The Signal Check: Why the Best Candidate Doesn’t Always Win

A grounded guide to filtering less by polish, more by potential.

Introduction: Merit isn’t broken. Our filters are.

Some of the best people you’ll ever work with won’t look like it on paper.

They won’t speak with perfect polish.
They won’t always list the “right” qualifications.
They won’t sell themselves with confident, clean narratives.

And if your hiring system isn’t built to catch that, you’ll miss them.

This isn’t about virtue signalling or lowering standards. It’s about recognising a simple, often uncomfortable truth:

We don’t hire based on pure merit. We hire based on perceived signal.
And those signals? They’re often distorted.

Hiring is not neutral. It’s deeply human.

Most workplace leaders will tell you they care about potential. About capability. About “best fit.”

But when the pressure’s on, a deadline, a role to fill, a stakeholder breathing down your neck, we default to what feels safest.

• The candidate who speaks smoothly.

• The one with the fancy degree.

• The one whose resume “just looks right.”

• The referral from someone trusted.

These aren’t inherently bad signals. They’re just incomplete.

Because behind many hiring mistakes is a truth we’re not always willing to admit:

Confidence is not competence. Pedigree is not performance. And polish is not potential.

False Positives: When Good on Paper Fails in Practice

Several years ago, I hired three people at once.
We needed frontline service staff. Nothing complicated, but the work was steady and customer-facing.

I wasn’t thrilled about any of the hires, they interviewed fine, said the right things, but I was under pressure. The business needed them. I moved forward.

All three were gone after probation.

They weren’t disasters. But they dragged their feet, didn’t mesh with the team, and slowed momentum just enough to be felt. The real cost wasn’t drama. It was erosion: lost time, lost training effort, and a morale dip the team couldn’t name but definitely felt.

Sometimes it’s not the bad hires that ruin you.
It’s the almost-good-enough ones who quietly break rhythm.

False Negatives: The Best Hire I Almost Didn’t Make

In more recent years I recall advertising for a more technical role.
I offered it to the top candidate, they declined. The second? Also a no.

So I gave it to the third, someone quiet, unassuming, not especially remarkable on paper or in person. I didn’t have a “gut feeling.” I had no other option.

That person stayed with us for years. Delivered reliably. Became more than a colleague, a friend.
I was even teased for hiring them at the time.
That hire turned out to be one of the best I’ve ever made.

Sometimes your best decision isn’t your first choice.
It’s the one you nearly overlooked.

Why Our Filters Fail

Hiring systems, whether corporate or startup, are built around perceived safety. But safety is an illusion.

Here’s why so many smart people get it wrong:

1. We confuse confidence with capability.

Someone who speaks fluently and interviews well is easy to trust. But overconfidence often hides a lack of depth. In fact, the best candidates are often slightly cautious, they’re weighing their words, not selling you a script.

2. We overvalue qualifications that don’t reflect the job.

Yes, degrees matter in technical, legal, or compliance-driven fields. But for most operational, administrative or service roles? Experience, attitude, and adaptability are often more predictive of success.

The truck driver who becomes warehouse manager.
The barista who becomes operations lead.
The “unqualified” person who’s already solved your problem, they just didn’t have a certificate.

3. We read formatting as “togetherness.”

CVs that look clean get read. CVs that don’t get skimmed or ignored. But someone with five kids, two jobs, and a 15-year work history might not have time to learn Canva.

What matters is what’s underneath.
And yes, formatting helps, but it shouldn’t decide.

4. We trust referrals too easily.

Referrals make us feel safe. But they’re often based on personal relationships, not performance.

A referral from a former employer? High signal.
A referral from a friend of a friend? Lower than you think.

Small Teams vs Corporates: Who Gets It Right?

Both have blind spots, and both can learn from each other.

Corporate hiring traps:

• Bureaucracy.

• Red tape.

• Rigid systems that filter out nuance.

But they win on process. They slow down. They document. They verify.

SMEs and startups hiring traps:

• Hiring too fast.

• No clear process.

• Culture fit over skill fit, or vice versa.

But they win on speed. They adapt quickly. They often see the person behind the profile.

The real advantage?
When you take the structure of corporate hiring and blend it with the instincts of a founder who’s actually built something.

Under Pressure? Don’t Shortcut the Signal Check.

Hiring under pressure, high stakes, small team, urgent need, is dangerous. You’re most likely to fall for surface signals when you’re moving too fast.

Here’s what works instead:

• Systematise the top of funnel. Use forms, filters, and automation to reduce manual overhead.

• Crowdsource effort. Let candidates do the heavy lifting, tasks, responses, personality summaries. Make it easy to identify signal early.

• Listen for depth. Pay close attention to what’s said, what’s repeated, and what’s left out.

You don’t need more candidates. You need better filters.

The 3-Minute Signal Check: A Better Way to Vet Candidates

Forget the CV for a moment. Here’s a practical, grounded model that reveals more than formatting ever could.

1. How Did They Show Up?

Did they arrive early, on time, or late?
Did they prepare, even a little?
Can they speak clearly about the role, your business, and why they want to be there?

Effort leaves a trail. If they don’t show up ready now, they won’t later either.

2. Can They Think in Real Time?

Give them a scenario. Ask how they’d approach it.
Don’t reward polish, reward structure.

Most hires fail on execution, not theory.
You’re testing how they structure chaos, not recite a perfect answer.

3. What Do They Do When No One’s Watching?

Ask:

“What have you done consistently over time, even when no one noticed?”

Sport. Hobbies. Volunteer work. Learning something for no reason.
You’re not hiring their hobby, you’re hiring their discipline.

Interviewing for Potential, Not Just Polish

Sometimes the best way to test character is to break the script.

• Tell a personal story.

• Make a joke.

• Share something vulnerable.

See how they respond. Do they freeze? Do they meet the moment?
Do they show empathy? Curiosity? A sense of humour?

You’re not trying to trick them. You’re trying to see them.

What You Might Be Missing

The hiring conversation is always shaped by what shows up on the table. But the real insight comes from what didn’t show up:

• The question they didn’t ask.

• The over-polished CV that avoided failure.

• The candidate who didn’t apply because they assumed they weren’t what you were looking for.

The best candidate doesn’t always win because they never even get seen.

And that’s the quiet cost.
Not the wrong hire, the right one who got screened out.

Closing Thought: Listen More Than You Read

Resumes tell you what people want you to believe.
Interviews tell you how people want to be seen.
But how someone thinks, listens, reacts, adapts, that’s where the truth sits.

“Listen. Observe. Respect what shows up, and what doesn’t.”

That’s the real skill. Not just reading people, but reading what’s not on the page.