight into their likelihood of being the right hire.

Or how about advertising?

If 95% (generous) of adverts follow the same form (Company info, what the job is, what we need, apply now with an up-to-date CV and cover letter), then it makes sense that’s how you advertise.

Except that isn’t what appeals to readers.

Why follow the crowd who profess of candidate shortages, when you could do something different that better fills vacancies with people who stick around longer?

Write for the reader. Give them what they need. Show what’s in it for them. Invite them to get in touch. Adverts become more effective.

Odds and statistics feel scientific and trustworthy, especially when common sense supports their conclusions.

But when you need a different outcome, challenge that common sense and look deeper - that’s often where the wins are.

Two-thirds of the time.

Regards,

Greg

p.s. Merry Christmas. This edition’s a little early, and the next one will be on the 31st.

p.p.s “Lies, damned lies and statistics”