Things Leaders Do

How to Hire Better (So You Don't Have to Fire Later)

• Colby Morris

Share episode

How do you avoid making bad hires? Stop interviewing for skills and start interviewing for character using Patrick Lencioni's Humble, Hungry, and Smart framework. Ask specific behavioral questions that reveal these three virtues, watch for red flags like excessive charm or similarity bias, and use the first 90 days—especially your one-on-ones—to assess whether the person truly fits your team culture.

Episode Description

74% of employers admit they've hired the wrong person. The average cost? $14,900. And 28% of new employees quit within the first 90 days.

Why? Because we're interviewing for skills instead of character.

In this episode, you'll learn:

  • The specific interview questions that reveal Humble, Hungry, and Smart
  • Colby's alternative to "What's your greatest weakness?" that actually works
  • Four red flags you're probably ignoring
  • How to use the first 90 days and your one-on-ones to catch issues early

Stop hiring people who interview well but underperform. Start hiring for character.

Resources Mentioned

  • "The Ideal Team Player" by Patrick Lencioni

Connect with Colby Morris

LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/colbymorris
Website: nxtstepadvisors.com

Coming Soon (April 2026)

  • Second weekly podcast episode featuring interviews with leaders
  • YouTube version of The Things Leaders Do podcast

Remember: 74% of employers have made a bad hire. But it doesn't have to be you.



SPEAKER_00:

People first leadership. Actionable strategies, real results. This is Things Leaders Do with Colby Morris.

SPEAKER_01:

Here are some numbers that should make you uncomfortable. Did you know 74% of employers admit they hired the wrong person for a position? Three out of four. That's that's not a margin of error. That's a systematic problem. And it gets worse. A bad hire can cost your company an average of 30% of that employee's first year salary. Doing some math? Some estimates put it as high as 50%. And for executive level positions, we're talking$28,000 plus in direct costs alone. That doesn't even include the indirect cost, like the lost productivity or the damage to team morale. Okay, the time your high performers spend picking up the Slack while you figure out what to do. According to Gallup, disengaged employees and bad hires are almost always disengaged. They cost the global economy, get this, 8.8 trillion in lost productivity. That's T trillion. Here's the kicker: 28% of new employees quit within the first 90 days. Some because they realize it's not a fit, others because you realize it's not a fit and you cut them loose before things got worse. So let me ask you if three out of four employers had made a bad hire, what makes you think you're in the other 25%? Here's why this keeps happening. We're interviewing for the wrong things. We ask about skills, experience, technical knowledge. Tell me about a time you solved a complex problem. What's your experience with the software system methodology? And we think we've been thorough, right? We we check references, we ask behavioral-based questions, we might even give them a case study or a technical assessment. But we're not actually figuring out if they're going to be a good fit for our team. We're just figuring out if they can do the task in the job description. And then we're shocked when six months later they're technically competent, but leaving a trail of interpersonal destruction everywhere they go. Or they're smart and capable, but they only do the bare minimum. Or maybe they're hardworking, but their ego is destroying team culture. We hired for skills. We forgot to hire for character. So what's the solution? Today I'm walking you through how to interview for what actually matters. Humble, hungry, and smart. Patrick Lincioni's framework from the ideal team player. The specific questions that reveal these virtues, not the rehearsed, you know, answers people give to what's your greatest weakness, but real questions that force real self-awareness. The red flags you're probably ignoring because the candidate is charming or reminds you of yourself. And how to use the first 90 days to spot issues before they become a six-month problem. And by the end of this episode, you'll have a completely different interview process, questions that actually work, red flags to watch for, and a framework for making sure you're hiring for character and not just the credentials. Because here's the truth you can teach someone skills. You can't teach someone not to be a jerk. So let's talk about how to hire better so you don't have to fire later. Hey later, it says it's Colby Morris, and this is the Things Leaders Do podcast. As always, I'm just trying to give you 15 to 30 minutes of practical, actionable tools so you can be a better leader faster. All right. So why do 74% of employers admit they've hired the wrong person? Because we're optimizing for the wrong things. We ask about past performance. We want to know can they do the job? Do they have the right experience? Can they talk intelligently about the work? And if they can check those boxes, well, we hire them. And then we're surprised when it doesn't work out. Here's what we're missing. You've probably heard the old adage, past performance is the greatest indicator of future performance. Yeah, like every HR department teaches you that. And sure, that that might be true for performance. If someone crushed their sales quota at their last company, they can probably sell at yours too. Okay, if they successfully manage a team of 20, they can probably manage yours. But past performance is not a predictor of future fit. I'm gonna write this one down because you probably missed that. But past performance is not a predictor of future fit. Just because someone was successful at our last company doesn't mean they'll be successful at yours. Just because they can do the tasks doesn't mean they'll thrive in your culture. You know what is a predictor of future fit? Character, virtues, the intrinsic qualities that make someone a good team player. Patrick Lancioni breaks this down in the ideal team player with three virtues the humble, hungry, and smart. And here's what he says, and this is critical. When a team member significantly lacks one or more of these virtues, the process of building a cohesive team becomes hard and in some cases impossible. So if you're not interviewing for these three things, you're basically rolling the dice and hoping for the best. So let's talk about why your current interview questions probably aren't working. You know, the ones like, what's your greatest weakness? Come on. Everybody knows that game. You pick something that sounds like a weakness, but is actually a humble brag. I'm a perfectionist. I I care too much, I work too hard. It's theater, and you both know it. Or tell me about a time you overcame a challenge. Great. They've rehearsed this story for every interview they've had in the last five years. You're not getting insight into who they are. You're getting the greatest hits performance. Or this is I don't like this one. Where do you see yourself in five years? They're going to tell you whatever they think you want to hear. Leading a team, growing with the company, making a meaningful impact. None of it means anything. These questions don't reveal character. They reveal how well someone can perform in an interview. And that's why you keep hiring people who interview well and then underperform. So, how do you interview for humble, hungry, and smart? Let me give you specific questions for each