Most hiring frameworks fail for one simple reason: they evaluate people as individuals, not as parts of a system.

When you hire, you are not just selecting a person. You are changing how work flows through a team. The real question is not “Is this candidate impressive?” but “What happens to the organization if this pattern of behavior repeats?”

A useful way to evaluate talent is through three connected dimensions:

• Capability - Can they produce useful output?

• Alignment - Will their energy move in the organization’s direction?

• Reliability - Can the organization safely depend on them?

These three are not separate score boxes. They interact. And when you view them together, your hiring decisions become more predictable.

1) Capability - useful output in the real world

Old thinking: capability = knowledge, pedigree, or technical skill.

New thinking: capability = the ability to turn unclear problems into useful progress inside your environment.

Many candidates look strong in isolation. The real test is whether they can move work forward when requirements are fuzzy, constraints appear, and stakeholders disagree.

Metaphor

Think of capability like a good translator. They take messy input and turn it into something the rest of the system can act on.

Example

Two engineering leaders may look equally smart:

• Leader A writes elegant strategy documents.

• Leader B removes blockers so the team delivers in half the expected time.

Both show intelligence. Only one clearly changes organizational speed.

Key insight: capability is less about how smart someone sounds and more about how much progress follows them.

2) Alignment - direction of energy

Old thinking: alignment = culture fit or agreeing with leadership.

New thinking: alignment = whether their decisions push the organization in the same direction.

High performers create momentum. But momentum can help or hurt depending on direction.

Metaphor

Imagine the organization as a set of arrows moving toward a goal.

• Capability is how strong the arrow is.

• Alignment is whether it points the same way as everyone else.

A strong arrow going the wrong way creates friction.

Example

An architect introduces advanced tools that look innovative. But if those choices increase complexity for hundreds of engineers, the net impact becomes negative.

Alignment is visible when people:

• optimize for shared outcomes, not personal wins

• make choices that reduce friction for others

• naturally think in system-level tradeoffs

Key insight: strong people who move in the wrong direction slow the organization down.

3) Reliability - trust the organization can scale on

Old thinking: reliability = punctuality or consistency.

New thinking: reliability = how much uncertainty the organization carries when depending on this person.

Reliable people reduce planning overhead. Unreliable people force teams to create backups and safety buffers.

Metaphor

Think of a network connection.

Even with high speed, if signals drop often, everyone has to resend work. The system slows down.

Example

A brilliant engineer who delivers unpredictably creates hidden cost:

• extra reviews

• duplicate work

• softer deadlines

• manager attention diverted to risk control

Another engineer with slightly lower peak performance but steady delivery may generate more long-term value.

Key insight: reliability allows trust to scale across teams.

The big shift - these dimensions multiply

Many hiring scorecards treat capability, alignment, and reliability as separate ratings.

In practice, they behave more like a system:

Impact ≈ Capability × Alignment × Reliability

This explains common hiring surprises:

• High capability + low alignment = friction and politics

• High alignment + low capability = positive energy without progress

• High capability + low reliability = constant management overhead

A small weakness in one area can reduce overall impact far more than expected.

How this changes interviews

Instead of asking, “Is this person good?”, ask:

“If this person’s working style repeated across 50 people, what would happen?”

Shift interviews from trait detection to system simulation.

Capability signals

• Do they simplify complex problems?

• Do they make decisions easier for others?

• Can they apply thinking across different situations?

Alignment signals

• How do they balance personal excellence vs team outcomes?

• Do they talk about shared success or individual visibility?

• What kinds of decisions excite them?

Reliability signals

• How do they describe missed commitments?

• Do they take ownership or explain circumstances?

• Do their stories show predictable follow-through?

Old vs New Thinking (Quick Comparison)

Old model

• Hire impressive individuals

• Optimize for capability first

• Assume reliability and alignment will emerge later

New model

• Hire for system impact

• Evaluate direction and dependability early

• Treat capability, alignment, and reliability as interconnected

Practical checklist for talent leaders

Use this as a quick calibration tool when reviewing candidates.

Capability

• [] Do they turn ambiguous problems into clear actions?

• [] Does their work create momentum for others?

• [] Have they produced results in environments similar to yours?

Alignment

• [] Do their decisions support company-level goals?

• [] Do they naturally reduce friction across teams?

• [] Are their motivations compatible with the role’s long-term direction?

Reliability

• [] Can timelines and commitments be trusted?

• [] Do they show ownership under pressure?

• [] Would you confidently build critical work around them?

Closing insight

Hiring is not about predicting individual brilliance.

It is about shaping how your organization behaves at scale.

The best talent decisions come from asking a simple question:

Will this person make the system stronger, clearer, and more dependable over time?

When you evaluate capability, alignment, and reliability together, you move from intuition-driven hiring to system-aware talent decisions.