Key Leadership Lesson: Spend Triple the Time Hiring – See the Real Person Behind the Interview

Spend Triple the Time Hiring – See the Real Person Behind the Interview

When I first started out in leadership, I hadn’t been trained in effective hiring practices. I fell into the common trap of hiring people that I simply liked or those who seemed similar to me. Since I was leading a sales team, I quickly ran into issues when new hires weren’t performing. This was frustrating not just for me, but also for the candidates. Because of my lack of preparation, I was putting people in roles they weren’t suited for, which meant they missed out on other potential opportunities that might have been a better fit. Initially, I thought this was just the reality of hiring—you win some, you lose some. Candidly, I would look around and realize that that was sort of par for the course at the majority of our competitors, particularly in real estate sales. There's high turnover in real estate where the average agent only stays with their brokerage for approximately 18 months. So once again, I thought it was just normal. The thing is, I don't like to be normal. In a sense, I always want to be abnormal—in other words better than average.

As the turnover became increasingly frustrating, I didn’t want to settle for “normal” turnover rates. Learning from leaders like Gary Keller who preached getting a few key hires will change the trajectory of your business, I sought out a consultant to help refine our/my hiring process and build a system that aligned the right person with the right role.

Have a Plan

The first step is to get real clear on what it is and who it is your organization needs. Start with building out a robust job profile. At Faris Capital Partners we include the following in our job profiles: the role mission, the expected results, the required skills, the personality and behavorial attributes of the right candidate, the job responsibilities, the roles SMART goals, the vital fucntions and metrics of the role, and the first 90-day priorities of the role. Once the team is aligned on all of this, we craft the job posting and/or engage a recruiter.

A Four-Step Hiring Process

The main shift was moving from a one-step process to a minimum four-step process. First, we conduct a screening interview to discuss culture and, in a sense, try to scare candidates away if they’re not aligned. We set the standard and explain our expectations clearly. For example, at Faris Capital Partners, I’ll let people know that we operate like a startup—we may not have every process spelled out, and they need to be comfortable building the train track after the train has already left the station, so to speak. By setting these expectations upfront, candidates who thrive in more corporate environments often self-select out. They're used to those more corporate roles where everything's spelled out and they come in, put their head down, and do the same things every day.

Next is the comprehensive interview, focused specifically on role-related questions. I take time to develop these questions in advance and ensure that they stay consistent across interviews. I will often spend a few hours just working and refining these questions. A great resource can be the TopGrading interview questions–I found them online with a simple Google search. They are a great starting point for interviewing as their questions are open-ended and specifically ask for examples to back up the candidate's answers. By building out a question set in advance it allows for a more direct comparison of responses across candidates. 

If a candidate does well, we then conduct a behavioral assessment and review it together. This helps validate the impressions we’ve gathered from the initial interviews, revealing whether the candidate’s behavior aligns with the role’s needs. This is often a point where I will pump the breaks. If I find misalignment in the answers given in prior interviews with the behavioral assessment I dig in deep but I often find, in this case, I may have been dupped by someone who is just good at interviewing (side note, sometimes those that are most nervous in the interview process turn out to be my best hires as their nerves are a sign of genuine interest in working with us.)

Finally, the commitment interview is where we go back to core values and discuss how we like to work together, how to build trust, and how we prefer to give and receive feedback. If this goes well, we extend the offer. That said, if something comes up in this conversation that we don’t like, I can still pump the breaks on that offer if need be. 

The Impact of a Deliberate Process

Hiring will never be perfect, but since implementing this process across both my previous organization and Faris Capital Partners, our turnover—especially among key hires and leadership—has significantly declined. When you hire someone, you owe them the responsibility to deliver on what you’ve promised. Hiring is a two-way street: the candidate will work hard to deliver on their role, and as the leader, you have to make sure the job, the culture, and the support are exactly as described. Taking this time upfront ensures we’re hiring someone into a role where they have a genuine opportunity to shine and be the best version of themselves.

Some Interview Questions I Love: 

Describe your reading habits.

What is the last great book you read? 

Please describe your decision making process…are you more decisive and quick, but sometimes too quick, or are you more thorough but sometimes too slow? 

Please describe a situation where you had to learn a lot quickly. How did you go about learning, and how successful was the outcome? 

What have you specifically done in the past to remain more knowledgeable about your industry and the competitive landscape? 

