To hire for traits over background, Mark Kosaglo suggests testing for coachability directly. Run a skill-based roleplay (e.g., discovery), provide specific feedback, and then run the exact same roleplay again. The key is to see if the candidate can actually implement the coaching, not just if they are open to receiving it.

To accurately assess an unteachable trait like coachability, you can't just ask about it. You must create a situation that requires it. For coachability, run a brief role-play, provide direct feedback, and ask them to do it again, observing their verbal and non-verbal reactions to the coaching itself.

The length of an interview can be a powerful diagnostic tool. A good, engaged candidate conversation should naturally last about an hour. If it ends in 15 minutes, the candidate is likely disengaged. If it stretches to two hours, they may lack the self-awareness to be concise. Use time as a simple filter for cultural fit.

At Meta, an interviewer's stated confidence in their hiring decision correlates more strongly with a candidate's future on-the-job performance than the raw interview feedback. This suggests that calibrated interviewers develop an intuitive 'gut check' that captures a candidate's potential for success beyond the formal rubric.

A common hiring mistake is prioritizing a conversational 'vibe check' over assessing actual skills. A much better approach is to give candidates a project that simulates the job's core responsibilities, providing a direct and clean signal of their capabilities.

For leadership roles, the interview itself is a critical test. If the candidate isn't teaching you something new about their function, it's a red flag. A true leader should bring expertise that elevates your understanding. If you have to teach them, they will consume your time rather than create leverage.

For high-level leadership roles, skip hypothetical case studies. Instead, present candidates with your company's actual, current problems. The worst-case scenario is free, high-quality consulting. The best case is finding someone who can not only devise a solution but also implement it, making the interview process far more valuable.

Ineffective interviews try to catch candidates failing. A better approach models a collaborative rally: see how they handle challenging questions and if they can return the ball effectively. The goal is to simulate real-world problem-solving, not just grill them under pressure.

When interviewing, ask candidates: 'In six months, what would be a nightmare situation for you here?' Their answer reveals their work-style preferences and anxieties, highlighting potential mismatches with your company's reality and helping you hire for retention.