Latest / The Science of Leading / Why “Not a Fit” Decides Hiring—and How to Fix It

Transcript

Why “Not a Fit” Decides Hiring—and How to Fix It · The Science of Leading

• 0:00
  Welcome to the show.
• 0:01
  Edwin, I want to start with a line that shows up in hiring meetings constantly:
• 0:06
  "I just don't think they're a fit." Fourteen words-and somehow that can
• 0:10
  outweigh a CV, a work sample, even a strong panel interview.
• 0:10
  Yes,
• 0:15
  and those fourteen words are doing far more work than people realize.
• 0:19
  "Not a fit" can mean the candidate challenged me,
• 0:22
  or they were nervous, or they didn't communicate the way I prefer.
• 0:25
  And sometimes, if we're being honest,
• 0:27
  it simply means they didn't feel familiar in a way that makes us comfortable.
• 0:27
  So
• 0:32
  when people say they're testing fit... they might actually be testing familiarity.
• 0:36
  Or just... confidence theater.
• 0:36
  Exactly.
• 0:39
  Interview polish is not the same as future performance.
• 0:43
  Some of the most polished candidates I've seen struggled once hired.
• 0:47
  And some of the quieter ones-the ones who needed a moment to think-ended
• 0:51
  up being steady, collaborative,
• 0:53
  and highly effective.
• 0:53
  Then how do you stop "fit" from becoming this catch-all
• 0:57
  excuse?
• 0:58
  Because I get why teams care about it.
• 1:00
  If someone genuinely clashes with the way the team works,
• 1:03
  that's a real problem.
• 1:03
  It is, and that's the tension worth preserving.
• 1:07
  Culture fit is not meaningless.
• 1:10
  Teams tend to perform better when people understand the mission,
• 1:13
  operate within shared norms, and want to contribute.
• 1:17
  That can improve engagement, reduce friction,
• 1:20
  even support retention.
• 1:21
  The problem starts when fit quietly becomes sameness.
• 1:21
  Sameness-that's
• 1:28
  the word.
• 1:28
  Not shared values.
• 1:29
  Sameness.
• 1:30
  Those are not the same thing.
• 1:30
  Very different.
• 1:32
  Shared values sound like: we give direct feedback,
• 1:36
  we take ownership, we collaborate across teams.
• 1:39
  Sameness sounds like: this person feels easy to me,
• 1:43
  I'd enjoy spending time with them.
• 1:45
  That's not a hiring standard.
• 1:47
  It's a preference."Would I grab a drink with them" is probably the most
• 1:51
  expensive question nobody admits they're asking.
• 1:51
  And it leads to homogeneity.
• 1:56
  You hire people who feel familiar,
• 1:58
  and then you wonder why the team thinks the same way and misses the same
• 2:02
  blind spots.
• 2:03
  A better approach is to break the interview into categories: behavioral,
• 2:07
  technical, and values alignment.
• 2:09
  Not chemistry-categories.
• 2:09
  Okay,
• 2:13
  make that practical.
• 2:14
  If I'm a manager listening to this on my commute,
• 2:16
  what do those three buckets actually give me?
• 2:16
  Each one answers a different
• 2:21
  risk.
• 2:21
  Behavioral questions show patterns from real experience.
• 2:25
  Technical questions test whether the person can actually do the work.
• 2:29
  Values or culture questions examine how they operate with others and
• 2:34
  relate to the mission.
• 2:35
  When you separate those, you reduce the chance that charm fills the gaps."Charm
• 2:41
  fills the gaps." That's... painfully accurate.
• 2:44
  So instead of one vague impression,
• 2:46
  you're asking: have they done similar work,
• 2:48
  can they do this job, and will they operate in a way that supports the
• 2:52
  team without needing everyone to be identical.
• 2:52
  That's the goal.
• 2:55
  The strongest hiring processes don't chase a feeling.
• 2:59
  They collect enough comparable evidence that the decision can be explained
• 3:02
  afterward.
• 3:03
  If you can't explain why Candidate A was chosen over Candidate B without
• 3:07
  using words like "energy" or "presence," the process is weak.
• 3:07
  And probably
• 3:12
  biased, even if nobody intended it.
• 3:12
  Yes.
• 3:15
  Bias tends to enter through ambiguity.
• 3:19
  The less defined your criteria,
• 3:21
  the easier it is for preference to present itself as judgment.
• 3:21
  Okay,
• 3:26
  so let's tighten the system.
• 3:27
