The Best Candidates Do Not Bend to Your Hiring Process

Work from home is not the real issue. It simply shines a light on leadership consistency and hiring judgement.

A co founder of an American investment firm has reportedly launched a US thirty million dollar lawsuit after being fired for allegedly ignoring a return to office mandate he helped sign.

At first glance, it sounds like one of those perfect modern workplace stories. Founder tells everyone to return to the office. Founder does not return to the office. Founder is fired. Founder sues.

It is easy to laugh. It is also easy to turn it into another tired argument about remote work.

But I think the more important lesson sits somewhere else. This is not really about whether people should work from home or return to the office. It is about leadership consistency, founder behaviour and the way companies repel exceptional people by trying to make them fit a rule before they have understood what makes them exceptional.

The reported facts are messy, contested and legal. William Nieporte says the policy did not apply to him because he was an owner, not merely an employee. He also alleges the termination was used to push him out and affect his twelve per cent stake in the business. Bramshill denies the claims and says he was terminated for dereliction of duty.

So this is not legal commentary.

It is a leadership and hiring commentary.

Every founder, CEO and board should pay attention to the perception created when leaders impose rules they do not appear to live by themselves. In growing companies, founders often underestimate how closely they are watched. Every arrival time is noticed. Every early departure is noticed. Every special arrangement is noticed. Every exemption is noticed.

A founder might think they are being practical. The team may see double standards. A founder might think they have earned flexibility. The team may see entitlement. A founder might think the circumstances are different. The team may only see the rule that applied to everyone else.

This is why I have long told founders they need to build a degree of aloofness from their staff.

Not arrogance. Not distance for the sake of status. Aloofness in the sense of disciplined separation.

Founders are human. They will falter. They will contradict themselves. They will have bad days. They will make compromises. They will take shortcuts. And in a scaling company, there are eyes everywhere. Perception becomes reality long before the founder has finished explaining the nuance.

That is the internal leadership lesson.

But there is also a hiring lesson, and it matters even more.

I am hearing from some of the best headhunters in the world that clients are increasingly saying things like, “If the candidate mentions working from home, discount them immediately.”

I think that is ridiculous.

It may feel decisive. It may sound strong. It may satisfy a board or executive team that wants to send a message. But it misunderstands the very essence of executive search.

The best candidates are usually not sitting around waiting for your job. They are the backbone of their current company. They are stable, valued, well paid and often happy. They may not have looked at a job advertisement in years. They are not desperate to move. They are not trying to escape. They are not looking for the first company willing to take them.

That is precisely why they are worth approaching.

My role as a top tier headhunter is not to push them through a process and see whether they comply. My role is to understand them deeply enough to know whether a move could make sense.

I need to know their remuneration to the cent. I need to understand exactly how their short term incentive is calculated, measured and paid. I need to understand their long term incentive, including vesting, leaver provisions, valuation, taxation and what they may be walking away from. Sometimes I will suggest they obtain legal advice so they properly understand their equity position before making a decision.

But the financial detail is only part of it.

I also need to understand what makes them perform. How do they work? What rhythm suits them? What support do they need? What does their family situation look like? What does success currently depend on? What would they be giving up that is not visible in the salary package?

Because at the end of the process, every serious senior candidate takes the offer to the kitchen table.

That conversation is rarely about the job description. It sounds more like this: I thought you were happy. You are stable. Your long term incentive looks valuable. You are trusted where you are. So you are going to take probation? You are going to work longer hours while you settle in? We are going to see less of you during orientation? You are going to give up flexibility? You are going to go into the office every day? Are we really better off?

That is the conversation companies forget.

They think they are competing against other offers. Often, they are competing against the candidate staying exactly where they are.

And staying is powerful. Staying avoids risk. Staying protects family rhythm. Staying protects equity. Staying protects reputation. Staying protects confidence.

So when a company begins the conversation with rigid rules, it may never get to the point where the candidate can seriously imagine joining.

This does not mean every role can be remote. It does not mean office attendance is irrelevant. It does not mean leaders should be absent. Culture matters. Apprenticeship matters. Informal learning matters. Presence matters. The room matters.

But the question is not whether the office matters.

The question is whether your rule helps you attract and unlock the best person, or whether it merely gives you comfort that everyone is being treated the same.

Sameness is not always fairness. And it is rarely excellence.

Exceptional people often have exceptional operating systems. The magic that makes someone successful may include deep work from home. It may include early starts. It may include family stability. It may include avoiding a pointless commute. It may include quiet space. It may include being in the office three days a week with intense purpose rather than five days a week with performative presence.

If you remove the conditions that underpin their performance, do not be surprised when they do not perform for you.

This is where many companies get hiring wrong. They say they want the best, then design a process for the available. They say they want judgement, then screen for compliance. They say they want leadership, then punish the first sign of adult negotiation. They say they want someone who can change the company, then insist the person first proves they can submit to the company.

That is not how you secure the best of the best.

The best candidates need to be understood before they can be persuaded. A hiring process should discover the person, not merely test whether they will bend.

The right question is not, “Will this candidate comply with our preferred working model?”

The better question is this:

What conditions have made this person successful, and can we recreate enough of them here for the move to make sense?

That is a much harder question. It requires judgement. It requires curiosity. It requires confidence. It also requires the organisation to accept that hiring exceptional people is not the same as filling a vacancy.

Boards and CEOs should be very careful about blunt instructions such as, “discount anyone who mentions working from home.”

That sentence may feel like strength. It may actually be laziness.

It avoids the harder work of understanding trade offs, motivation, family reality, financial risk and performance conditions. A candidate who asks about flexibility may not be entitled. They may be thoughtful. They may be senior enough to know how they do their best work. They may be testing whether your company is mature enough to have an adult conversation.

The irony of the return to office debate is that both sides can become ideological. Some leaders pretend the office solves everything. Some employees pretend flexibility has no cost.

Both are wrong.

The real issue is judgement. What does the role require? What does the company need? What does the candidate need? What is negotiable? What is not? And is everyone being honest about the trade offs?

The Bramshill story is fascinating because it carries a familiar warning. Rules are easy to announce. They are harder to live. And they become dangerous when they are used as substitutes for judgement.

Founders should remember that staff watch what leaders do far more closely than what leaders say. Boards should remember that policies can have consequences far beyond the immediate employment issue. And hiring teams should remember that the best candidates are not waiting to be disciplined into your model.

They are waiting to be understood.

That is where real headhunting begins.