Most hiring problems start before the interview
Founders spend too much time trying to improve interviews and not enough time improving the thinking that happens before interviews.
They rewrite scorecards. Add another panel. Ask better behavioral questions. Tighten the take-home project. Debate whether references should happen earlier or later.
Those things can help.
But most hiring problems do not begin when the candidate joins the call. They begin when the company has not decided what excellence actually looks like in the role.
A vague role creates vague judgment
Early-stage job descriptions are often collections of needs, not definitions of ownership.
The company needs someone strategic but hands-on. Senior but scrappy. Independent but collaborative. Technical but customer-facing. Able to build from zero, but also comfortable with process. Strong communicator. Low ego. High agency.
None of this is wrong.
It is just not enough.
If the role can be described in a way that fits twenty different people, the interview process will reward confidence, familiarity, and the founder’s personal taste more than actual fit.
The first question is not who to hire
The first question is what must be true six months from now for this hire to have mattered.
That question changes the conversation.
If the answer is “they shipped three major product surfaces,” you are hiring for execution velocity and product judgment. If the answer is “they built a repeatable outbound motion,” you are hiring for market learning and sales process creation. If the answer is “they removed the founder from daily customer support,” you are hiring for operational ownership and emotional consistency.
The clearer the six-month outcome, the easier it becomes to separate impressive candidates from useful candidates.
Most interviews overvalue polish
Polish is seductive because it makes the process feel safe.
The candidate has crisp answers. They know how to describe their impact. They use the right language. They ask thoughtful questions. They feel senior.
But polished candidates can still be wrong for the stage.
Early companies need people who can create shape where there is none. They need people who can make decisions with partial context, explain their reasoning, and recover quickly when the first answer is wrong.
That does not always sound polished. Sometimes it sounds specific, slightly messy, and deeply grounded in the work.
Design the process around the work
A better interview process starts with the real work the person will inherit.
Show them a messy customer note. Ask how they would turn it into product direction. Give them a half-formed pipeline report. Ask what they would inspect first. Share a vague team problem. Ask what information they would need before acting.
The goal is not to create a puzzle.
The goal is to watch judgment in motion.
The founder has to decide the tradeoff
No candidate is complete.
One person has more experience and less adaptability. Another has sharper judgment and less pattern recognition. One can scale the function later. Another is better for the next twelve months. One reduces founder workload immediately. Another may raise the ceiling of the team over time.
The founder’s job is not to find the candidate with no tradeoffs.
The founder’s job is to know which tradeoff the company can afford.
Hiring gets easier when the bar is real
A real hiring bar is not a list of virtues. It is a standard tied to the company’s current constraint.
When that standard is clear, interviews become less theatrical. Debriefs become more useful. References become more targeted. Rejections become easier. Offers become more confident.
Most hiring problems start before the interview.
Fix the definition of the role, and the process gets sharper almost immediately.
This is the kind of question I write about every Sunday. If you found this useful, the newsletter is below — one essay a week, no upsells.