Most companies hire first and then determine if the candidate is in the proper role. We flip that equation entirely. Here's why our "Right Person, Right Seat" evaluation happens during 90-day trials, not after—and what happens when all the signals align in the wrong direction.
The Problem with Post-Hire Course Correction
Traditional hiring follows a predictable pattern: interview based on resume and technical skills, make an offer, then spend 6-12 months discovering whether someone is actually the right person in the right seat. When misalignment becomes obvious, companies try to fix it through role changes, performance improvement plans, or team transfers.
This approach is expensive, disruptive, and often unsuccessful.
We learned to flip this equation: invest heavily in front-loaded evaluation during trials to prevent misalignment rather than correct it later.
Our Multi-Layer Evaluation System
Instead of relying on interviews and references, we built a systematic approach that reveals both "Right Person" (values alignment) and "Right Seat" (role competency) through actual work and team integration.
The Four Evaluation Channels:
- Daily Buddy Check-ins (Cultural Integration)
- 15-minute daily meetings for first 2 weeks
- Reduces to 3x/week, then 2x/week, then weekly
- Focuses on cultural fit, question quality, and integration patterns
- PM Feedback Every 2 Days (Execution Performance)
- Structured assessment of delivery pace, quality, and collaboration
- Tracks progression and identifies concerning patterns early
- Provides an external perspective on actual vs. perceived performance
- Weekly Team Lead 1:1s (Feedback Loop & Adaptation)
- Regular feedback sessions with the direct manager
- Opportunity to address concerns and course-correct
- Tracks whether feedback is being absorbed and implemented
- Weekly Health Checks (Self-Assessment)
- Engineer's own evaluation of progress, challenges, and completion
- Reveals self-calibration accuracy and awareness
- Creates a comparison point with team observations
- EOS People Analyzer at 90 Days (Formal Assessment)
- Right Person: Alignment with our 5 core values
- Right Seat: Gets It, Wants It, Capacity for the role
- Only conducted if the trial period is passed successfully
Our Five Core Values Framework
Every evaluation channel measures alignment with these principles:
- Stay a Student - Continuous learning and question evolution
- Prioritize Helping Others - Team collaboration and knowledge sharing
- Accountability is Key - Ownership of outcomes and honest self-assessment
- Raise the Bar - Quality standards and continuous improvement
- Keep Trying. Get it Done - Persistence and solution-oriented mindset
Case Study: When All Signals Point to Misalignment
Let me share a recent trial that perfectly illustrates how our system catches fundamental misfit before it becomes a costly hiring mistake.
The Setup
This engineer joined a new project after completing six weeks of onboarding on a previous assignment. By this point—his second project—he was expected to operate independently at a senior level, delivering features with minimal oversight.
Week 1-4: Early Warning Signs
Buddy Observations: Daily check-ins revealed concerning patterns from the start. Questions remained at the implementation level throughout the first month. When facing blockers, he avoided seeking help, preferring to struggle silently rather than engage the support system.
Cultural Integration Issues:
- No evolution in question quality or depth
- Passive participation in team discussions
- Avoided clarifying requirements when uncertain
Months 1-3: Performance Decline
PM Feedback (Every 2 Days): The structured PM assessments painted a clear picture of declining performance:
"The work progress is very slow; sometimes it feels like he only works a couple of hours a day. There was also a situation where he promised to complete a task but didn't follow through."
Specific Execution Problems:
- Chat Integration - Like/Dislike functionality: 15+ hours spent, feature still not working
- Chat Empty State: 8 hours spent on what should have been a 2-3 hour task
- Total chat bug fixes: 38.25 hours, with many bugs remaining
- Users Management Filter: 16 hours spent, only 20% completion achieved
Pattern Recognition: Tasks of moderate complexity took 2-3 times longer than anticipated. What should have been straightforward front-end work became extended struggles with no clear resolution path.
The Self-Assessment Disconnect
Weekly Health Checks: While PM feedback, buddy observations, and team lead discussions showed concerning patterns, his self-assessments told a completely different story:
- Reported "no issues" consistently
- Claimed "100% task completion"
- Described the weeks as "normal" and on track
Team Lead Feedback Sessions: Weekly 1:1s provided direct feedback about performance concerns and specific areas for improvement. However, these feedback sessions revealed a troubling pattern: while feedback was acknowledged verbally, there was no visible implementation or behavior change in subsequent weeks.
The Reality Gap: This disconnect between perceived and actual performance, combined with the inability to absorb and act on feedback, revealed a fundamental lack of self-calibration—critical for senior-level engineers who must self-manage effectively.
Values Assessment Through Real Work
Stay a Student: ❌ No growth trajectory over 12 weeks. Questions never evolved beyond basic implementation. No evidence of learning from feedback or improving execution patterns.
Accountability: ❌ Poor self-assessment accuracy. Claimed completion on incomplete work. Promised deliverables without following through.
Raise the Bar: ❌ Consistently below expectations. 38+ hours on chat functionality that remained broken. 16 hours for 20% completion on user filters.
