You’ve probably been in one of these debriefs.
Someone loves the candidate.
Someone’s unsure.
Someone mutters “they’d be a good culture fit,” without being able to explain why.
Then the conversation either spirals into circular debates, or worse, settles into vague consensus because no one wants to push too hard.
That’s not alignment. That’s drift.
So here’s the process I use instead. One that replaces “fit” with something measurable, discussable, and grounded in real expectations.
Step 1: Align Before the First Interview
Before we even open the role, I sit down with the hiring manager and HR partner. We don’t just list technical skills, we name the non-technical ones too:
- Will they be working in ambiguity?
- Do they need to influence without authority?
- Are we growing a team, or rebuilding trust?
- What behaviors does our team need more of right now?
Then we map these to observable traits: communication clarity, curiosity, resilience to feedback, systems thinking, etc.
We don’t just want culture fit.
We want culture add. People who bring something the team doesn’t already have.
✅ Use a trait-mapping worksheet to align on technical and non-technical skills up front. Even a simple table works: Trait | Why it matters | Observable Behaviors.
Example worksheet:
Step 2: Build Questions That Surface Signals
For each non-technical trait, we design 1–2 questions aimed at surfacing that signal.
Not hypotheticals like “How do you handle conflict?”
We look for patterns:
- “Tell me about a time you gave someone feedback that didn’t land.”
- “What’s something you changed your mind about in the last year?”
- “What’s something you’ve built that broke, and what did you learn from it?”
We’re not chasing perfect answers. We’re listening for how they think.
✅ Tip: Assign each question to a specific trait. Don’t leave signal collection to chance.
Step 3: Rate, Then Debate
After the interview, each panelist gives a 1–5 score for each non-technical trait. Then we meet.
Here’s the key: we don’t average scores.
We debate them.
If one person gave a 5 on “communication clarity” and someone else gave a 2, that’s not noise. That’s signal. It forces us to ask:
- Did we see different behaviors?
- Are we weighting this trait differently?
- Did someone conflate confidence with clarity?
The number gives us a shared starting point.
The discussion gives us truth.
✅ Bring a shared scoring sheet to the debrief. Trait-by-trait ratings keep the conversation grounded.
Example scoring table:
Step 4: Calculate a Fit Score. But Don’t Worship It
Once we’ve debated, we finalize a score per trait, add them up, and get a total “fit number.”
This does not make the decision for us.
It just helps us stack candidates by the qualities we said matter most. It removes recency bias. It gives us a tool, not a rule.
And sometimes the best hire isn’t the highest score. It’s the one whose edges sharpen the team in the right direction.
🧮 Want to go deeper? Assign weight multipliers to each trait based on role needs. For example: Communication ×1.5, Initiative ×1.0, Feedback Resilience ×0.8. Multiply scores before totaling. This forces clarity on what success looks like in this role - not just in theory.
A Few Lessons Along the Way
- Scoring isn’t science. But it forces clarity. You can’t hide behind “vibes” when you’re forced to rate someone on curiosity or coachability.
- Culture fit can become a mirror. Be careful it doesn’t turn into “people who make me comfortable.” If everyone on your team thinks the same, you’re probably missing something important.
🔍 Culture add examples: “Pushes us to communicate more clearly.” “Brings lived experience we lack.” “Models calm during ambiguity.”
- Not all traits are equal. Sometimes collaboration matters more than speed. Sometimes feedback resilience is non-negotiable. Weight accordingly.
- Don’t over-systematize. This isn’t a perfect science. It’s a shared language to surface judgment, not replace it. Treat your tools like instruments, not answers.
- Hiring priorities change. A startup hire isn’t the same as a scale-up hire. What works for your 5th teammate might look very different at your 50th. This framework adapts, but context matters. And sometimes, the real insight isn’t about the candidate, it’s about the team. If the process keeps surfacing friction around one specific trait, it might not be a hiring problem. It might be time to reassess what your team truly values, rewards, and needs to evolve.
- Structure can help inclusion or hurt it. Used well, this process reduces bias by surfacing signals over gut feel. But if your questions favor a narrow set of backgrounds or communication styles, the whole system can tilt. Calibrate regularly. Invite diverse feedback.
🧪 One method we’ve used: twice a year, we anonymize 3–4 recent debriefs and review the language and ratings in small cross-functional groups. We ask: “Would someone with a different communication style or cultural reference point succeed in this process?” It’s a small effort that reveals a lot.
🧍♀️ Another: When one candidate scored low on “initiative,” our panelist from a different background pointed out the interview questions were highly U.S.-centric in framing. We revised the prompt from “Tell me about a time you took charge unprompted” to “Tell me about a time you saw a problem and worked with others to address it.” That small shift made space for collaboration-focused responses and different cultural norms around initiative. Six months later, a candidate with a similar story scored highly, and became one of our top performers.
A Real-World Example
This process once saved us from a high-stakes mistake. A candidate came in with glowing credentials, big-name companies, strong portfolio. On paper? Perfect. Most of us were ready to extend an offer.
But one panelist flagged that the candidate gave vague answers on accountability and dodged feedback-oriented prompts. In our scoring system, “feedback resilience” came out low. Two of us gave it a 2.
We debated it hard. Eventually, we paused the process and did a follow-up behavioral interview focused entirely on team friction. What came back confirmed the concern. We passed.
Six weeks later, we hired someone with a quieter background, but off-the-charts clarity and growth mindset. They’ve since been promoted twice.
If we’d hired on résumé and confidence alone, we’d have missed the better bet.
Why This Works
Because hiring isn’t about avoiding risk.
It’s about choosing which bet you’re making, and being able to explain why.
This process helps me do that.
It brings structure to what’s usually instinct.
And it builds trust in the process, because everyone involved knows what we’re trying to optimize for, and how we’re measuring it.
In the end, it’s not about the score.
It’s about whether the person helps your team become more of what you want it to be.
That’s not “culture fit.”
That’s alignment.
⚙️ This works whether you’re hiring your 5th team member or your 50th. The mechanics scale. The discipline compounds.
Try This
Next time you’re in a hiring debrief, pause before the gut-feel vote. Ask:
- What were we actually optimizing for?
- What did we see that supports or challenges that?
Then look at your scoring sheet. If your answers don’t line up with your numbers, that’s where the conversation starts. Not ends.