Skip to main content

The Cultural Risk of Hiring

Why you must ask the questions others avoid.

I recently interviewed a candidate whose technical abilities had already been evaluated by the people responsible for the role.

By the time he reached me, I was not trying to determine whether he could do the job. That question had already been answered. My responsibility was different. I was interviewing to determine his cultural fit.

His resume, LinkedIn profile, and Indeed history showed different employment dates. Several positions appeared more than once on one of those platforms. The timeline was difficult to follow.

That did not automatically mean he was being dishonest. Platforms create bad data. People change titles without changing employers. Candidates update one profile and forget another. Any of those explanations could be reasonable. What you do not want to do is assume one of them is true.

Most interviewers see a discrepancy, create a plausible explanation in their heads, and move on. That is dangerous. Discrepancies create questions, and those questions need explicit answers directly from the candidate before someone joins the company.

During what we call the Founder’s Interview, the final interview in our process, we reconstructed his employment timeline together.

We walked through where he had worked, when he had worked there, whether he was an employee or a consultant, and how each position ended. I asked what his former supervisors would say about his performance and exit. I also explained that if we moved forward, we would speak directly with those supervisors, not friends who happened to work alongside him.

He said one company eliminated his team after they dramatically reduced customer acquisition costs and the company shifted toward automation. At another company, an internal realignment favored employees with more seniority.

Both explanations were plausible. More importantly, he offered supervisors from both companies as references. That did not prove everything he said was accurate, yet it gave us a way to verify it.

This is the part of interviewing founders should not delegate.

Technical interviews should be conducted by people who deeply understand the work. If I am interviewing a marketing specialist, automation developer, or finance professional, there are people inside the company better qualified than I am to assess that person’s craft. I need to trust their judgment.

The Founder’s Interview is not another technical screen.

I am watching how someone responds to questions other interviewers may have been too polite to ask. Do their answers become clearer as we talk, or more complicated? Do they take responsibility for outcomes? Can they separate their contribution from the team’s contribution? Are they transparent about the parts of their history that are not flattering?

Candidates rarely volunteer information that could hurt their chances of being hired. That’s human nature, and does not make them bad people.

It also means you have to ask:

  • What happened in your last position?

  • How do you know the performance metrics you cited are accurate?

  • Do you have data to support them?

  • How much of the result came from your work versus the team’s?

  • How did you and the company part ways?

  • What will your former supervisor tell me when I call?

Dig for what is not on the resume.

Avoiding uncomfortable questions does not remove risk. It transfers that risk to the company.

This is also why we tell candidates early that we speak with former supervisors. That’s listed in job ads and stated in each conversation during their review process. The certainty of verification changes the quality of the conversation. Candidates become more precise when they know their claims will be checked. It also discourages people who intend to misrepresent their histories from entering the process.

Reference checks should test specific claims. If a candidate says they drove 80% of a major performance improvement, ask the supervisor. If they say a layoff was unrelated to performance, verify it. Vague questions produce vague answers.

Hiring changes a company one person at a time.

Every person you bring in affects how truthfully the team communicates, how it handles responsibility, and which behaviors become acceptable. Bringing a new person into the company always changes your culture. Delegating the final judgment of cultural alignment means it will change without you deliberately shaping it.

As the founder, you are the keeper of the culture. You should never delegate that responsibility.

Think of a hire that didn’t work out. What is the one question you wish you had asked? Reply directly to er**@*********ds.com and tell me.

~ Erik

Stop Promoting People for the Wrong Reasons

The problem wasn’t promotions. It was how we decided them.

For years, promotions in our company happened the way they do in many businesses.

Someone had been here for a few years. They were doing a good job. Their manager suggested they were ready for more. We’d sit down, talk through the pros and cons, and decide whether it was time for a new title and a raise.

At the time, it felt like a reasonable way to handle things.

Looking back, I realized we had built a process around opinions instead of standards.

Every promotion was different because every conversation was different. One manager valued initiative. Another emphasized technical ability. Someone else rewarded loyalty or tenure. None of those things are inherently bad, but they created a problem we didn’t fully appreciate until the company grew larger.

We weren’t promoting people based on a system.

We were making it up as we went.

You may feel like you’re in the same position today.

If every promotion requires a lengthy discussion, if different managers would give different answers about what it takes to reach the next level, or if employees aren’t entirely sure what’s expected of them, you probably don’t have a promotion process.

That realization forced us to rethink how we approached career growth.

Our first instinct was to define promotion criteria across the entire company. The more we thought about it, the more we realized that wasn’t the answer either. I shouldn’t be the person deciding what separates a Level II SEO Specialist from a Level III SEO Specialist. I shouldn’t define what distinguishes a senior project manager from a project manager.

The people leading those departments know how to evaluate the technical ability of people in their department much better than I do.

For that reason, it’s now their responsibility to define it. It’s my responsibility to make sure every department defines it the same way.

This understanding became the foundation of our new career path framework.

Every department now follows the same structure. Each level must define increased responsibility, greater autonomy, higher expectations, measurable performance, stronger decision-making, and the competencies required to operate at that level. The actual skills are different for every department, but the philosophy behind advancement is identical.

That consistency is changing conversations about promotions.

Instead of asking whether someone feels ready for a promotion, we ask whether they’ve already demonstrated the expectations needed for the next level.

Those are two very different questions. One is based on opinion. The other is based on evidence.

A mistake we made early on was allowing promotions to become rewards. Someone worked hard. Or maybe they’d been loyal, threatened to leave, or had a great quarter.

Those are all things you want to recognize or address. But they’re poor reasons to change someone’s role inside your organization.

When someone receives a promotion before they’ve consistently demonstrated the next level of responsibility, the company is making a bet. Sometimes that bet pays off. Sometimes it doesn’t. The perks of the promotion, things like title, salary, and positional authority, came before the performance.

There’s another benefit to building structured career paths that I didn’t expect. It develops better managers.

Many supervisors know who their strongest employees are, but asking them to explain exactly why can be surprisingly difficult. They know it when they see it, but they haven’t translated that instinct into objective standards.

Building career paths forces them to do exactly that.

Once excellence is clearly defined, coaching becomes dramatically more effective because managers stop speaking in vague terms like “take more ownership” or “show more leadership.” They can point to specific expectations that separate one level from the next.

The better a career path is defined, the fewer promotion debates you’ll have. Not because people stop asking. Because everyone already understands what is required to be ready for the next promotion. The standards exist before the conversation ever begins.

Good systems remove the need to have unnecessary one-off conversations. With promotion criteria pre-defined, it’s just a matter of letting the process play out.

You have processes for other parts of your business. Sales, client onboarding, and performance reviews should all have a process.

Promotions deserve one too.

If promotions in your company still depend on who the manager is, how persuasive the employee is, or what happened over the last few weeks, you may be making the same mistake we were.

You’re not evaluating people against a standard. You’re deciding the standard every time someone asks.

Have you defined exactly what earns a promotion in your business, or does every promotion still get decided one conversation at a time? I’d love to hear how you’ve approached this. Email me directly at er**@*********ds.com.

~ Erik

Schedule Service

[forminator_form id="101"]