Keep Trying: ❌ When facing difficulties, choose to struggle silently rather than seek help or propose alternative approaches.
Prioritize Helping Others: ❌ Limited engagement with team dynamics. Focused on individual work without considering broader impact.
The Decision: Clear "Wrong Person"
This wasn't a case of someone in the wrong seat—it was a fundamental values misalignment. The trial revealed someone who couldn't operate at the senior level in any seat within our organization.
No offer was extended.
Why Front-Loaded Evaluation Works
Prevention vs. Correction
Traditional approaches hire first, then try to correct misalignment through:
- Role transitions (often unsuccessful)
- Performance improvement plans (time-intensive)
- Team changes (disruptive to existing dynamics)
- Eventually, departures (expensive and demoralizing)
Our approach prevents these scenarios by investing evaluation time upfront during trials when the cost of discovering a misfit is minimal.
Multiple Signal Validation
No single assessment method is perfect:
- Interviews can be gamed
- Technical tests don't reveal collaboration patterns
- References may not reflect current capabilities
- Self-assessment can be inaccurate
But when buddy observations, PM feedback, health checks, and values alignment all point in the same direction, the signal becomes unmistakable.
Real Work, Real Conditions
Our 90-day trials don't simulate the job—they ARE the job. Engineers work on actual projects, with real deadlines, genuine collaboration requirements, and authentic technical challenges.
This reveals patterns that no interview process could uncover:
- How they handle ambiguity under pressure
- Whether they improve with feedback over time
- How accurately they assess their own performance
- Whether they align with the team culture organically
The EOS People Analyzer Confirmation
For engineers who successfully pass our 90-day trials, the EOS People Analyzer at day 90 becomes confirmation rather than discovery.
By this point, they've already demonstrated:
Right Person (Values Alignment):
- Shown a growth mindset through question evolution
- Demonstrated accountability through accurate self-assessment
- Exhibited helping others through team collaboration
- Raised the bar through quality improvements
- Kept trying through persistent problem-solving
Right Seat (Role Competency):
- Gets It: Understands the role requirements and expectations
- Wants It: Shows enthusiasm for the work and growth opportunities
- Capacity: Demonstrates ability to perform at the required level
The Result: Minimal Post-Hire Course Correction
This systematic approach dramatically reduces the need for role adjustments after hiring. When someone reaches our 90-day mark, they're typically well-aligned on both person and seat dimensions.
We've found that engineers who pass our structured trials rarely need repositioning later. The front-loaded evaluation catches misalignment before it becomes a performance problem.
Implementation: Building Your Own Front-Loaded System
Design Multiple Observation Channels
Cultural Integration: Daily/weekly buddy check-ins to assess values alignment and team fit.
Execution Performance: Regular PM or team lead assessments of actual work output
Feedback Integration: Weekly 1:1s with direct manager to provide guidance and track adaptation
Self-Calibration: Weekly self-assessments compared with team observations Formal Evaluation: Structured assessment tool (like EOS People Analyzer) for final confirmation
Create a Clear Values Framework
Define specific, observable behaviors that demonstrate your core values. Make these measurable during trial periods through real work situations.
Track Patterns Over Time
Single data points can mislead. Look for trajectories:
- Is performance improving, plateauing, or declining?
- Are questions becoming more sophisticated or staying static?
- Is self-assessment becoming more accurate or remaining disconnected?
Make Hard Decisions Early
When multiple signals consistently point to misalignment, act quickly. Extended trial periods, hoping for improvement, usually delay the inevitable while consuming team resources.
The Cultural Impact of Getting It Right
Team Velocity and Morale
When everyone is in the proper role, the entire team performs better. No one carries dead weight. Complex projects move forward collaboratively rather than getting bottlenecked by struggling team members.
Reduced Management Overhead
Managers spend less time on performance issues and role adjustments, and more time on strategic challenges and team development.
Stronger Feedback Culture
When everyone is hired for a growth mindset and values alignment, the entire team gets better at giving and receiving feedback.
The Uncomfortable Truth About Hiring
Not every good person is right for your organization. Technical competence doesn't guarantee values alignment. Interview performance doesn't predict real-world execution patterns.
Some engineers thrive in environments with clearly defined requirements and stable technology stacks. Others excel when facing ambiguous problems and rapidly evolving challenges. Neither is "better"—they're different.
The mistake is assuming you can train or manage someone into alignment with your culture and growth trajectory. Our experience shows that fundamental values and work patterns are largely fixed. You're better off identifying alignment upfront than trying to create it afterward.
What This Means for Your Team
Ask yourself: Are you evaluating "Right Person, Right Seat" during your hiring process, or after?
Most companies assume the person is correct and try to find the right seat later. This leads to extended periods of role uncertainty, team disruption, and often unsuccessful outcomes.
Our approach: Invest heavily in front-loaded evaluation during trials. Use multiple observation channels over extended time periods. Make decisions based on patterns, not single assessments.
The payoff: Teams where everyone is genuinely aligned on both person and seat dimensions. Minimal post-hire course correction. Higher team velocity and morale.
Prevention beats correction every time.
Top comments (0)