Hey, it’s Aaron. I’m sitting at my desk at Contio HQ this morning, and I’ve got an action-packed day ahead of me full of meetings with our product team, our growth team, and a number of our users and customers.

I did have time this month to put the finishing touches on a new essay, which I hope you enjoy and find useful.

Love all the feedback you’ve been giving us on MeetingOS! If you need a brilliant meeting strategist, superhuman memory, and hyper-intelligent Chief of Staff on your side, I’ve got a special promo code for anyone who wants to try this out for ZERO cost for three months. Just reply back and let me know. You can create your account for free by clicking here.

Welcome again to all the new folks! I love hearing from you, so send back questions, thoughts, ideas, or just a hello any time by hitting reply.

Remember, great leadership is contagious. Thanks for being here.

Talent on the Prowl

A friend of mine is looking for a new challenge after over 15 years of successfully evolving an account management and renewals team into a high‑performing revenue engine. At her company, she is a 14‑time President’s Club winner, and was also recognized as Distinguished Leader of the Year for two consecutive years. If you want an intro, hit reply and let me know!

Your Hiring Process Should Treat Candidates as Innocent Until Convicted of Greatness

I was about an hour and forty minutes into a two-hour interview with a candidate who had me sold. Sharp answers, great energy, impressive resume. I was mentally drafting the offer letter.

Then I asked him to tell me about a time he’d inherited a broken process and rebuilt it from scratch. He paused. He gave me a list of principles that sounded a lot like the table of contents from a popular management book.

I interrupted: “Take me into the story of that — who handed that to you, who pushed back at you, who helped you?” Another pause and then “I think when you attack a broken process, you have to think about change management, buy-in from stakeholders…”

Twenty minutes before the interview was supposed to end, the shtick ran out. And the real person showed up — someone who was trying to sell me experience, but in truth was a walking LLM with theories.

Here’s what haunts me about that moment: what if it had been a one-hour interview? I would have made him an offer. I would have assumed he had the strengths I was looking for and never dug deep enough to find out he didn’t.

That experience crystallized something I now believe is the single most important principle in hiring: presume every candidate is innocent until you collect enough evidence to convict them of greatness.

Collect Evidence, Don’t Collect Impressions

Most companies interview to confirm a candidate is good enough. They meet someone impressive, get excited, and spend the rest of the conversation looking for reasons to say yes.

This is backwards. It is critical to assume the candidate has not yet demonstrated the strengths you’re looking for, and your job is to gather enough evidence to convict them of greatness. Until that evidence exists, there’s no offer.

This isn’t cynicism — it’s rigor. You’re not trying to catch people lying. You’re building a case for them, and that case needs to be airtight. The difference between a good interview and a great one is whether you’re collecting evidence or collecting impressions.

Start with a Scorecard, Not a Job Description

You can’t convict anyone of greatness if you haven’t defined what greatness looks like. That’s why you should never start hiring until you’ve built a job scorecard — not a job description.

A job description is a wish list. A scorecard is an evidentiary standard. It has four components:

• Mission — why does this job exist, and how will the person know they’re winning?

• Objectives — what will they actually be doing, and what matters most?

• Measurable Outcomes — how do we know if they’re successful? Tough in many roles, but critical.

• Competencies — the characteristics required or highly valued for this role

The scorecard is what your interviewers rate candidates against. Without it, you’re grading on gut feel — and gut feel is how you end up with a roster full of people who interview well but don’t deliver.

Everyone Can Perform for 90 Minutes

Here’s the thing about interviews: everyone has a shtick. A polished version of themselves they can sustain for about 90 minutes. Crisp stories, confident eye contact, well-rehearsed answers.

It’s somewhere deep into hour two that they run out of material. The prepared anecdotes are spent. The rehearsed frameworks have been deployed. Now you’re talking to the actual person — and that’s where the truth lives.

Any high-impact role should have at least two hours of interview time with the primary interviewer, including the screening call. For senior execs, you should spend 3–4 hours. Share a meal. Go deep on their resume. Ask the same question three different ways across the conversation.

