Is It a Good Match, or Do You Just Like the Candidate?

Is It a Good Match, or Do You Just Like the Candidate?

We often talk about finding the right candidate, someone who fits the organisation and its culture. But how good are we at making that assessment? And what happens when personal chemistry and subjective impressions carry more weight than demonstrated competence? Perhaps we should spend less time looking for people who fit in and more time identifying those who can succeed, contribute new perspectives and grow alongside the organisation.

In many recruitment processes, there comes a moment when someone around the table says that a candidate seems highly capable, but they are not entirely convinced the person will fit in. Perhaps the candidate communicates differently, asks more challenging questions than expected or appears less outgoing than the other applicants. These concerns may be legitimate, but they are often accepted without further examination. What exactly is causing the uncertainty? Is it the candidate's ability to collaborate, understand the organisation's needs and contribute to the team? Or is it simply that this person is different from those already working there? The distinction matters. One assessment may be relevant to future job performance, while the other may cause an organisation to reject precisely the competence and perspectives it needs.

The expression "good match" is frequently used in recruitment, yet we rarely define what we actually mean by it. Some associate it with professional competence, others with values, personality or interpersonal skills. Usually, it refers to some combination of these factors, but without clearly defining or systematically evaluating them. As a result, a good match can become little more than a candidate the interviewer likes, identifies with and feels comfortable talking to. The problem is that an enjoyable conversation does not necessarily tell us much about how someone will perform in a particular role, much less how their working relationships will develop over time. We therefore need to ask a more demanding question: What can we reasonably assess before making a hiring decision, and what must we create the conditions for after the person joins?

When Cultural Fit Becomes a Limitation

Organisational culture influences how people collaborate, manage disagreements, make decisions and interact with one another. It would be naive to suggest that culture is irrelevant when recruiting new employees. However, there is a considerable difference between assessing whether someone can function effectively within an organisation and assessing whether they resemble the people already working there. An organisation that wants to develop needs people who introduce new perspectives, challenge established practices and are willing to question decisions. If we consistently select candidates who think and behave like ourselves, we risk creating organisations where agreement is comfortable but identifying mistakes becomes increasingly difficult. Such environments may function reasonably well while circumstances remain stable and challenges are familiar. When new problems emerge, however, the lack of different perspectives can become a serious weakness.

Research also provides reasons to question how cultural fit is applied in practice. In a study published in Work, Employment and Society in 2024, sociologist Gerbrand Tholen examined how employers and recruitment consultants assess organisational fit. Based on interviews with 47 recruitment consultants, the study demonstrates how assessments of cultural fit can be used to justify excluding candidates for reasons that may have little relevance to their ability to perform the job. This does not mean that culture is unimportant or that every assessment of organisational fit is misguided. It does, however, reveal how problematic the concept becomes when it is used without clearly defined criteria. If a candidate is rejected because they supposedly do not fit the culture, we should be able to explain which specific characteristics led to that conclusion, why those characteristics matter for the role and what evidence supports the assessment.

The organisation itself also carries responsibility for the culture it offers. If a candidate comes from a different background, has different experiences or takes a more challenging approach than existing employees, the question is not simply whether that person can adapt. We should also examine whether the culture has room for them. An organisation that describes itself as open, inclusive and committed to development, yet reacts negatively whenever someone disagrees, has a problem that cannot be solved by recruiting increasingly compliant employees. It may be the organisation that needs to change. Recruiting people who differ from those already employed requires more than good intentions. It requires leaders and colleagues who accept that diversity of thought can create friction and who understand the difference between constructive disagreement and behaviour that genuinely undermines collaboration. A healthy organisational culture is not necessarily one where everyone fits in immediately. It is one where different people are given the opportunity to work effectively together.

What We Can Observe Must Matter More Than What We Assume

A recruitment process should provide the strongest possible basis for assessing which candidates are most likely to succeed in a particular role. This requires us to prioritise information that is genuinely relevant to the job and can be examined systematically. Professional competence, previous performance, relevant experience, motivation, problem-solving ability and collaboration skills are all factors that can be investigated through different selection methods. Structured interviews, work samples, relevant assignments, reference checks and practical exercises can provide valuable information. No single method offers a complete picture, but combining several relevant sources of evidence can reduce uncertainty. This requires us to define, before the selection process begins, what the candidate must actually be capable of doing, which responsibilities they will have and what successful performance looks like in this particular position. Without such a foundation, distinguishing between what we want, what we like and what we genuinely need becomes difficult.

