“We only hire the best”

The post argues that claims like “we only hire the best” are usually empty because companies can only hire from the people who apply, not from some abstract pool of the very best people in the business. It says the difference matters, because many firms then add filters that exclude strong candidates for no good reason.

It also says the best people are often unusual, hard to reduce to a checklist, and often situational rather than universally superior. Even if a company gathered a group of high performers, that would not guarantee a good team, and the real question is whether the company itself can attract and keep strong people.

Reading notes

#

• Claims about hiring “the best” usually mean only the best among applicants, not the best in the business.
• Narrow filters like location, years of experience, or prestige schooling can exclude strong candidates.
• The best people are often hard to codify because they do not fit a typical pattern.
• What makes someone strong can depend on the environment, and a person who excels in one setting may struggle in another.
• A team made only of peak performers can still fail if there is too much friction between them.
• Companies should judge whether they can actually cultivate and retain strong people, not just repeat slogans about excellence.
• Firms may confuse excellence with funding, a past hit product, or office perks.