The cost of a bad hire is significantly greater than the benefit of a good one. A bad hire makes your job 20-30% harder, while a great one makes it 10-20% easier. Therefore, any candidate who doesn't receive a "strong yes" from the interview panel should be rejected to avoid the high cost of a hiring mistake.
Related Insights
To avoid the trap of hiring 'good enough' people, make the interview panel explicitly state which current employee the candidate surpasses. This forces a concrete comparison and ensures every new hire actively raises the company's overall talent level, preventing a slow, imperceptible decline in quality.
Capital allocation isn't just about multi-million dollar acquisitions. Hiring a single employee is also a major investment; a $100k salary represents a discounted million-dollar commitment over time. Applying the same rigor to hiring decisions as you would to CapEx ensures you're investing your human capital wisely.
To make a hire "weird if they didn't work," don't hire for potential or vibe. Instead, find candidates who have already succeeded in a nearly identical role—selling a similar product to a similar audience at a similar company stage. This drastically reduces performance variables.
Many leaders hire defensively, trying to avoid a costly mistake. This fear-based mindset leads to negative assumptions and misinterpretations of candidate signals. Shifting to an abundance mindset—believing the right person is out there—fosters curiosity and leads to better evaluation and hiring outcomes.
To clarify difficult talent decisions, ask yourself: "Would I enthusiastically rehire this person for this same role today?" This binary question, used at Stripe, bypasses emotional ambiguity and provides a clear signal. A "no" doesn't mean immediate termination, but it mandates that some corrective action must be taken.
To scale hiring efficiently, eliminate ambiguity. Each interviewer must make a definitive 'yes' or 'no' decision. If an interviewer is 'not sure' after their session, they are the problem, not the candidate. This prevents endless interview loops and forces clear, decisive judgment.
To ensure 100% team cohesion, implement a full-day working interview where candidates interact with everyone. Afterward, give every single team member a simple thumbs-up or thumbs-down vote. A single "thumbs down" is a veto, which prevents the poison of a bad cultural fit from entering the team and is easier than firing them later.
Your internal monologue during hiring reveals if you're making the right choice. If you think, "I really need to fill this role," you're on the path to settling. The right candidate sparks the feeling of, "I don't even care if I have a role for this person, I have to get them in."
Don't be paralyzed by the fear of making a bad hire. View hiring as an educated guess. The real knowledge comes after they've started working. Firing isn't a failure, but the confirmation of a mismatched hypothesis. This reframes hiring from a high-stakes decision to an iterative process of finding the right fit.
True A-players are 'undeniable' drivers whose impact is immediately obvious. If you find yourself constantly wondering or second-guessing if someone is the right fit, they are a B-player. Trust that indecision as a signal to cut them fast, as B-players create drag on the entire team.