Research on personnel selection supports the value of a structured approach. In a comprehensive review published in the Journal of Applied Psychology in 2022, Paul Sackett and his colleagues found that structured interviews were among the selection methods with the strongest demonstrated relationships with subsequent job performance. The researchers also showed that the predictive validity of several traditional selection methods had previously been overestimated. This is an important reminder that even well-established methods have limitations. We cannot predict future job performance with certainty, but we can make considerably better assessments when our decisions are based on systematically collected information rather than assumptions and intuition.

It is also possible to examine how candidates collaborate with others without reducing the assessment to personal chemistry. A recruitment process might, for example, include a group exercise where the candidate works with other people to solve a realistic organisational challenge. Some participants could be existing employees who understand the working environment, the challenges and the responsibilities associated with the position. When properly designed, such an exercise provides opportunities to observe how the candidate communicates, listens, presents arguments, handles disagreement and contributes to solving the problem. Employees who know the organisation can offer valuable perspectives, but they must understand what they are expected to observe and how their observations should be assessed. They should not simply be asked whether they would enjoy working with the candidate. That would bring us straight back to the subjective judgement we are trying to move beyond. The observations must instead be evaluated against relevant criteria defined in advance. We must also recognise that a single exercise provides only a limited indication of how someone will function over time.

Consider an organisation recruiting a new department manager. Two candidates remain after the interviews. The first has a background similar to several existing managers, communicates in a familiar manner and appears to share their views on how the department should develop. The conversations flow naturally, and the interview panel comes away with a positive impression. The second candidate has a different professional background, questions some of the organisation's priorities and challenges several assumptions presented by the management team. The candidate's competence is relevant, but some interviewers are uncertain about whether this person would fit in. If the decision is made at that point, it is easy to imagine who receives the offer. Yet the organisation would be choosing on the basis of familiarity and a sense of reassurance, not necessarily on who has the strongest prospects of succeeding in the role.

Now imagine that the organisation instead asks both candidates to complete a practical exercise. They must analyse a challenge facing the department, present their conclusions and discuss possible solutions with representatives from the organisation. The first candidate demonstrates a sound understanding of existing working practices and presents a practical proposal. The second identifies important weaknesses in current procedures, suggests a different approach and manages to involve employees constructively in the discussion. Suddenly, the organisation has information that did not emerge clearly during the interviews. Perhaps the candidate some people initially considered difficult possesses exactly the competence and working style the department needs. That does not automatically mean this person should be hired, but the quality of the decision-making process has improved considerably. Instead of asking whether the candidate feels right, we have started examining what they can actually contribute.

This becomes even more relevant in an era when artificial intelligence can help candidates prepare applications, analyse job advertisements and develop convincing interview responses. The ability to present a compelling account of one's competence must not be confused with the ability to apply that competence in practice. The same applies to candidates who are exceptionally well prepared for interviews. Some people are highly skilled at presenting themselves, while others are substantially better at performing the work than describing their abilities. A resilient selection process must give both groups a genuine opportunity to demonstrate what they can do, while ensuring that all candidates are assessed against the same relevant criteria.

The Employer Must Qualify Too

It is easy to forget that recruitment works in both directions. The employer evaluates the candidate, but the candidate also evaluates the employer. Nevertheless, many recruitment processes are organised as though only one party is expected to perform. Candidates are expected to arrive thoroughly prepared, demonstrate motivation, provide thoughtful answers and explain why they deserve the position. On the other side of the table, however, there may be a manager who has barely reviewed the candidate's background, cannot clearly explain the expectations associated with the role or provides vague answers about the working environment, development opportunities and future challenges. It is difficult to understand why highly capable candidates should find such an experience motivating. The employer's conduct is part of the assessment process, and candidates will form their own conclusions about both leadership and organisational culture based on how they are treated.

