You checked his resume. Interviewed him twice.

He was an MIT graduate - with honors – and his skill set checked every box your team created. His past experience was impressive to say the least, and he was referred by a very reliable source. On paper and in person, he appeared to be the perfect addition to your team.

Months later, you fired him.

What happened?

According to Mark Murphy’s Hiring for Attitude, almost 90% of employees “fail for attitudinal reasons” as opposed to technical abilities. In other words, while employers successfully screen for hard skills, they fall flat when screening for soft skills. Where does this discrepancy come from, and how can employers close this gap?

Take a moment to muse over your last hiring process and ask yourself the following:


Let me guess: you answered “I don’t know” to most, if not all, of those questions. Therein lies the problem.

You see, the average organization focuses very little on what the candidate needs (I like to call this “Candidate DNA”) until it is too late. If the candidate does not have his/her needs met when entering the organization, attitudes will sour quicker than grapes.

When attitudes sour, you are right back in the office handing out pink slips.

None of us enjoy that.

There are 2 parts to Candidate DNA

Generation iY:

What we Must Prepare for and Understand as they Enter the Workforce
Truly understanding Generation iY, the next generation to enter the workforce, requires a real understanding of why such individuals think and act the way they do. From technological advances to modern expectations, today’s work climate has created a unique situation for this generation. Gaining a comprehension of how to aid them in the real world will be key to the success of the next wave of business professionals.

My goal as both a business entrepreneur and parent of iY and Millennial children is to provide the insight necessary to bridge the gap between adults and the emerging generation through observation of previous generations in the workforce and the perceived vs. actual priorities of iY.