When a candidate tells you they “led a transformation,” ask who else was involved, what specifically they built, and what went wrong along the way. If they suck at storytelling, they’re probably not going to be very great at creating the “stakeholder buy-in” they keep talking about.

The candidate I almost hired? In a one-hour interview, he was a home run. It took a hundred minutes to discover he was a curated highlight reel.

The Tells That Separate Great from Elite

Beyond the scorecard, there are universal signals that distinguish great candidates from truly elite ones. We should rate every candidate on these:

• Exceptional ability — do they have some standout skill that makes you take notice, even in the presence of other weaknesses?

• Contrarian thinking — is there something they believe that almost everyone else would say is wrong?

• Relentless resourcefulness — have they gone over, under, or through a wall to get something done?

• Ownership over victimhood — do they consistently take command of their circumstances?

• Driver, not passenger — would your results suffer if this person were absent?

These aren’t on any job description. But they’re the difference between someone who fills a seat and someone who changes the trajectory of your team.

The Values Guardian

In a larger organization, one of the most important roles on any hiring team is the Values Guardian — a person who is cross-functional from the role being hired, designated by the CEO, whose sole job is to evaluate cultural fit.

The hiring manager is naturally biased toward skills and experience. They need this person to fill a role, and that urgency can cloud judgment. The Values Guardian has no such pressure. They’re asking one question: will this person make our culture stronger?

After interviews, every interviewer independently scores the candidate — no sharing notes, no groupthink. The Values Guardian compiles the ratings and facilitates the debrief. Areas of disagreement get surfaced and discussed. This process keeps us honest.

Reference Calls That Reveal Truth

Most reference calls are theater. The candidate provides three people who will say nice things, and you spend fifteen minutes hearing how wonderful they are.

It’s also critical to do this differently. After a candidate provides references, we should ask about the holes. Why wasn’t this former boss on the list? Can we speak with her? If they deflect, we should do a cold outreach — as long as it’s not their current employer.

And I’ve learned to decode the language of polite references. “Never lets work stress them out” means this person does not work hard, or is a bit of a mercenary. “Works best when you give him a lot of space and let him choose his team” means hugely unpleasant. References rarely lie outright — but they whisper the truth if you know how to listen.

Bottom Line

The hiring process is a tension between speed and thoroughness. You need to move fast — the best people get snapped up quickly. But you must err on the side of rigor when the two collide.

Presume innocence. Build a scorecard. Interview long enough to get past the shtick. Appoint a Values Guardian. Decode your references. And don’t extend the offer until you’ve built an airtight case for greatness.

The implicit message of being this selective strengthens your appeal to the best candidates. Elite business athletes want to work somewhere that doesn’t let just anyone through the door.

Raise your evidentiary standard, and watch the quality of your roster transform.

Great Reads / Listens of the Month

A few great articles or podcasts I’ve loaded into my context window this month…

• Getting on the right side of the ice. Eric Glyman, CEO of Ramp, wrote this essay and I can definitely feel the truth of what he wrote.

• Long Strange Trip with Kaz at Opendoor. I’ve been really enjoying Brian Halligan’s podcast with CEOs, and as an investor in Opendoor, I found this interview with new CEO Kaz Nejatian.

• From Hierarchy to Intelligence. This is one of the most thought-provoking pieces I’ve read recently. How would you build your company as an artificial general intelligence? Jack Dorsey is a fascinating thinker, and he partnered with his board member, Roelof Botha of Sequoia, to write this.

If you have a suggestion for a great read or listen of the month, hit reply and let me know — if I love it, I’ll give you credit in next month’s email!

If I can help, let me know.

That’s it for this month! As a reminder, I am coaching five CEOs or leadership teams. That’s all I have time for, but I’m having fun doing it, and it’s allowing me not to pay myself a lot from the new company while we are in the build phase. 😉 

I don’t think I could have been nearly as effective for my team without the help of a CEO coach. There’s just something about having someone who has walked that journey before as a “safe” sounding board who you can speak freely to.

At the moment, all of my coaching slots are full, but I always build a wait list because a few of my coaching engagements are for six to nine months at a time. If you want to discuss, click here to learn more about my approach, and hit reply if you’d like to talk about it.