| The interview usually works. The decision usually doesn’t
Founders assume interviews decide hires.
This is a common mistake.
Interviews create signal.
Decisions require structure.
Most hiring failures don’t come from bad interviews. They happen because nothing concrete exists to turn signal into commitment.
| Where founders misdiagnose the problem
When a hire drags on or falls apart, founders usually blame:
- The market
- Candidate quality
- “We just need to see a few more people”
In reality, the interview probably worked absolutely fine.
What failed was the decision layer.
No owner.
No deadline.
No clear bar for a “hell yes”.
So the process defaults to discussion.
| The hidden failure mode
After interviews, most teams drift into the same pattern:
- Feedback shared verbally, in Slack or over email
- Opinion usually outweighs evidence
- Risk tolerance falls over time
You hear phrases like:
“We mostly liked them.”
“Let’s sleep on it.”
“Maybe we should keep looking.”
Although this may seem cautious (“it’s a very important hire”) or “being thorough”, it really isn’t.
It’s indecision disguised as diligence.
| The real issue
Hiring breaks when responsibility is unclear.
If no one owns the decision, the system fills the gap with:
- Consensus-seeking
- Delay
- Risk avoidance
None of these improve hiring outcomes. They simply slow them down and quietly scare off strong candidates.
| Hiring decisions require ownership, not alignment
Every hiring process needs:
- One decision owner
- A fixed decision deadline
- A binary outcome
Hire or no-hire. That’s it.
Not “probably”. No “let's have one more call”.
| What this looks like in practice
| What changes when this is fixed
Hiring speeds up without becoming reckless.
Debates disappear because responsibility is clear.
Bad hires drop because anxiety no longer drives outcomes.
This is the first layer of high-conviction hiring.
The rest of the system builds on it.
Cheers
Neil