The sting of it is so specific. A paper cut isn’t a grand injury, it’s a tiny, razor-thin betrayal by something you’re supposed to trust, like an envelope. It’s the small, overlooked edge that does the real damage. You don’t notice it until you’re bleeding. I’m pressing my thumb against the conference room table, a tiny line of red welling up, and watching Dave try to sell us on a candidate for the senior engineering role.
“His last boss, a guy named Marcus, just raved about him,” Dave says, beaming. He’s flipping through a flimsy notepad, the kind they give away at corporate events. “Said he was a real ‘go-getter’.”
”
A silence hangs in the air, thick and expectant. Sarah, from product, leans forward. “A go-getter how? Can you give us the example Marcus used?”
The Ghost of a Good Feeling
Dave’s Notes (transcribed):
‘); padding: 0.5rem; border-radius: 4px; position: relative;”>
“Uh, let’s see.”
“It says… ‘Marcus call. Good vibe. Said he’s a go-getter. Seems solid’.”
“I know he gave a great example, something about a project that was behind by 45 days, but I can’t… I don’t have the specifics here.”
?
We all know what this means. The data is gone. The actual evidence from one of the most valuable, unguarded moments in the entire hiring process-a 25-minute conversation with someone who managed the candidate for years-has vanished into thin air. All that’s left is the ghost of a good feeling. A vibe. And we’re about to make a
$165,000 decision, with a total first-year cost easily cresting
$235,000, based on a two-word summary scribbled by a guy who was probably more focused on his next meeting than on capturing critical information.
$
A Personal Confession of a Costly Mistake
This isn’t an indictment of Dave. It’s an indictment of me, of you, of the whole ridiculous charade. I’ve sat in this exact chair and preached the gospel of data-driven decisions for years. I’ve insisted on metrics for everything from marketing spend to code commits. And then, when it comes to hiring, the most critical people-centric decision a company makes, I’ve let it all slide for a gut feeling.
My $575,000 “Amazing” Hiring Mistake
My Old Notes:
‘); padding: 0.5rem; border-radius: 4px; position: relative;”>
“AMAZING. Solved the Singapore thing. HIRE HIM.”
I’m going to tell you something I shouldn’t. About five years ago, I hired a director of operations based on the single most compelling reference call of my career. He lasted 15 months. The very details I failed to write down, the nuances of how he solved that crisis-by bulldozing two other departments and burning every ounce of political capital he had-turned out to be the exact reason he failed with us. The vibe was immaculate. The data, had I bothered to capture it, was a massive red flag. The cost of that mistake, when you factor in salary, severance, the projects he derailed, and the two great people who quit because of him, was probably close to
$575,000. All because I was seduced by a good story.
!
The Baffling Asymmetry of Precision
It’s a strange contradiction, isn’t it? We live in an age of unbelievable precision. I was reading about a precision welder, a woman named Sophie T., who works on aerospace components. Her job requires tolerances of less than 0.05 millimeters. She isn’t eyeballing it; she isn’t going with her gut. She’s using lasers, sensors, and computer-calibrated equipment because if her weld is off by the width of a human hair, the entire component fails during stress testing.
Precision
0.05 mm Tolerance
VS
We demand that level of rigor for a piece of metal, yet for the human systems that build and run our entire companies, we’re content with ‘seems good’. This is the core of it: our brains are fundamentally lazy. They are built for narrative, not for spreadsheets.
Brain’s Shortcut: Narrative vs. Raw Data
Built for Narrative
(Stories, connections, oxytocin)
Not for Spreadsheets
(Raw data, fades, distorts)
A good story, like the one I heard about the Singapore crisis, releases oxytocin. It makes us feel connected and trusting. Raw data doesn’t. Scrawling a few notes feels like due diligence, but it’s actually a cognitive shortcut. We capture the feeling of the information, not the information itself. And that feeling fades and distorts over time. When Dave tries to recall the ‘go-getter’ example a week after the call, his brain just serves up a generic, positive narrative because the specific data points were never properly encoded.
We obsess over getting every word right in so many other contexts. Think about the effort that goes into making sure every nuance is captured when you need to gerar legenda em video for an international product launch. You wouldn’t just summarize it as ‘said some good stuff about the product’. You’d want every word, every pause, perfectly documented, because the details are everything. Yet for a reference call that will shape your team for the next 5 years, we accept a vague, handwritten summary. The asymmetry is baffling.
It is an act of supreme arrogance.
(The hidden truth about our hiring biases)
We believe our memories are reliable recorders of fact. They are not. They are impressionistic storytellers. The reference check call isn’t just a call. It’s a deposition. It’s a live, unscripted data stream revealing how a candidate communicates, solves problems, and handles pressure, all told by a primary source. And we’re trying to capture that stream with a pen and paper. It’s like trying to photograph a meteor shower with a pinhole camera. You’ll get a faint smudge of light, but you’ll miss the entire spectacle.
The Painfully Simple Alternative: Record and Transcribe
The alternative is so painfully simple it feels insulting to even say it: record and transcribe the call. That’s it. Stop trusting your memory and start trusting a verifiable record. The conversation transforms instantly. You’re no longer just listening for a vibe; you’re listening for specifics, knowing you can revisit them. Your questions get better. You can ask follow-ups like, “When you say he took initiative, can you walk me through the exact steps he took and who he had to get approval from?” You don’t have to frantically scribble; you can be present and engaged.
🔍
You have a searchable document.
✏️
You can compare exact phrasing and nuances.
📋
The texture is in the language, not scribbled away.
Afterward, you don’t have a vague note. You have a searchable document. You can sit down with your team and compare the transcripts for three different candidates. You can CTRL+F for “conflict,” “deadline,” “collaboration.” You can see the exact phrasing Marcus used. Was he hesitant? Did he use qualified language? Did he say, “Well, he usually was a go-getter,” or “He was, without a doubt, the biggest go-getter on my team of 25”? The texture is in the language, and scribbled notes sand all of that texture away.
✓
Building a Great Team: Meticulous Precision
I often think about Sophie T., the welder. Her value isn’t in one heroic, perfect weld. It’s in the consistency of thousands of tiny, precise, and documented actions that, together, create something strong enough to withstand incredible force. Building a great team is the same. It’s not about finding one mythical ‘go-getter’ based on a hunch. It’s about the disciplined, meticulous process of capturing real evidence, respecting the details, and making a decision based on the full picture, not just the blurry, feel-good snapshot you happened to remember.
The Strength of Meticulous Process
Like Sophie T.’s welds, a great team is built on consistent, precise, and documented actions.