Some employers enjoy such strong reputations and attractive positions in the labour market that they can attract qualified applicants despite having a poor recruitment process. They may have the luxury of choosing between several capable candidates and might never experience the immediate consequences of a disappointing candidate experience. That does not make the process good, nor does it mean they are selecting the person best suited to the position. Other organisations are in a very different situation. They must compete harder for talent and cannot assume that candidates will automatically want to work for them. Regardless of an organisation's position in the labour market, the ambition should be to provide candidates with an accurate and positive understanding of the employer. The objective is not simply to persuade someone to accept an offer, but to create motivation, trust and expectations that will survive the transition into the actual working environment.

This is particularly relevant in executive search and proactive candidate sourcing, where organisations approach people who may have no intention of changing jobs. A professional who already holds an interesting position, enjoys working with capable colleagues, receives satisfactory compensation and has a good relationship with their employer has no obvious reason to leave. It is therefore not enough to make a phone call, describe an exciting opportunity and hope that curiosity will do the rest. The employer must be able to explain why considering a move might be worthwhile and what the organisation can offer that the candidate does not already have. This requires an understanding of the candidate's circumstances and motivations, not merely the employer's staffing needs. Of course, it is possible to encounter someone who is already considering leaving and simply needs a final push to explore new opportunities. But luck is a poor foundation for a professional recruitment strategy.

A strong recruitment process therefore also depends on how the employer presents itself. Candidates should have opportunities to meet people who understand the organisation, learn how decisions are made, explore the challenges the business is facing and understand what will be expected of the person taking on the role. This may involve conversations with future colleagues, visits to the workplace or participation in relevant professional discussions. These activities provide useful information for the employer, but they also allow candidates to evaluate whether this is somewhere they genuinely want to work. A professional recruitment process should improve the decision-making basis for both parties.

We should not underestimate the importance of honesty either. Employers may be tempted to emphasise every positive aspect of their organisation, but candidates who only hear about opportunities and never about challenges risk accepting offers based on unrealistic expectations. If a position involves demanding clients, substantial workloads, limited resources or an organisation undergoing a difficult transformation, this should be communicated before the appointment is made. The same applies when a leadership role offers less autonomy than the title suggests, or when the organisation faces greater challenges with collaboration than it is comfortable admitting. A realistic presentation may cause some candidates to withdraw. That is not necessarily a failure. It may mean that both parties have avoided an appointment that would probably have resulted in disappointment later.

Research on applicant reactions supports the importance of how recruitment processes are conducted. A meta-analysis involving 86 independent samples and a total of 48,750 participants found that applicants with positive perceptions of selection procedures were more likely to view the organisation favourably and express stronger intentions to accept job offers. These findings do not demonstrate that a positive candidate experience alone causes more candidates to accept offers, but they do establish a relationship between the way candidates experience the recruitment process and how they perceive the employer. In other words, the employer is being evaluated throughout the process, whether it recognises this or not.

A Good Match Is Also Something We Develop

Even with a carefully designed recruitment process, effective selection methods and a strong evidence base, uncertainty will always remain about how a new employee will perform. We can investigate competence, motivation and relevant skills, but we cannot fully predict how relationships will develop, which challenges will emerge or how the organisation itself will change. A candidate who appears to be the obvious first choice may struggle to establish themselves. Another candidate, who perhaps made a less impressive initial impression, may develop into an exceptionally valuable employee. This does not mean that selection methods are worthless. It means we must understand what they can reasonably tell us and where their limitations lie. We are trying to identify people with strong prospects of succeeding, but the eventual outcome also depends on what happens after the hiring decision.

Many employers have considerable room for improvement here. They invest substantial resources in identifying and assessing candidates, but once the employment contract has been signed, much of the responsibility is transferred to the new employee. Perhaps the person receives a brief introduction, some practical information and an overview of who is responsible for what. They are then expected to gradually find their place within the organisation. If the working relationship fails to develop as expected, it becomes tempting to conclude that the wrong person was hired. Before reaching that conclusion, however, we should examine whether the organisation actually provided the conditions necessary for the employee to succeed. Were expectations clear? Did the person receive appropriate support from their manager? Were opportunities created to build relationships with colleagues? Were difficulties identified and addressed early, or were they allowed to develop into more serious problems?

