Whether you're an internal or external recruiter you have no doubt seen that some clients steer clear of hiring the smartest candidates. Often they will select the 'average' yet likeable candidate.

One of the fundamental mistakes that I have seen throughout my HR and Recruitment career is that most people tend to avoid hiring those who are smarter than them.  Perhaps it has to do with our egos! As identified in Jim Collins 'From Good to Great' the best businesses get the smart people on board and then figure out where to put them, as highlighted in "How to get talent on board your bus"

Most people hire candidates who have done the same or a similar job before and who they like. Competition within business is fierce amongst employees. It takes a well adjusted person to be able to firstly identify talent and to then hire and manage these smart individuals. Ultimately if done right everyone wins, the manager the employee and the business.

In reality every business needs to be hiring smart candidates or at least have a reasonable proportion of their workforce (dependent on the business) who is first rate talent. Without this a business will fail to innovate and grow.  Each workforce does require a mix of people with varying degrees of intelligence, as highlighted in "A military approach to hiring successful people."  The ideal two types of people a business should engage are the Smart and Lazy and the Dumb and Energetic!

In your experience how have the smartest candidates faired in the recruitment process? Should we be hiring smarter or does the current model work?