I Chose the Person Who Felt Right (Not Just Qualified)

Have you ever gotten exactly what you asked for—and then realized that creates a whole new problem? As we talked about in the last post, we got over 250 applications for one executive assistant position. Only 7 people followed all the instructions.

From 250 to 7. They deselected themselves. Which is exactly what the process was designed to do. I didn't have to review 250 resumes. I reviewed 7 complete applications.

From those 7, we picked the top 2 to interview. And that's where the challenge nobody talks about begins.

When Both Candidates Are Excellent

Both candidates are wonderful. Both would work well for what we're looking for. Very different people. Very different approaches. But both excellent.

And I had to choose. How do you choose between two very good candidates? This isn't about finding someone qualified.

It's about choosing between two people who are both qualified. And somehow, nobody warns you about this part.

My philosophy has always been: Hire slow, fire fast. And "hire slow" doesn't mean drag it out for months. It means be thorough. Test properly. Don't rush the decision.

Because a bad hire costs you far more than the time it takes to hire well. So after the virtual interview, I created a task. And here's where people usually react.

I gave both candidates login information and a very big-picture description of what needed to be done. No step-by-step instructions. No detailed checklist. No hand-holding. Just: "Here's what you need to do. Figure it out."

I gave them 48 hours. And I specifically told them they could reach out with clarifying questions if needed. But I also acknowledged: "I'm purposefully not giving you detailed instructions. That's part of the process."

When I explained this to one of the candidates today, she said: "Oh my god, that is brilliant. I never expected that kind of reaction." And honestly? That reaction told me a lot.

Why I Test the Way I Do

Here's what most people don't understand about hiring for roles that require initiative: You can't test initiative with detailed instructions. You can't test problem-solving with step-by-step guides. You can't test resourcefulness with a checklist.

If I want to know how someone operates when things aren't perfectly clear—when I'm traveling, when I'm in back-to-back meetings, when I don't have time to spell everything out—I need to see it.

So I create conditions that mirror reality. I give them just enough information to start. Then I watch what they do.

Do they freeze? Do they ask a thousand questions before taking any action? Do they figure it out and loop me in when they hit a real roadblock? Do they over-deliver or just meet the bare minimum?

That tells me everything a polished resume and a good interview can't.

Most hiring processes test the wrong things. They test how well someone interviews. How well they write a cover letter. How polished their LinkedIn is.

But they don't test how someone actually works. How they handle ambiguity. How they prioritize when everything feels important. How they communicate when they're stuck.

And then we're surprised six months later when the person who interviewed beautifully can't function without constant direction.

Check: Think about your last hire. Did you test how they actually work? Or did you test how well they presented themselves?

The Interview Is Theater

The interview is theater. Everyone's performing their best self. They've rehearsed answers. They've researched your company. They're on their best behavior.

None of that is bad. But it's not real.

Real is: "Here's a task. Here's minimal direction. Show me how you think." Real is watching how they handle not knowing. Real is seeing if they take initiative or wait for permission.

And that's not something you can assess in a 45-minute conversation, no matter how good your interview questions are.

When I give this task, I'm not just looking for completion. I'm looking for how they ask questions, how they communicate, how they problem-solve, how they prioritize, how they deliver.

All of that shows me who they are as an operator. Not who they are as an interviewee.

Both completed the task. Both exceeded expectations in different ways. Both communicated well. Both showed initiative.

One was more detail-oriented. One was more strategic. One asked more questions. One took more risks. Both were exactly what I needed—just in different ways.

So how did I choose?

The Question Nobody Asks

Here's what most leaders miss when hiring: Yes, this person will work with the whole team. But they'll be working most closely with me.

They'll report to me. They'll be my right hand.

And if they're going to be my right hand, I need someone whose communication style, personality, and energy match mine. Not because the other person wasn't excellent. Because fit matters.

I chose the person who suits me most. My style of communication. My personality. My energy.

What People Get Wrong About "Culture Fit"

People hear "I hired for fit" and think it means: "I hired someone just like me." "I hired someone who won't challenge me." "I hired the person I'd grab a beer with."

That's not what I mean.

Both candidates were qualified. Both were excellent operators. Both would challenge me when needed.

But one of them communicated in a way that felt natural to me. One of them asked questions the way I ask questions. One of them processed information at the pace I process information.

And when you're hiring someone to be your right hand—someone who needs to anticipate your needs, interpret your half-finished thoughts, and execute without constant back-and-forth—that alignment matters.

We've been told that "hiring for fit" is problematic. And it can be—when "fit" becomes code for "people who look like me, sound like me, went to the same schools as me."

That's not fit. That's bias.

But choosing someone whose working style aligns with yours? That's not bias. That's operational efficiency.

What Happens When You Ignore Fit

I've made this mistake before. Hired the "most qualified" person on paper. Ignored the small friction I felt in the interview. Told myself: "They're so skilled. I can adapt."

And then spent six months adapting. Every. Single. Day.

Adjusting my communication style. Over-explaining simple requests. Managing my own frustration when they didn't "get it" the way I expected.

Not because they were bad at their job. Because we weren't aligned.

And eventually, I had to make a change. Not because of performance. Because of fit. Which meant I wasted six months—and so did they.

For the Leader Hiring Right Now

Maybe you're in a similar spot. You've narrowed it down. You have good options. And you're wondering which criteria should win.

Here's what I learned: Skills can be taught. Fit cannot.

If someone has the baseline competence and they're willing to learn, you can teach them systems. You can teach them tools. You can teach them your preferences.

But you cannot teach them to operate on your wavelength. You cannot teach them to match your energy. You cannot teach them to communicate in a way that feels natural to you.

That's either there or it's not. And when you're hiring someone to work closely with you—especially in a high-touch, fast-moving role—that alignment is not optional. It's essential.

The Uncomfortable Truth

The other candidate was excellent. She would have succeeded. She would have done the job well.

But she wouldn't have been my right hand the way this person will be. And that's okay.

Because not every excellent candidate is the right fit for every role. And pretending that "most qualified on paper" always wins is how you end up with talented people in the wrong seats.

I'm building a team where people are in roles that leverage their natural strengths. Where communication flows without constant friction. Where I don't have to translate every request into a different working language.

And that starts with being honest about what the role actually requires—not just in skills, but in working style.

This person will be excellent at the job. But more importantly, she'll be excellent at working with me. And that's the difference between a good hire and a great one.

So Here's the Real Question

When you're hiring, what are you actually optimizing for? The most impressive resume? The most experience? The person who interviews best?

Or the person who will work best with you and your team?

Because all the skills in the world don't matter if the daily collaboration feels like friction. And once you're honest about that—once you stop apologizing for wanting someone whose energy and communication style align with yours—you'll make better hires.

Not easier hires. Better ones.

A Quick Meta Moment

This blog post is being scheduled and posted by my new executive assistant. The one I wrote about. The one I chose.

She's literally posting content about herself—about being selected, about passing the test, about why I picked her. No pressure.

I wonder how it feels reading about yourself while you're scheduling it across all platforms.

So... if you're reading this while you're posting it: Hi. Welcome to the deep end. You're doing great.

And if you're reading this after she posted it: She made it through the test. And now she's swimming.

If you're building a team and struggling with hiring decisions that actually matter, we're here.

At MotivAction®, we train leaders to build operational excellence—including how to hire slow, test well, and trust what actually matters.

Learn more at MotivAction.academy.