What are some of the biggest risks you have taken in the past few years and what were the outcomes? 

What actions would you take in the first few weeks, should you join our organization? 

What are some examples of when you have gone above and beyond the call of duty in a role? What happened? 

Are you better at initiating a lot of things or hammering our results on fewer things? 

Key Leadership Lesson: Operate with intention

One of the key factors a leader needs to get clear on is their decision-making process. So often, we make decisions based on intuition that isn’t grounded in any data. Now, if you’ve been in a particular industry for many years, often that intuition will be correct. What you’re really dealing with is pattern recognition, and you’re leveraging that internal pattern to make a wise decision (as discussed before, I encourage myself and others to listen to their gut, but within reason.)

However, as Daniel Kahneman explains in Thinking, Fast and Slow, there are two systems of decision-making. System 1 is fast, automatic, and often emotional. It’s great for quick decisions like what to wear or what to have for lunch—decisions that, if you had to consciously think about, would slow you down to the point of paralysis. System 2, on the other hand, is slower, more deliberate, and requires conscious effort.

As a leader, it’s critical to recognize when you’re in an environment of stress or excitement because your instinct might be to default to System 1, which leads to rash or convenient decisions. It’s important to slow down, ensure you’re not making decisions purely based on emotions, and instead engage System 2 thinking. This is where you take the time to study the data, listen to your team, and consider different viewpoints before moving forward.

Intentionality is key. If you find yourself in an emotional state, whether that’s excitement, anger, or frustration, it’s a sign that you need to slow things down. That might mean telling the team, “I need to sleep on this,” or giving yourself time to deliberate. The goal is to avoid decisions made out of convenience or emotion, and instead, to focus on facts, data, thoughtful reflection and a little intuition.

Early in my career, I leaned heavily on System 1 decision-making. I had been selling real estate for years, closing over 100 homes a year, and I got into a mindset where I felt I knew it all. When I stepped into leadership, I was quick to give decisions without slowing down to engage in more thoughtful, deliberate consideration.

One issue that arose was I wasn’t always explaining the reasons behind my decisions to the team. This lack of clarity created a dependency, where team members began to rely on me in an unhealthy way. They weren’t developing their own decision-making skills because I wasn’t taking the time to walk them through my thought process.

An example that stands out is when I was presented with a 100-page legal document and faced pressure to make a fast decision. Relying on my gut and trusting the intentions of the other party, I skimmed through it without a full read. This was a classic System 1 reaction—assuming the document was fine based on familiarity rather than analyzing the details. Unfortunately, this led to negative consequences for both myself and the company.

When we’re under stress, we tend to default to easy decisions. It’s tempting to say, “I trust this person, so this document must be good,” but that’s dangerous thinking. That’s where engaging System 2—slower, more deliberate thinking—is crucial.

In hindsight, I’ve learned that while gut instinct and intuition are important, especially when you have experience in a particular area, for major decisions you need to leverage both intuition and data. This combination ensures you’re not just making decisions based on habit, emotion, or pressure, but with a full understanding of the potential consequences.

Approaching High-Pressure Decisions with Intentionality

When I’m faced with a high-pressure decision, the first thing I remind myself is to pause and breathe. It’s easy to let urgency dictate a fast decision, but in those moments, it’s crucial to engage System 2 thinking and deliberately slow down. I’ve learned over time that when stress or urgency is involved, it’s even more important to take a step back and ensure I’m not just reacting.

One practical step I take is to gather as much data as possible, but not to the point of analysis paralysis. It’s about finding that balance—getting enough information to make an informed decision while not letting the pressure push me into a rash choice. I’ll also engage my team, asking for their input and encouraging them to bring multiple perspectives to the table. This not only helps me make a more balanced decision but also keeps the team involved and ensures we’re all aligned.

Another key is setting aside my initial emotional reactions. If I feel excited or anxious, I know that’s System 1 trying to take over. In those moments, I’ll say to the team, “Let’s take a day to think this through,” or even just give myself an extra hour to cool off and re-evaluate. The aim is to be intentional, even when time is tight, and ensure I’m making the best possible decision for the long-term goals of the business, not just responding to immediate pressure.

