Trust Your Gut in Hiring? Bake 10,000 Cheesecakes First

hiring
career
work
Author

Jean-Marc Alkazzi

Published

December 29, 2024

The Perfect Recipe?

Every pastry chef can spot a perfect cheesecake at a glance: the smoothness of the surface, the slight jiggle, the warm glow at the edges. Not because they read recipe books but because they have crafted thousands. They have seen every possible variation, every mistake, every near-miss, and every success. Expert chefs also know that the true test of a cheesecake isn’t in how it looks but in that first bite. What I realized is that hiring expertise follows the exact same path. We’re all just learning to taste the cheesecake and choose the best one.

I chose the number 10,000 randomly as a big number, similar to the 10,000hrs rule.

How Hard Can It Be?

A failed cheesecake costs you ingredients and time. A failed hire can cost you your entire company. While anyone can follow a basic cheesecake recipe and produce an edible result, hiring requires a level of judgment that goes far beyond following a simple checklist.

Being at the core of what management does, it is a significant topic to get right.

The complexity of hiring manifests in multiple ways, as highlighted by many in the field

With stakes this high, how do we develop the judgment to make better hiring decisions?

The Three Ways to Judge: Make, Taste, or Trust

When it comes to assessing quality — whether in cheesecakes or candidates — we have three fundamental approaches we can follow. Consider yourself in front of the following 4 choices. Which one would you expect to taste better? Look carefully before answering.


Cheesecake 1

Cheesecake 2

Cheesecake 3

Cheesecake 4


What are you even looking at when deciding? As a non-expert chef, maybe style, resemblance to some nice cheesecake you tasted once, or even fanciness. The features you look at are incomplete to make a reasonable final decision accordingly.

The Maker’s Way: Mastery Through Practice

We all think we can spot talent when we see it, just like a good cheesecake. You definitely heard someone ask to write down more details about what they are looking for in a candidate, and their answer was, “I will know a good match when I see it.” The difference between you and a chef is that you don’t even know what to look at, let alone be able to assess it correctly once you see it.

The same goes for tasting it. You never trained your tastebuds, and after a specific point, everything tastes “really good.” What do you do then? You choose the cheapest in this pool of “really good.” This is one reason companies end up with slightly above-average teams. The quality you get is proportional to how well you trained your tastebuds.

So, do you need to be an expert? Well, kind of.

My theory is as follows:

The Cheesecake Theory: Authority in judgment is not given but earned through the deliberate baking and tasting of thousands of cheesecakes.

A Chef who has baked 10,000 cheesecakes has seen every possible variation, mistake, near-miss, and success. This Chef knows exactly what to look for in the shape and taste. Of course, that’s only possible if the Chef deliberately practiced the process. The “deliberate” part is essential here.

You think deliberate practice has only marginal benefits?

Next to my place, I observe a homeless man playing the same accordion tune he’s played for years. Despite likely crossing the 10,000-hour mark of practice, his melody remains unchanged, his skill unimproved. Not through any fault of his own - life’s circumstances have denied him proper guidance and feedback. His daily performance serves as a powerful reminder: time invested without deliberate improvement is just time passed. When developing hiring expertise, let’s ensure we don’t fall into the same pattern of aimless repetition.

The Taster’s Way: Expertise Through Evaluation

Is it the only way of assessing? Do I have to be a Chef? Not necessarily, but there is a reason why judges in all cooking shows are renowned Chefs (apart from the marketing aspect). Think about a Sommelier. They are the best at assessing the quality of wine but don’t necessarily know all the tricks of the trade to make it. So, if you deliberately baked or even tasted a thousand cheesecakes, you earn the gut feeling that would help you assess one effectively.

