Close Call: The Fine Lines That Define Elite Talent
It’s March Madness (America’s college basketball championship) and millions are filling in their brackets, trying to pick winners in matchups where both teams look strong on paper. The numbers can only tell you so much and the most successful pickers know how to look behind the stats and see what the stats don’t show.
Hiring is no different. It’s common to have candidates with almost identical track records and when each sits across the table from you and presents well, it’s not enough to see who is good. You need to figure out which kind of good they are…
Here are four head-to-head matchups I see firms get wrong, and how to call them correctly.
MATCHUP 1: CONFIDENCE VS. ARROGANCE
Both walk into the room with presence. Both speak with certainty. In a 45-minute interview, both can sound like the candidate you’ve been waiting for.
The difference is in how they talk about other people. A confident candidate gives credit freely. They describe the team around them, the partners who shaped their thinking, the junior analyst whose insight changed a deal. An arrogant candidate centers the story on themselves, consistently. Every outcome was their doing. Every success was their call.
I have seen this distinction cost firms dearly. One client was so impressed by a candidate’s command of the room that they moved to offer within a week. Six months later, the hire had alienated half the team. The confidence they admired in the interview was, in fact, an inability to share credit or tolerate challenge.
How to call it: Ask about a project that didn’t go to plan. A confident candidate will describe what they learned. An arrogant one will explain why it wasn’t their fault.
MATCHUP 2: DRIVE VS. RECKLESSNESS
Both produce impressive resumes. Both have a track record of action: new business lines launched, teams built, markets entered. In private markets, where the ability to build is prized above almost everything else, these candidates advance to the final round quickly.
But there is a difference between someone who builds and someone who breaks things in the process. A driven candidate creates momentum that the organization can sustain after they move on. A reckless one leaves a trail of burned relationships, unfinished projects and teams that were assembled fast and fell apart faster.
References are the only reliable way to separate the two. Not the references the candidate provides—those are curated—but the people one step removed: the deputy who stayed behind, the counterpart at the LP, the colleague who watched the departure up close.
How to call it: Ask what they left behind. A driven candidate will describe what the team went on to achieve after they built it. A reckless one will change the subject.
MATCHUP 3: DIRECTNESS VS. ABRASIVENESS
This is the matchup that firms in private markets find hardest to judge, because directness is valued and rightly so. When you are managing a portfolio of complex credits or presenting to a room of sophisticated LPs, the ability to say what needs to be said is not optional.
The difference is whether the directness builds trust or destroys it. A direct candidate delivers difficult messages in a way that earns respect. An abrasive one delivers them in a way that makes people stop sharing information. Over time, that silence becomes a risk to the firm that is far more dangerous than whatever problem the “directness” was meant to solve.
I always pay close attention to how a candidate speaks about former colleagues. Someone who is constructively direct will offer a nuanced assessment. Someone who is abrasive will be dismissive. The language is a reliable signal.
How to call it: Introduce the candidate to a potential peer or direct report during the process. Watch how they adjust. A direct person modulates their approach for the audience. An abrasive one doesn’t.
MATCHUP 4: LOYALTY VS. INERTIA
A candidate with 12 years at the same firm can be an exceptional hire. Stability signals commitment, institutional knowledge and the ability to build long-term relationships, qualities that matter enormously in private markets, where trust compounds over time.
But not every long tenure is a loyalty story. Some candidates stayed because they were comfortable. The role was adequate. The idea of going through a search felt like more effort than the status quo was worth. These are very different hires from the person who stayed because they were genuinely invested in what the firm was building.
The distinction matters most when you are hiring for a role that demands energy and initiative. A loyal candidate who is ready for a new chapter will be energized by your opportunity. A candidate leaving inertia behind may simply recreate it at your firm.
How to call it: Ask what changed. Why now? A loyal candidate will point to something specific: a shift in the firm’s direction, a completed chapter, a new ambition they cannot fulfill where they are. A candidate running from inertia will give you a vague answer about “looking for something new.”
FINAL THOUGHT
Every March, the bracket reminds us of the same thing: the team that looks like a lock doesn’t always survive the weekend. In hiring, the upset doesn’t come from a weak candidate slipping through. It comes from the one who looked exactly right. The firms that win talent, consistently, are the ones that know how to slow down in the moments that matter and see past the first impression.