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 data can only tell you so much and the most successful pickers know how to look behind the stats and see what the numbers 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 can be tough to make a decision. They both seem driven, confident, loyal and direct. But is that really confidence? Is it maybe arrogance? Are they direct or abrasive? Figuring that out is critical…

FIRST IMPRESSIONS SHOULD NOT BE TRUSTED

Research suggests that most of us are worse at predicting trustworthiness and competence than we think. A 2006 Princeton study found that people form stable character judgments about a stranger’s trustworthiness and competence in as little as one-tenth of a second and while those first impressions barely change with more time, they do become more confident and entrenched. In other words, when evaluating a candidate it is important to recognize that a fleetingly short amount of time could be exerting undue influence on your perception. To try and counteract this, I have a range of techniques that I use to sharpen my read. Below are four that I find helpful in situations where it is hard to tell if a candidate represents a positive or negative aspect of a pair of similar characteristics.

1) CONFIDENCE VS. ARROGANCE

Both walk and talk with self-assuredness and both might look like the candidate you’ve been waiting for, so how do you know? Arrogance is usually easy to spot by watching how someone interacts with others, but a formal interview is an environment where even the most dismissive person will know to be on their best behavior.

One way to pick up clues is to pay attention to the way a candidate talks about success and failure. A confident candidate gives credit freely, praising the team around them, the partners who shaped their thinking, the junior analyst whose insight changed the momentum. An arrogant candidate will always center the story on themselves: Every outcome was their doing and every success was down to their judgement.

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 thought they had seen was just arrogance, expressed as 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.

2) DRIVE VS. RECKLESSNESS

Both produce impressive resumes, littered with new business lines launched, teams built, markets entered. In an industry where the ability to build is prized above almost everything else, these candidates often get hired. But the collateral damage from a reckless employee can far outlast their achievements.

References are the only reliable way to separate the two. Not the references the candidate provides, 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.

3) DIRECTNESS VS. ABRASIVENESS

I have found this to be the matchup that firms in private markets find hardest to call during a recruitment process, perhaps because the line between the two is so narrow. In our world, directness is important. When things are going well, communication is easy, but if anything goes wrong, the ability to step in, quickly and decisively, relies on a direct style. The ability to say what needs to be said with 100% clarity is not optional.

The difference here is whether the directness builds trust or destroys it. A candidate with the right level of directness can deliver difficult messages (and elicit them) in a way that earns respect. An abrasive one delivers them in a way that creates an environment where people stop sharing bad news. Nothing strangles IRR like an information delay.

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 will instinctively modulate their approach according to the person they are speaking to. An abrasive one won’t.

4) LOYALTY VS. INERTIA

There is a big difference between a candidate who has stuck around when things were tough and one who didn’t want to move because they were easy. While talent that takes a new position every 12 months is an obvious red flag, a tenure of 12 years isn’t always a good sign: Context is everything.

The stakes are highest when you are hiring for a leadership role that demands energy and initiative. You cannot afford to hire a candidate prone to inertia into a position like this.

How to call it: Home in on why they left their last position. 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

Whether in a search or on the basketball court, it isn’t always easy to pick the right play. When hiring, the turnover doesn’t usually come from a weak candidate driving at the basket: Rather, it comes from passing to the option that’s shouting the loudest for the ball. Slow down, employ the tools above and be prepared to challenge your own first impressions.