I was discussing recruitment recently with a fellow CEO and I was reminded of a conversation I had with a senior leader that stopped me in my tracks.
“The highest score is who we offer the role to.”
They were describing a recruitment process they felt confident about. Clear role criteria. Structured scoring. A cross functional interview panel. Deliberate steps to reduce bias. On paper, it reflected many best practices.
I then asked a simple question.
Were these roles ones where you were intentionally hiring for growth over time, or roles where you were explicitly buying in fully formed capability, accepting that retention might be harder?
They paused. Then repeated, “We offered the role to the highest scoring candidate.”
As we talked it through, it became clear the role was intended to be a long term one. There was space to learn on the job. Motivation and cultural fit mattered.
When they described the top candidates, one was highly proficient and scored highest overall. Another scored slightly lower but was a stronger fit, deeply motivated, and clearly wanted to grow with the organisation.
Then the penny dropped for them.
They stopped and said, “I didn’t realise I could offer the role to someone who scored lower.”
That was the real issue.
Not the process.
Not fairness.
But a lack of clarity about what was actually needed, and discomfort with hiring for potential.
I am strongly in favour of objective hiring. Structured criteria matter. Diverse panels matter. Documented decisions matter. But scoring tools are a support to judgement, not a replacement for it.
The harder work comes before interviews even begin.
As hiring managers, we need to be explicit about what we are actually hiring for.
- Are we hiring for immediate performance or for growth?
- Are we designing roles intentionally, or creating wish lists
- Do we have minimum thresholds for skills and values, rather than relying on aggregate scores?
- Have we made space to assess motivation, learning agility, and ambition, even though these are harder to score?
- Are we using our people teams as thought partners, not just process owners?
- Are we sense checking decisions where judgement is involved?
And critically, are we thinking about team composition over time?
Not everyone needs to be operating at full strength on day one. Strong teams are built through balance, development, and complementary strengths, not simply by hiring the highest scoring individual every time.
Hiring is hard. Building strong, durable teams is harder. But organisations that invest in people they can develop, who grow, stay, and learn from one another, consistently outperform those that only hire for immediate technical perfection.
Sometimes the best hire is not the highest scoring candidate on the spreadsheet, but the right one for where the organisation is actually going.
Warmly,
Liz
Strategic Advisor | Former CEO | Founder, Volante
Based in Kenya, available globally
Based in Kenya, available globally
