Susan (Plant Manager): “I liked him. I think he can do the job.”
Mark (HR): “I don’t think he interviewed very well.”
Jess (Supervisor): “I’m not sure he’s ready.”
Susan: “What are you seeing?”
Mark: “His answers were scattered. I asked for specific examples and didn’t get much structure. It was hard to follow.”
Jess: “And he didn’t come across very confident. I had to pull things out of him.”
Susan: “He’s not interviewing for a sales role.”
Mark: “Sure, but communication still matters.”
Jess: “If I put him in a tough situation, I’m not convinced he’d step up.”
Susan: “He’s been in this exact role for three years.”
Mark: “That didn’t really come through.”
Jess: “And I don’t have a ton of time to coach right now.”
Susan: “Coach him on what?”
Jess: “Just…how he carries himself. How he explains things.”
Mark: “If we move forward, we should at least be clear on that risk.”
Susan: “I’m less worried about how he talks and more about whether he can run second shift.”
Jess: “I’m more worried about what happens if he can’t.”
Mark: “I think that’s the right question.”
(pause)
Susan: “I think he can do it.”
Jess: “I think there are still a couple things to work through.”
Mark: “Yeah, I think we’re saying the same thing.”
(pause)
Susan: “So…we’re aligned?”
Jess: “I think so.”
Mark: “Yeah, I think we’re aligned.”
We were in a session recently talking about how people process and communicate differently. Same input, different interpretations. It reminded us of this image:
(dog/hiker illusion)
Some people see a dog running through the snow. Others see a person in a coat. Once someone points it out, you can see both.
Hiring conversations can feel a lot like this. But it’s not just about what people see, it’s about what they prioritize. In the conversation above, Susan is anchored on output. Can this person do the job? Mark is anchored on clarity. Can this person explain their experience in a way that builds confidence? Jess is anchored on risk. What happens if this doesn’t work, and how much of that burden falls on her? Same candidate, same interview, three different filters.
What makes this tricky is that these differences don’t just shape opinions, they shape the conversation itself. Some people speak quickly and confidently, pushing the discussion forward. Others are more measured, raising concerns but not always pressing them. Some are comfortable making a call with imperfect information. Others want more proof before moving. The result is a group that feels like it reached alignment, when in reality it never fully reconciled how each person was evaluating the decision.
We see this often. Teams leave a debrief thinking they are on the same page because no one is openly disagreeing anymore. But what has actually happened is that different perspectives were smoothed into similar language. “A couple things to work through” can mean “I’m a no.” “We’re saying the same thing” can mean “I’m not going to push this further.” The words converge, but the thinking underneath them does not.
The goal isn’t to eliminate these differences. You want them. The goal is to make them explicit. Are we evaluating job performance or interview performance? Are we optimizing for upside or minimizing risk? And who owns the downside if we’re wrong? Without that clarity, it’s easy to walk out of the room saying “we’re aligned” when what we really mean is “we stopped pushing on our differences.”
And unlike the image above, no one is going to point it out after the fact.
Share this with a team member and ask what they see in the picture.
Until next time,
Your Spherion WI & Northern IL team