In most hiring processes, the obvious candidate has a clear role to play.
They’ve done the job before, in a similar environment, and can be assessed quickly against the brief. They bring a level of certainty that is both reassuring and, in many cases, entirely appropriate.
Often, they are the ideal option.
But the strongest shortlists don’t begin and end there.
What makes a candidate “obvious” is how closely their background matches the role on paper. When someone has done a very similar job, in a similar company or sector, the fit is easy to see. That makes them quicker to shortlist and more straightforward to choose.
That ease has an impact — particularly because hiring decisions are rarely made by one person alone. They are discussed, compared and shaped through multiple perspectives. The more directly comparable a candidate is, the easier it is for everyone to align around them. Over time, that naturally pulls decisions towards the most familiar profiles — even where less obvious candidates may bring broader experience or a different perspective.
At the same time, hiring processes tend to rely on signals like years of experience, sector background or role similarity. These create a sense of precision — a feeling that the decision is grounded and objective. But they can act as proxies for capability. They make decisions easier to justify, without necessarily making them better.
Some of the most capable candidates don’t map neatly onto a brief. Their experience may sit adjacent to the role rather than map directly to it. Their careers may be broader, less linear, or shaped in different types of organisations. They may articulate their value differently — less rehearsed, less familiar, but no less substantive.
In many cases, these candidates bring experience gained in different contexts, a more varied perspective, and a greater ability to challenge and navigate complexity. They may be accustomed to operating across different contexts, which can translate into stronger judgement and a more flexible approach to problem-solving.
In a process built around comparison, these candidates can be simply harder to evaluate. And when time is limited and alignment matters, they are often filtered out.
This is one of the key places a well-run search process adds value — not just in identifying and assessing the strongest, most relevant candidates, but in helping clients recognise and evaluate different types of strength within a shortlist.
In isolation, choosing the obvious candidate rarely feels like a compromise. In many cases, it’s a strong decision.
It’s the repetition of the same decision, over time, that has the real impact. Teams gradually become more uniform — not just in background, but in how problems are approached and decisions are made. Over time, this can limit the range of thinking within a team and reduce its ability to respond to more complex or unfamiliar challenges.
Over time, this kind of filtering doesn’t just narrow the range of experience. It also shapes the diversity of teams — particularly where career paths are less linear or where strong candidates may not present in the most familiar way. When “relevant” is defined too tightly, both perspective and representation can be unintentionally limited.
None of this suggests that obvious candidates should be deprioritised. The difference is in how “strong” is defined — whether it’s limited to proven similarity, or includes broader capability and perspective.
The most effective hiring processes recognise that there is more than one way to meet the requirements of a role. Some candidates will match the brief directly. Others will bring experience that is less immediately comparable, but equally relevant in a different context. Both can represent strong hires — and taking this broader view of “strength” often leads to more effective and resilient teams over time.
It also requires a more deliberate approach to assessing “fit”. When familiarity drives that judgement, candidates who look right on paper are often validated quickly, while others are discounted just as quickly.
The best shortlists don’t replace the obvious candidate — they build around them. The quality of a hiring decision is rarely determined by how quickly a candidate can be recognised as suitable, but by how fully the range of credible options has been considered.
The obvious candidate is often the right one. But when they become the only type of candidate considered, it can quietly narrow how a team thinks and operates.
The best hiring decisions rarely come from choosing between identical profiles. They come from having a clear view of the full range of the strongest candidates — and the confidence to assess them properly.
At Madison Hive — and through the wider Madison Group — we know the real estate market inside out, and use that insight to help clients build shortlists that reflect its full breadth — identifying and assessing the strongest candidates, including those whose experience is a direct fit for the role as well as those whose strengths present in less familiar ways.
If you’re looking to take a more considered approach to hiring, we’d be very happy to have a conversation.