"While other forms of intelligence-gathering have benefited from research and technological advances — intelligence officers can intercept telephone and Internet communications or use satellite images to find people — interrogation has suffered from a lack of innovation. And our military lacks an elite unit of highly trained interrogators to call upon when high-level people in terrorist organizations are captured. Too often, the questioning is left to whoever is closest at hand."

Sounds like recruiting to me. Lots of technology has brought names to the masses (not that the masses know how to best take advantage of them) but basic interviewing techniques haven't progressed at the same speed as evidenced by how many recruiters can sense things.

Drilling down is critical but from interviews I've been on, recruiters stop far ahead of bedrock preferring to go with their gut. Makes me wonder how many recruiters are divorced; what the heck happened to their great instinct there?

How many great people were cast off as not being right because the recruiter's gut spoke to them. It's really laughable. When will recruiters admit that their gut is flawed and may be hurting them? What then?

Still a long way to go...

Read the article