LenderHawk analysis. Not affiliated with or endorsed by Acquisitions Anonymous.
Michael Girdley lays out a repeatable hiring system built from 25+ years of trial, error, and outside tools. He argues that the best hiring process screens for role fit, cognitive ability, personality, and past performance early, so managers spend time only on candidates with a real shot at becoming top performers.
Small-business owners, operators, and ETA buyers who need a practical hiring system for building high-performing teams.
The best hiring systems front-load assessment work so weak candidates self-select out before time is spent on long interviews.
Work samples, cognitive ability tests, structured interviews, peer ratings, and job-knowledge tests were highlighted as the strongest predictors of job performance in the meta-study discussed.
Years of experience, years of education, interests, and age were described as poor predictors of on-the-job success, with age even showing negative correlation in the cited study.
A-player hiring is role-specific: someone can be elite in one job and a poor fit in another because each role demands different wiring and skills.
Top performers tend to leave a trail of references who are willing to speak positively and in detail about them, which makes deep reference checking a useful filter.
A hiring memo forces managers to document strengths, weaknesses, and risks before extending an offer, reducing hindsight bias later.
Culture fit, skills, and grit were framed as the three non-cognitive dimensions that determine whether someone actually thrives after being hired.
The optimal stopping problem suggests managers should interview many candidates before deciding, but assessment tools can reduce the cost of doing that at scale.
Candidates are grouped by performance potential within a specific role and pay band, with A-players representing the top tier, B-players the middle, and C-players the bottom. The point is that hiring should target the top decile for the role, not generic talent in the abstract.
When to use: Use this when defining what “great” means for a particular open role.
Recruiting is treated like a sales funnel: advertise, run assessments, screen, interview deeply, check references, and then make an offer. The purpose is to push low-cost filters to the front so only serious, high-potential candidates reach expensive stages.
When to use: Use when you want to protect manager time and candidate time in a high-volume search.
The meta-study cited 19 hiring predictors and found work sample tests to have a 0.54 validity coefficient.
Michael used the study to argue that seeing real work product is one of the best ways to predict job performance.
General mental ability tests had a 0.51 validity coefficient in the study.
He used cognitive tests as evidence that faster learning and reasoning ability correlate with better performance.
The top six predictive factors he referenced map to assessments and methods from top grading, Criteria, and Culture Index.
He tied the research directly to the tools he uses in his own process.
The optimal stopping problem’s classic answer is roughly 37 candidates before hiring the next best option.
He used the math as a caution against hiring too quickly.
His preferred hiring process can take about a week for reference checking alone.
He described top grading-style reference work as much more intensive than ordinary reference calls.
He said the top grading book is about 700 pages long.
He recommended skimming it because the methodology is stronger than the writing.
He estimated his Criteria subscription cost at about $1,500 per year.
He used this to show that screening tools are relatively cheap compared with a bad hire.
He said he and peers looked at about 30 assessment tools before settling on the ones they use.
He used that comparison to justify choosing sticky, science-based tools rather than trendy ones.
Put assessments before long interviews so unqualified candidates opt out early.
Why: It saves manager time and keeps weak fits from consuming the whole process.
Ask candidates to complete work samples or job-specific tests before investing in deep interviews.
Why: Real work output is a stronger predictor of performance than resume claims.
Use a structured interview process with a written hiring memo before the offer.
Why: Documenting strengths, weaknesses, and risks prevents you from relying on memory after the fact.
Call multiple former bosses, peers, and customers instead of doing a cursory reference check.
Why: Strong candidates usually have a trail of people willing to talk candidly about their performance.
Customize the hiring process by role instead of using one rigid interview script for every position.
Why: A-player traits differ for a CFO, salesperson, warehouse worker, and engineer.
Treat hiring as a core operating system, not a side task.
Why: Bad hires are more expensive than the time required to screen carefully.
Use personality assessments only where the role needs a specific wiring pattern.
Why: The goal is to match how someone is built to what the job actually requires.
Michael described earlier-career hiring as being driven by shallow impressions, including the mindset of hiring someone because they seemed pleasant. Those hires often failed to thrive, forcing him to rethink the entire approach.
Lesson: Personality without structured evidence is a weak hiring signal.
He said strong candidates often get excited when told the company will call many former bosses, coworkers, and customers. In his experience, that process signals a high-performance culture and attracts the kind of people he wants.
Lesson: A rigorous process can be a recruiting advantage, not just a screening filter.