Does it mean you can explicitly explain why a specific option is better every time? Not necessarily, and this happens with a lot of experts. Maybe you look at some code and say, “Well, this looks really nice,” without being able to pinpoint precisely what makes something nice. Or maybe you look at chickens and can directly know their sex. I’m actually not joking; this blog post about Chicken Sexing and Perceptual Learning as a Path to Expertise explains this phenomenon really well. The TL;DR of this article is that perceptual expertise - like instantly judging code quality or spotting the sex of a chicken - can’t be taught through instruction but is learned through immediate feedback over thousands of examples. Through this “perceptual exposure,” our brains naturally detect patterns when shown many varied examples quickly, as proven when non-pilots matched experienced pilots’ instrument-reading abilities after just two hours of targeted practice. This explains why true expertise in any field requires extensive exposure to high-quality examples with feedback, creating knowledge that experts can use but often can’t explain - they just know what “feels right.” It’s also known as “developing taste.” Yes, you have to earn the gut feeling, and you can actually train it.

Please do read the full article, it’s amazing. One bad scenario I imagined is perceptual exposure with low-quality examples and how it could mess up your gut feeling, maybe permanently(?)

The Trust Way: Wisdom Through Proxies

Now, there is actually a third way other than deliberate baking and tasting. Consider the following: You are presented with two cheesecakes, one by your neighbor Nina and the second by Gordon Ramsey. Which one do you expect to taste better?

Without having them baked or even looking at them, you may say Gordon’s because you know he’s an expert. You know nothing about cheesecakes, how they are done, or how they should even taste. Yet, you were confident because someone somewhere gave the highest credit to that person. This is the third method which is assessment by proxy. You trust someone who graduated from MIT over a random local university in the Middle East because of their credibility, which is renowned worldwide. The same goes for referrals. If my super skilled friend referred you, you must be good. This only makes sense, although not always true.

What you didn’t realize is that Nina, your neighbor, turns out to be Nina Métayer, who just became the best pastry chef in the world for 2024. Had you had an expert chef with you to help you decide, you would have quickly realized that her pastry is better. Now, you only know that because the title is there. Enjoy Gordon’s “bad” cheesecake.

Relying on external assessment increases the probability, but you will still get “bad” candidates because you will be biased by others’ assessments. More importantly, you will miss people who took a different route and can prove to be among the best. This is always a possible risk, no matter how you approach the hiring process. Considering limited time and energy, it is not humanly possible to be 100% fair with every candidate applying. At one point, you may have 2000 candidates for one position and need to filter it out as fast as possible. You will refer to some heuristics (rules of thumb) to do so.
Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking we are always in such a situation and try to take shortcuts while we can have more extensive assessments.
Don’t always listen to Bob from CheesyCake. His advice is based on the context of a big company; your context may be different. Take your time.

So the path forward is clear: become an expert, develop expert judgment, or consult experts. Simple, yet surprisingly controversial to many.

A common saying is “Game recognizes game,” which points out how experts have the gut feeling to recognize other experts or even hidden potential.

Mastering the Craft

If you have read this far, my words have made some sense to you, which is a good sign. Now what?

We mentioned choosing the cheesecake that would taste best, but what does that actually mean? “Best” is very subjective and should be treated as such. What makes a good candidate at one company may not make them good at another, even for the same role.

The important part is not fighting about a universal definition of “best,” but being aware of a clear definition of your version of “best.” This may seem like a trivial step, which is partly why it is usually overlooked with assumptions like “I will know it when I see it.” Well, maybe, but you won’t attract it if you don’t clearly advertise what you want, which means you may never actually get to see it.

About the Candidate

What makes a great candidate is what makes a great employee; they should

  • Tackle the right tasks (Effective)
  • Tackle tasks the right way (Efficient)
  • Deliver high-quality outcomes (Expert)
  • Learn and grow fast (Eager)

You may require different levels for each or even add more aspects you believe are important for you, but the above list shows the essential core traits I believe are necessary.

Some argue that Eager is not always required. Would you rather choose the Chef who has consistently made a 3/5-star cheesecake for the past 20 years or a new chef who has only been self-taught for a few months, showing a 2/5-star cheesecake?
If all you ever care about is a 3/5 quality, your choice may be clear.
If you aim for a 5/5, this first Chef is a clear red flag.
You choose how to balance those dimensions based on your needs (yes, it is essential to have them clearly defined).