virtue. Questions that force real answers, questions that reveal who someone actually is and not who they're pretending to be. We'll start with questions for humble. Remember, humble people lack excessive ego, which means they share credit. They define success collectively. They're quick to acknowledge others, and they're they're slow to seek attention for themselves. So here are the questions that reveal humility or the lack of it. Question one: Tell me about our project you're really proud of. Who else contributed to a success? Listen to how they answer this. Do they immediately start listing other people, or do they talk about what they did first and then mention others as an afterthought? Humble people start with we. They talk about the team. They give specific credit to specific people. Like, you know, Sarah handled the client relationship brilliantly. Tom figured out the technical solutions I couldn't figure out. Maria kept us on track when we wanted to give up. Not humble people start with I. They talk about what they accomplished. And if they mention the team at all, it's usually vague. Oh yeah, the the team helped too. You know, no names, no specifics, just a passing acknowledgement before they get back to talking about themselves. All right, question two. Tell me about a time you failed at something. What happened? Humble people own their failure. They don't deflect, they don't blame. They say something like, I made a bad call, I didn't see the issue coming, I should have asked for help sooner. Not humble people really can't do this. They'll find a way to blame circumstances, other people, bad timing, lack of resources, the lighting, the phase of the moon. They'll spin the failure into a learning experience so fast you'll get whiplashed. And here's the kicker. If they can't admit to failure in an interview where they're trying to impress you, they're never going to admit it on your team. All right, question three. What role does recognition and acknowledgement play on a team? This one is from Linchoni's framework, and it's brilliant because it forces them to reveal how they think about credit. Humble people talk about how recognition motivates the team. It's how it's important to celebrate wins together, or how acknowledging builds trust and morale. But not humble people talk about how recognition is important for their career growth, how it validated their contributions, how they appreciate when their hard work is noticed. See the difference? One is thinking about the team, the other themselves. All right, let's move to questions for hungry. Hungry people are self-motivated. They're always looking for more to do, more to learn, more responsibility. You never have to push them to work harder. So here's how you spot hunger. Question one. Tell me about a time you took on something you weren't asked to do. Why'd you do it? Hungry people have a million examples. They are constantly seeing problems and solving them. Okay, they're they're volunteering for projects, they're raising their hand before anyone asks. But the not hungry people struggle with this question. They will. They do what's asked. Really nothing more. Question two. When you have extra bandwidth during the day or after completing a project, what do you generally work on next if nothing else is demanding your attention? This question reveals everything. Hungry people will light up. They have a list. I've been wanting to streamline our onboarding process. I'm learning a new skill that could help the team. I notice a gap in our documentation. I've been filling it in. Not hungry people pause. They they haven't thought about this because it doesn't happen. Their bandwidth always gets filled by the next thing someone tells them to do. They might say something vague like, you know, I catch up on emails, or I help others on the team. The translation there is, I wait for someone to tell me what to do next. And then question three. Tell me about something you learned recently that wasn't required for your job. Hungry people are they're learning constantly. They're reading, they're taking courses, they're teaching themselves new skills. They can talk about this easily because learning is what they do. Not hungry people, though, they they can't they can't do this. They'll struggle. Maybe they'll mention something vague. Maybe there's no energy behind it, but because they're not actually learning anything unless someone makes them. All right. Now let's look at some questions for smart. And again, you know, Lincioni isn't talking about IQ. He's talking about emotional intelligence. People smarts, common sense about group dynamics. Here are some questions you'd want to ask for that. Question one: Tell me about a time you said something in a meeting that didn't land the way you expected. What happened? Now, smart people can answer this because they pay attention to how their words land. They notice when something doesn't hit right. Okay, they course correct, they apologize, they learn. But not smart people can't answer this because they genuinely didn't notice. They don't notice. They say things that offend people and have no idea they did it. They're oblivious to the impact of their words. And if someone can't think of a single time their communication didn't land well, we call that a red flag. Okay, either they're lying or they're not paying attention to how they affect others. Question two, how do you know when a team meeting is going well versus when it's going poorly? Smart people can articulate this, okay? They talk about energy in the room, body language, who's talking and who's quiet, whether people are engaged or checked out. Not smart people, they can't do this. Okay, they focus on surface stuff. It's going well if we get through the agenda. Okay. They're missing the entire emotional and interpersonal dimension. All right, question three. Tell me about a coworker who annoyed you. What do they do and how did you handle it? Okay, smart people