This approach ties back to what Kahneman describes as cognitive ease—the brain’s tendency to take the path of least resistance. When we’re under pressure, the easy way out is to make quick decisions based purely on gut feelings or initial impressions. But I’ve found that by consciously engaging in deeper, more thoughtful decision-making, I can ensure that I’m operating with intention and not just reacting to surface-level triggers.

Fostering a Culture of Intentional Decision-Making

Creating a culture where the team makes thoughtful, intentional decisions starts with leading by example. If I’m always rushing through decisions, or making snap judgments, the team will naturally follow that behavior. So I focus on demonstrating what intentional decision-making looks like by pausing, gathering input, and carefully considering options before arriving at a conclusion.

One of the first things I do is encourage the team to slow down and think through their decisions, especially when they feel pressured. I’ll often remind them to consider both the data and the context. For example, when a problem arises, I ask them to bring not just the issue, but also a few potential solutions. That pushes them to think critically and encourages System 2 thinking, where they’re analyzing the problem rather than jumping to quick fixes.

I also work on building a culture of psychological safety where it’s okay to take time to evaluate decisions. When there’s a high-pressure situation, I’ll let the team know it’s fine to take a day or two to think things through, and that it’s better to get the decision right than to get it fast. I stress the importance of asking for help or input if they’re unsure, instead of pushing through with a decision just to move things forward quickly.

We also hold regular “debriefs” after major projects or decisions, where we reflect on the process and outcomes. This helps the team see the value of slowing down to think and evaluate before acting. It’s all about making thoughtful decision-making a part of the fabric of the team’s day-to-day work.

Finally, I emphasize avoiding the halo effect, which Kahneman describes as the bias of letting first impressions cloud judgment. We make sure to gather multiple perspectives and revisit initial conclusions. It’s about slowing down enough to ensure we aren’t making decisions based on the first idea or the loudest voice in the room, but on the best collective thinking.

Key Leadership Lessons: Slow to hire, fast to fire

Early on in my career, I found that I was sometimes too easy and forgiving with people who clearly weren’t a good fit for the role. They might have had the right attitude or fit well with the culture, but they just didn’t have the necessary skills to get the job done. Over time, I realized that a lot of this was on me. I didn’t have a good hiring process in place and wasn’t looking at the whole person – their behavioral style, personality, and what type of work or environment they would thrive in. Once I learned that it was about finding the right person and aligning them with the right role, it became easier to shift talented people within the organization or help them find a better fit elsewhere.

This realization wasn’t from one specific experience, but I had an early one with a salesperson. She had the ability to do really well and would often hit her numbers. But then she would completely fall off for a couple of months, failing to get the job done. Because I liked her, I kept her around longer than I should have. The opportunity cost of the leads we provided her, along with her lack of care for some of her clients, ended up costing the company much more than keeping her did. That was a wake-up call – I had to make faster decisions when I had the “right person” in the wrong role.

As for hiring, I began educating myself by looking at companies known for great hiring practices. One company that stood out was Keller Williams Realty, which was using a third-party consultant, Corporate Consulting, for their hiring process. I engaged them for coaching, and they taught me the process I still use today. It’s a minimum of four steps: a screening interview, a comprehensive interview, an AVA behavioral assessment validation, and a commitment interview. The screening interview is a chance to get to know the candidate and share our company culture. In a way, we try to scare the person away by being upfront about our high-performance expectations. We also highlight our love for people and our core values.

If that goes well, we move on to the comprehensive interview, where we ask detailed questions about the person and their role-specific knowledge. Afterward, we do a behavioral assessment and validate it on a third zoom call, ensuring that their behavior matches what we’ve seen in previous interviews. From there, we check references and conduct a commitment interview where we discuss how we’d work together and give feedback. In some cases, we also include a panel interview for leadership roles. This multi-step process ensures we make good hiring decisions and bring the right person into the right role.

Despite all this, hiring mistakes still happen. Sometimes it’s due to changes in the candidate’s life or the company’s needs. The hardest situations are when I genuinely like the person outside of the workplace. It’s challenging to part ways with someone you have compassion for, but the mission of the company has to come first. When someone is not contributing to the mission, we provide feedback quickly and, if necessary, remove them from the team. We do this with dignity and, where possible, help them transition to another role outside the company.

The key to deciding when to act is looking for movement. Is the person embracing feedback and seeking growth? Are they making an effort to change? Growth is uncomfortable, and if someone is unwilling to do the work to improve, it’s a clear sign they’re not a good fit.