A successful match can be developed, and this work should begin well before the first working day. The period between signing the employment contract and starting the new position provides an opportunity to establish relationships, clarify expectations and ensure that the employee receives relevant information. This period, commonly referred to as preboarding, allows the organisation to build on the motivation and trust established during recruitment. Once employment begins, this work should continue through a planned and systematic onboarding process. The new employee needs to learn more than their immediate responsibilities. They must understand the organisation's objectives, how decisions are made, what is expected of them and how collaboration is supposed to function. At the same time, managers and colleagues must invest time in understanding the new employee's competence, experiences, expectations and needs.

This becomes particularly important when we recruit people who differ from those already working in the organisation. If an employer wants fresh perspectives but expects the new employee to immediately conform to every established practice, much of the potential value of the appointment may be lost. There must be room for the new employee to challenge existing assumptions while also being given the opportunity to understand why the organisation operates as it does. This is a shared responsibility. The new employee must be willing to learn and adapt, but the organisation must also be prepared to listen and develop. Effective onboarding is therefore not simply about helping someone fit in. It is about creating the conditions for both the employee and the organisation to benefit from what the person brings.

Research on organisational socialisation supports this understanding. In 2025, Talya Bauer and her colleagues published a comprehensive review in the Journal of Management, examining how newcomers establish themselves within organisations. The review identified 256 relevant studies and highlighted the importance of social acceptance, role clarity, task mastery and support from the people surrounding the new employee. The researchers also examined perceived fit as an element of the adjustment process, rather than treating it solely as a fixed characteristic of the relationship between a candidate and an organisation before employment begins. This is a significant perspective. It suggests that we should not simply ask whether the candidate will fit in, but also consider what the organisation can do to make the working relationship successful.

At TEAM NORSO, we therefore recommend a systematic approach to the first 100 days in a new position. Not because every individual requires exactly 100 days to establish themselves, but because this period provides a practical framework for following up on expectations, development, relationships and progress. A good plan should be adapted to the position, the individual and the organisation. For some employees, the priority will be developing professional understanding. Others may need time to establish trust, understand decision-making processes or develop relationships across organisational boundaries. The immediate manager carries particular responsibility for ensuring that this work takes place. If we expect new employees to contribute to organisational development, we must also give them opportunities to influence the organisation.

Perhaps We Are Asking the Wrong Question

It is understandable that employers want reassurance before hiring someone. A poor hiring decision can become costly, both financially and personally, and the consequences may extend far beyond the position itself. This is why we invest time in interviews, assessments, reference checks and various selection methods. We attempt to reduce uncertainty and establish the strongest possible basis for our decisions. The problem arises when the desire for reassurance causes us to seek confirmation of what we already believe rather than genuinely investigating what a candidate can contribute. Someone who reminds us of people we have previously worked well with may feel like a safer choice than a candidate with a different background or approach. But familiarity is not the same as quality, and agreement is not necessarily evidence of effective collaboration.

We should therefore be cautious about using the expression "good match" as an independent justification for selecting or rejecting candidates. If we believe someone is well suited to a position, we should be able to explain which competencies, experiences and observed abilities support that assessment. If we believe the candidate will struggle within the organisation, we must identify what is causing that concern and why it matters for the job. At the same time, we must acknowledge that not everything can be established during selection. Some aspects of a working relationship must be developed through collaboration, leadership, support and experience. That is precisely why recruitment should not be considered complete when the employment contract is signed.

A successful appointment requires both parties to make informed decisions, establish realistic expectations and invest in the working relationship. The employer must offer a position and working environment in which the candidate has reasonable prospects of succeeding, while the candidate must bring the competence and motivation required to contribute. Neither party should expect everything to work perfectly from the first day. Both must be prepared to develop the relationship over time.

The next time you are sitting in a recruitment meeting and someone says that a candidate simply does not feel right, perhaps you should ask one straightforward question: What have we actually established about this person, and what are we merely assuming?

Because the candidate may genuinely be wrong for the position. But it is also possible that they are exactly what the organisation needs, and that it is our own understanding of a good match that deserves to be challenged.

English editorial adaptation of the Norwegian original.