It goes without saying that not being an asshole is on top of the list.
Sadly, too many people still overlook this aspect and consider that Expertise would cover up for it.
There is a reason why “One rotten apple spoils the barrel” is such a famous proverb.
Let’s add one line to reflect that

  • Fit well in different environments (Adaptable)

About the Person hiring

While you could focus on everything during the assessment, at the end of the day, a human is doing the assessment, and humans are biased—not only biased but emotional and sometimes irrational.

As professional as you may be, the implicit clues you pick up can sometimes be based on your own personality, how attractive the person is, or how clear their voice is. The candidate may even remind you of someone you hate or love. Both positive and negative biases negatively affect an effective assessment.

Some tips

  • First, read books about decision-making so you can recognize your own biases. “Thinking in Bets” by Annie Duke is a great start.
  • Write down evaluation criteria before meeting with the candidate. Knowing what you want, what you need, and how to clearly state that out are three different challenges at this stage.
  • Document decisions immediately after each interview, not later. You may believe that you know an implicit definition of “good,” but challenge it by writing it out or explaining it out loud to someone to convince them. For instance, in many situations, you may find that what you consider good is affected by the recency bias. e.g., today’s good candidate seems to you better than the other good candidate from 3 weeks ago. (no notes / clear metrics? you fell into the trap)
  • Make sure your filtering process takes into consideration the context of the candidates. Consider two candidates: one from a prestigious university, good grades, with no work experience, versus one from a good university who worked as a waiter throughout their studies to support their family. Which path tells you more about their potential? Take some time to reflect on your own hiring biases.

Questions to ask yourself

  • If the candidate was of a different age/gender/background, would I feel the same way? Try to replace them with someone you know and like or someone you specifically don’t.
  • Can I point to specific examples that support each of my judgments?
  • What makes me say they’re a ‘culture fit’ - am I confusing comfort/easygoing with competence?
  • Which of my past hires succeeded/failed in unexpected ways, and what did I miss initially?
  • Where have my instincts been right/wrong before?
  • Have I given equal weight to similar strengths/weaknesses across all candidates?
  • Am I rushing to judgment because I’m under pressure to hire?

Please don’t read books before ordering a cheesecake, but at least do so before making decisions that can affect the lives and careers of candidates and your team/company when hiring.

Remember: Just like developing any expertise, reducing bias requires both structured systems and self-awareness of our judgment patterns. It’s not about eliminating intuition but about calibrating it properly.

Personal Rules of Thumb

“Theory without practice is empty, and practice without theory is blind.” - Kurt Lewin

  • No matter how much you read about hiring, you have to experience it firsthand and fail badly to learn.
  • Suffering is a required part of the process.
  • You can learn from the experience of your colleagues hiring in other teams. Learning from others’ mistakes is required when your samples are small over your career.
  • Allow your process to detect exceptional talent. Your challenge should be hard enough for excellent people to pass it but still allow exceptional geniuses to stand out. An easy challenge would reach a “saturated good solution,” which is marginally different between candidates with dramatically different skill sets.
  • Humans are not rational by default; if you think you are, read “Predictably Irrational” by Dan Ariely.
  • No matter how much you read about decision-making and decision biases, you will still make mistakes. Make sure to actively try to be aware of them and calibrate accordingly.
  • Great recruiters are worth their weight in gold. They have seen a lot of cheesecakes and a lot of Chefs in different teams, contexts, and industries. Their gut feeling is worth considering.
  • Not every great employee can hire well, but most employees who hire well are great.
  • Always reflect on your skills at assessing people and outcomes. You may be good at one and bad at the other.

Summary

The Cheesecake Theory: Authority in judgment is not given but earned through the deliberate baking and tasting of thousands of cheesecakes.

Your gut feeling is the dark matter of hiring. With time, it starts to make up 95% of our decisions. Make sure you train it with high-quality examples.

Your first cheesecake won’t be perfect. Neither will your first hire. But with each attempt, your judgment grows sharper. Start counting your cheesecakes.

What’s your approach to developing hiring expertise? How many “cheesecakes” have you baked so far? Interested in your experience and feedback, let’s connect on Twitter/X @jeanmarcalkazzi.