> Or, the new hire identifies the complexity in the situation, maps it to their speciality, but proposes a way forward that doesn’t match expectations. Leader:

> Or, the new hire identifies the complexity in the situation, maps it to their speciality, but proposes a way forward that doesn’t match expectations. Leader: “Wait, I didn’t know things were that broken” or “this isn’t actually what we hired you to fix!” > Tension mounts, and that approach inevitably fails as well. I've run into this in a consulting capacity before. They wanted to address just one sticking point using a specific technology, I looked at it, saw a bunch of other potential pitfalls they would hit, brought them up, and it quickly became apparent we were talking across each other. They decided to just use a different technology, in their case, probably the right call for the immediate use case, but it did limit some future options. Not sure how things went long-term there, around if it was the right call for them ultimately or not, because once they were using a different technology they didn't have a need to keep talking to me about the first one. So when talking about full time positions, I bring that up in the interview process. "Oh, you want to use X, let's talk more about why?" If it seems like a bad fit where what they actually need isn't what I'd be excited about working on, I'm less interested, hopefully they take that feedback and find someone who's a better fit. If they seem stuck on "but we just want to use X, can't you do that" then I know it's a bad fit culture-wise.