are going to answer this thoughtfully. They'll they'll acknowledge that someone annoys someone sometimes. Let me rephrase that. They basically acknowledge that everyone annoys someone sometimes, right? They talk about how they approach the person directly, or how they adjusted their expectation, or you know, how they found a way to work with a person despite the annoyance. Not smart people either can't think of anyone, which is a lie, or they go on a rant about someone who clearly drove them crazy and they never figured out how to deal with it productively. All right. And here is my favorite question. Okay. The one I use instead of the dreaded, what's your greatest weakness? I ask it this way. And I can't remember who I heard this from, and it's this kind of an adaptation of their version, but I ask it this like this. I don't like surprises. I'd rather know everything up front so I can actually help you succeed. So here's my question. What's something about you that, you know, four to six months from now, I'm going to wish I had known today? What should I know now so I can coach you effectively instead of being caught off guard later? Y'all, this question is magic. Here's why. First, it reframes the conversation. Okay, I'm not asking them to perform humility by pretending their weakness is actually a strength. Okay, I'm asking for real information so I can support them. Second, it's forward-looking. I'm not asking about past failures. I'm asking about future challenges. Okay, that makes it easier for them to be honest. And then third, it forces self-awareness. Okay, if they can't answer this question, they either lack self-awareness, again, red flag, or they're not willing to be honest with you. Also, a red flag. Here's what a good answer sounds like. I I tend to get really focused on details and sometimes lose sight of the bigger picture. I'd I want you to check in with me periodically to make sure I'm not disappearing into the weeds. That's a good one. Or, you know, I'm not great at asking for help. I I tend to try to figure everything out on my own first. And sometimes that means I take longer than I should. I need you to create a culture where it's safe to say, I don't know. I love that one. Or, you know, it can be, it can be really, I can be really direct. And sometimes that comes across as harsh, even when I don't even mean it that way. I want you to let me know if I'm stepping on toes so I can course correct. You see what those answers do? They're they're real, they're specific, and they they give you actionable information about how to manage this person. Here's what bad answers may sound like. I can't really think of anything, I'm pretty adaptable. Translation, I have zero self-awareness, and this should terrify you. Or, well, I'm a perfectionist, so sometimes I work too hard. Translation, I'm giving you the rehearsed answer I found on the internet, and we both know it's garbage. This one question will tell you more about a candidate than 20 behavioral-based questions combined. Okay? All right, let's talk about the red flags you're probably ignoring. Red flag number one, they're charming. Charm is not a virtue. In fact, it's often a cover for lack of substance. If someone is too smooth in the interview, if every answer feels polished and perfect, if they're working really hard to make you like them, be skeptical. Humble, hungry, smart people don't need to charm you. They just need to be honest. They're comfortable being themselves, flaws and all. Okay, people who are working really hard to charm you, they're generally compensating for something. Red flag too. They remind you of you. Makes me think of Doc Holiday. This is the hardest one to catch because it feels like a good thing. Oh, I really connected with this candidate. They reminded me of myself when I was their age. That's that's not a good thing. Okay. That's called similarity biased. And it's it's how you end up with a team full of people who all think the same way, they approach problems the same way, they have the same blind spots. Hire people who who compliment your team, not people who mirror you. And then red flag number three, they speak negatively about their current company. If someone spends the interview talking about how terrible their current boss is, how dysfunctional their current team is, or how their current company doesn't. And appreciate them, run. Not because they're lying. Maybe their current situation genuinely is terrible. But because here's the thing: how someone talks about their current employer is how they'll eventually talk about you. And if they can't find anything positive to say about the people they work with now, that tells you a lot about how they show up. And then red flag number four, they can't name their mistakes. If you ask about failure and they can't give you a real answer, that's a problem. Okay. Either they're lying, they've definitely failed at something, right? Or they lack self-awareness, which means they don't recognize when they fail, or they're unwilling to be vulnerable and they don't feel safe being honest. All three are red flags. Okay. Humble people own their mistakes. They, if they can't do that in an interview, they won't do it on your team. All right. Let's say you hire someone. You ask great questions, you ignored your biases, you feel good about the decision. That's great. So now you have 90 days to make sure you are right. Because here's the stat that scares you, right? 