There is on crucially important thing that is often ignored in these conversations and articles: What are the goals for this new hire? Why is someone being hi

There is on crucially important thing that is often ignored in these conversations and articles: What are the goals for this new hire? Why is someone being hired? Scenario: A team isn't performing optimally. They are making bad or non-optimal decisions. Work isn't being done well or on time. Do you hire someone that will "fit" so everyone can continue to drink the Kool-Aid and nothing changes? Or do you hire someone with less "fit", with the aim being to shake things up and correct the path forward? In this case either you fire people from the team and, Grizzwald style, proclaim "We are going to do a good job dammit!" or introduce an agent of change in the form of someone with a different (or greater) experience base that will, with your input and support, help correct the situation. This "fit" thing can very easily turn into an echo chamber. And that is rarely, if ever, good in any way. Every good team I've ever been a part of (or hired, once running my own business) has had various degrees of conflict or "un-fit" individuals. I find this works well.