  Behavioral questions first.
• 3:29
  I hear "Tell me about a challenge" all the time,
• 3:32
  and then... nothing.
• 3:33
  No follow-up, no depth.
• 3:33
  That's a missed opportunity.
• 3:37
  Behavioral questions only work if they produce specific evidence.
• 3:41
  Instead of "Tell me about a challenge," ask,
• 3:44
  "Tell me about a time you made a mistake that affected other people.
• 3:48
  What happened, what did you do next,
• 3:51
  and what changed afterward?" Now you're testing accountability,
• 3:55
  not just storytelling.
• 3:55
  The "affected other people" part really changes
• 4:00
  it.
• 4:00
  That forces them to go beyond a safe answer.
• 4:00
  Exactly.
• 4:04
  And the follow-up is where the real signal appears.
• 4:07
  What was your role?
• 4:09
  What feedback did you receive?
• 4:11
  What would your manager say you learned?
• 4:14
  Candidates can rehearse a summary.
• 4:16
  It's much harder to construct detailed,
• 4:18
  consistent answers under follow-up.
• 4:18
  So the clever question isn't the advantage.
• 4:24
  It's the discipline afterward.
• 4:24
  Usually,
• 4:26
  yes.
• 4:27
  The same applies to conflict.
• 4:29
  Don't ask, "Are you good with conflict?" Everyone will say yes.
• 4:33
  Ask for a specific disagreement,
• 4:36
  how they handled it, and what the outcome was.
• 4:39
  Then listen for ownership, respect,
• 4:42
  and whether they can reflect without deflecting.
• 4:42
  What about stress?
• 4:46
  Every role is "fast-paced" now.
• 4:49
  Apparently every company is dynamic and every team wears multiple hats.
• 4:49
  Yes,
• 4:54
  the universal description.
• 4:56
  A stronger approach is to ask about a period where priorities shifted
• 5:00
  quickly.
• 5:01
  How did they decide what to do first,
• 5:03
  and what did they communicate to others?
• 5:05
  That reveals judgment, not just resilience language.
• 5:05
  Now technical interviews-this
• 5:11
  is where things can get... theatrical.
• 5:13
  Puzzles, trick questions, things that feel impressive but not relevant.
• 5:13
  And
• 5:18
  those should be avoided.
• 5:19
  Technical questions should reflect the actual work.
• 5:22
  If the role involves troubleshooting,
• 5:24
  give a realistic scenario.
• 5:26
  If it involves analysis, present real data.
• 5:30
  If it involves writing, ask for a short writing sample.
• 5:33
  The closer the task is to the job,
• 5:35
  the more useful the signal.
• 5:35
  And for culture questions,
• 5:39
  we're not asking if we'd enjoy spending time with them.
• 5:41
  We're asking how they work.
• 5:41
  Correct.
• 5:44
  Questions like: what kind of environment helps you perform best,
• 5:48
  how do you handle expectations outside standard hours,
• 5:51
  what does effective collaboration look like to you.
• 5:54
  These surface alignment without requiring similarity.
• 5:54
  The after-hours
• 5:59
  question is a good one.
• 6:00
  That's the kind of mismatch you want to catch early,
• 6:03
  not after someone's already joined.
• 6:03
  Exactly.
• 6:06
  And then comes the part many teams skip: consistency.
• 6:10
  Ask the same core questions, use a defined scorecard,
• 6:14
  and evaluate independently before discussing as a group.
• 6:17
  You're building multiple points of evidence around the same decision.
• 6:17
  Multiple
• 6:22
  points of evidence.
• 6:23
  Not one impressive conversation.
• 6:23
  Yes.
• 6:26
  Hiring should reward evidence,
• 6:28
  not charisma.
• 6:29
  And if you're trying to make that shift-toward a more structured,
• 6:33
  consistent process-tools like OAD can help.
• 6:37
  You can test their approach, including behavioral assessments,
• 6:41
  for free at o-a-d-dot-a-i and start reducing some of that guesswork.
• 6:41
  It
• 6:46
  really comes back to respect, doesn't it?
• 6:48
  Respect for the role, for the candidate,
• 6:50
  and for the cost of getting it wrong.
• 6:50
  It does.
• 6:53
  Every hiring decision shapes the future of the team.
• 6:57
  If you choose based on evidence,
• 6:58
  you build capability.
• 7:00
  If you choose based on comfort,
• 7:02
  you build an echo.
• 7:02
  That's a sharp way to put it.
• 7:05
  Thanks for listening to The Science of Leading.
• 7:05
  We'll see you next time.