28% of new employees quit within the first 90 days. Either they realize it's not a fit or you realize it's not a fit. But that's your window. So you need to use it. So week one, I want you to watch how they ask questions. In their first week, they should be asking a million questions. How does this work? Why do we do it this way? Who do I go to for this? If they're not asking questions, that's a red flag. Either they're overconfident, they think they know everything, or they're scared to look stupid. Okay, they're not willing to be vulnerable, or they're just not engaged. Hungry people ask questions because they want to learn. Smart people ask questions because they want to understand context. Humble people ask questions because they know they don't have all the answers. If someone's not asking questions in week one, you've got a problem. In week four, I want you to watch how they handle feedback. Give them feedback on something small. Doesn't have to be critical. Could be as simple as, hey, in our team meetings, we usually share updates in like this format. Can you try that next time? Then watch how they respond. Humble people say, got it, thanks for letting me know. And they adjust. But not humble people will get defensive. Well, at my last company, we did it differently. Or they explain why their way is actually better, or they just ignore the feedback and they just keep doing it their way anyway. If they can't take small feedback in week four, they're not going to take big feedback in month six. By week 12, you need to assess the cultural fit. Okay? You should know whether they're fitting into the culture. Are they showing up to team events? Are they building relationships? Are they laughing with the team? Do the people like working with them? Or are they isolated, eating a lunch alone every day, or not participating in team conversations, creating weird tension? You can teach someone your processes, but you can't teach them to fit your culture. If by week 12 they're still not gelling with the team, that's probably not going to change. Here's something most managers miss. Your one-on-ones during the first 90 days are an assessment tool, not just a check-in, but an assessment. When you're having those weekly one-on-ones, and you should be having them weekly with a new hire, pay attention to how they respond to your questions. When you ask about their team, what do they say? Are they building relationships? Do they talk about their teammates with appreciation? Or are they already complaining about people? That's fun. When you ask about their goals, what do they focus on? Are they thinking about how to contribute to the team's success? Are they only focused on their own advancement? When you ask about their development needs, are they asking for help and coaching, or are they defensive about any suggestion they don't already have or they don't already know everything? So in your one-on-ones, humble people will talk about the team first, themselves second. They'll ask for feedback directory. They'll give credit to others when discussing wins, and they'll admit when they don't know something. Hungry people will come with ideas and not just updates. They're going to ask about opportunities to do more. They're going to talk about what they want to learn next. They're going to show energy. They're going to be engaged. And those with the smart, you know, emotional intelligence, they're going to notice team dynamics and bring them up. Okay. They're going to ask about how things landed in meetings, they're going to show awareness of how they're affecting others. And they're going to adjust based on the feedback that you've given them. If someone's showing up to one-on-ones with just status updates, no questions, you know, no initiative, no self-awareness, that's telling you everything that you need to know. So here's what I want you to take away from this episode. Stop interviewing for skills and start interviewing for character. Use questions that reveal humble, hungry, and smart. Not rehearsed performance questions, but real questions that force real self-awareness. Ask my no surprises question instead of the greatest weakness. Actually, use that one even if you don't use any of the others. Stop ignoring red flags just because someone's charming or reminds you of yourself. And use the first 90 days to actually assess whether you made the right call. Because here's the truth 74% of employers have made a bad hire, but it doesn't have to be you. All right, before we wrap up, if you didn't hear last week, I do have some exciting news to share with you. By April 2026, I'm planning to launch a second podcast episode each week, an interview series while I sit down with leaders to discuss the actionable tools they've learned throughout their careers. Again, it's not theory, nothing abstract. It's just going to be real practical tools that they use that I think will be valuable for you. Around that same time, I'm also planning to launch the YouTube version of this podcast. So if you're a visual learner, again, you want to see my goofy face, you know, can talk about hiring mistakes or whatever. That'll be coming your way soon as well. So again, some big goals for 2026, but I'm pretty excited. Now, if your organization is struggling with hiring, performance management, building a culture of accountability, I'd love to help. I work with organizations, I do keynote speaking, I do executive coaching and leadership training and help you build people first cultures that actually are going to get you results. Connect with me on LinkedIn or you can visit my website. Both those links are in the show notes. And if this episode was helpful, if you got something from it, please subscribe to the show wherever you listen to podcasts and leave me a review. That would be awesome. And then more importantly, share it with another leader who's working on being a better leader, who's about to hire someone who's trying to keep from making mistakes. And remember, keep asking better questions. Keep hiring, you know, for character, not just credentials, and keep building teams that actually work. And you know why? Because those are the things that leaders do.

SPEAKER_00:

Thank you for listening to Things Leaders Do. If you're looking for more tips on how to be a better leader, be sure to subscribe to the podcast and listen to next week's episode. Until next time, keep working on being a better leader by doing the things that leaders do.