Latest / Hiring & Firing with Fexingo: Recruitment, Performance, and Workforce Decisions / How Hiring for Curiosity Cut Turnover by 35 Percent
Transcript
- Lucas: You know that candidate who knows every acronym on their resume but never asks a single question during the interview? This episode is about why that candidate might be exactly the one you should pass on. Luna: Wait, we've been told for years that subject matter expertise is king. Are you saying that's wrong? Lucas: Not wrong exactly, but incomplete. I was talking to a partner at Meridian Capital, a midsize financial services firm, and they ran a two-year experiment. They completely rewired their hiring process to prioritize curiosity over existing knowledge. Luna: That sounds risky. In finance, you need people who know the instruments, the regulations, the models. Lucas: Yeah, they thought the same thing. But here's what they found: after 18 months, first-year turnover dropped 35 percent, and new hires scored 20 percent higher on performance reviews compared to the previous cohort. The data is strong enough that they've made it permanent. Luna: That's a dramatic shift. How did they define 'curiosity' in a way that could be measured in an interview? Lucas: Great question. They replaced the standard 'tell me about a time' questions with ones that probe how candidates think about things they don't know. For example, 'What's something you learned recently that changed your mind about something?' That question alone told them a lot. Luna: Interesting. Did they also look at how many questions the candidate asked? I've read that the quantity and depth of questions correlates with curiosity. Lucas: Exactly. They tallied the number of genuine questions candidates asked during the interview itself, not just about the role but about the company's strategy, challenges, even the market. They found that candidates who asked more than three substantial questions had a 50 percent higher retention rate. Luna: And that's where we get into the kind of granular insight that most companies don't share. We're able to bring you stories like this because our show is listener-supported. No ads, no interruptions. If that model resonates, you can help keep it going at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. Lucas: Yeah, we don't take for granted that people choose to spend time with us. So, back to Meridian — they also introduced a 'curiosity score' in their evaluation rubric. It weighed as much as technical proficiency. That's a radical change. Luna: And how did hiring managers react? I can imagine a portfolio manager pushing back, saying 'I need someone who knows this sector cold.' Lucas: There was definitely skepticism. Meridian ran parallel hiring tracks for the first six months — old method and new method — and compared outcomes. When the data showed the curiosity-heavy hires were outperforming, the skeptics came around. Luna: Were there any types of roles where the curiosity-first approach didn't work? Entry-level maybe, or senior leaders? Lucas: Good point. For highly regulated roles like compliance, curiosity was still important but technical knowledge remained table stakes. They adjusted the weighting: curiosity was 40 percent for analysts but 60 percent for managers who would be leading teams through change. Luna: So it's not a one-size-fits-all. But the principle is: if you're hiring for a role where the landscape shifts fast, curiosity might be the best predictor of adaptability. Lucas: Exactly. And there's a cost to ignoring it. Meridian calculated that their old process — which emphasized pedigree and know-how — cost them an estimated 3 million dollars in turnover and retraining over two years. The new process cut that nearly in half. Luna: That's a concrete number. But I want to ask about the downside: if you over-weight curiosity, could you end up hiring people who are intellectually playful but lack the grit to finish complex projects? Lucas: That's a risk. Meridian combated it by pairing the curiosity scoring with a work sample test that measured follow-through. They'd give candidates a real-world problem from the past, ask them to sketch a solution, then two weeks later ask how they'd iterate on it. The ones who showed sustained engagement scored higher overall. Luna: So it's curiosity plus execution. That makes sense. And it's a lot more nuanced than just asking 'why' a bunch of times. Lucas: Right. The key takeaway is that curiosity is trainable and assessable, but only if you design your interview process to surface it. Most interview scripts unintentionally reward certainty over inquiry. Meridian flipped that. Luna: I also wonder about bias. Could extroverted candidates — or candidates from certain cultures — appear more curious because they ask more questions? Lucas: That's a legitimate concern. Meridian trained interviewers to distinguish between social interviewing and genuine intellectual curiosity. They scored the depth of questions, not the number. A quiet candidate who asked one profound question could score higher than a talkative one who asked five superficial ones. Luna: Good. So we need structured scoring, not just vibes. That's consistent with the best hiring practices anyway. Lucas: Exactly. And the results speak for themselves. I'll leave you with this: in a world where knowledge doubles every few years, the ability to say 'I don't know, but I'm going to find out' might be the most underrated hire signal. Luna: I think that's a perfect note to end on. For our listeners, if your current hiring process only rewards what candidates already know, maybe it's time to start asking what they're curious about.