Why Hiring Only People Like You Hurts Teamwork
Updated: Nov 6
By Paul Gerhardt, PhD, management professor, leadership author, and host of The Better Workplace.
Hiring someone who feels familiar can make an interview comfortable. It does not tell you whether the team has found the person the work needs.
Before choosing a “good fit,” define the contribution you are hiring for. Use job-related questions and consistent evaluation criteria, then examine the evidence each candidate provides. This companion to Episode 8 of The Better Workplace turns that principle into a practical hiring discussion.
When “fit” becomes a vague shortcut
Similar interests, communication styles, or career paths can make a candidate easy to relate to. Those similarities are different from evidence that the person can handle a customer problem, coordinate a handoff, or challenge an incomplete plan respectfully.
Imagine a team whose members all move quickly from an idea to action. Another energetic problem solver might feel familiar. The work may also need someone who checks assumptions and notices dependencies before a commitment is made. This is a hypothetical example, not a rule that one personality belongs in every team.
Ask what contribution is missing. Avoid assigning abilities to people based on identity or assuming that different backgrounds automatically produce better decisions. The practical question is how each candidate could help this particular team do its work.
Define contribution before meeting candidates
Write down the outcomes the person will own and the situations they will encounter. Replace “fits our culture” with an observable expectation, such as explaining a disagreement respectfully or confirming capacity before promising a delivery date.
Identify the essential job responsibilities and skills.
Choose questions that give candidates a fair opportunity to demonstrate those skills.
Agree on what a strong, adequate, or incomplete answer would contain.
Record evidence before discussing an overall impression.
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management describes structured interviews as using predetermined questions and common rating standards. That guidance provides a useful starting point for making interview judgments more consistent. The exercise here is my leadership application, not a validated selection instrument.
Discuss the evidence before the impression
Suppose a candidate describes a disagreement with a colleague. Ask what the situation required, what the candidate did, and what happened. Evaluate the response against the criteria established for the role.
During the hiring debrief, separate “I enjoyed talking with this person” from “Here is evidence of the skill we need.” Both may be sincere observations, but only one directly addresses the selection criterion.
A useful debrief question is: “If this candidate had a different communication style from mine, would I judge the same evidence differently?”
Try a better hiring debrief
At your next hiring discussion, ask each interviewer to bring one job-related strength, one unanswered question, and the evidence supporting each. Discuss differences in ratings before settling on a decision.
After hiring, keep the same clarity. Explain how decisions are made, how concerns can be raised, and what support the new employee can expect. A selection process is only the beginning of building a team.
Listen and keep learning
For a related lesson on hearing differences constructively, read What Managers Get Wrong About Team Conflict.
Source and practical context
OPM: Structured Interviews. Use the source to review the assessment approach and adapt hiring practices with your organization's HR team.
Paul Gerhardt, PhD, teaches management and leadership with a practical commitment to helping people build better workplaces. The examples and exercises in this article are teaching illustrations, unless identified as research findings.
Practical leadership lessons, once a month
Keep building a team where contribution matters. Subscribe free to The Better Workplace Monthly Lessons for practical leadership insights and updates on books and resources.
Comments