The Problem-Solver Hiring Probe
Test ownership through solved problems, detail, and observation
- Difficulty
- Easy
- Time to result
- ~days to results
- Steps
- 4
- Confidence
- 97%
Navarro recommends replacing generic capability prompts with a direct request: list problems you have solved. Select one and ask for the sequence, constraints, personal decisions, and result. He suggests genuine solvers often recall more operational detail and emotion than people repeating a team story, but those cues should generate questions rather than serve as proof. Next, test observation: what does the candidate notice about people, events, risks, and opportunities relevant to the role? A strong technical operator who will manage people must still observe morale and behavior. Final assessment should combine the account with references, artifacts, or other evidence.
Origin
Navarro says he advises organizations to ask about solved problems and observation because conventional skill inventories often miss the capabilities the role actually needs.
Core principles
- 01Tool familiarity is not the same as solving a problem
- 02Owners can usually explain actions and constraints in detail
- 03Emotional display can prompt follow-up but cannot prove ownership
- 04Observation skill matters alongside technical skill
How to run it
- 1
Request solved problems
Ask the candidate to name several problems they personally helped resolve. Avoid leading with software or credential checklists.
Pro tip Request examples relevant to the scope and ambiguity of the role.
- 2
Trace one solution
Probe the initial state, constraints, actions, trade-offs, collaborators, and outcome. Ask repeatedly what the candidate personally did.
Pro tip Move from “we” to a neutral question about their individual contribution.
Watch out Fluent detail can still be rehearsed and must be verified.
- 3
Test observation
Ask what they would notice first in the role and how they detect changes in people, events, or opportunities. Look for role-relevant signals rather than a generic claim of attentiveness.
Pro tip Use a realistic scenario from the working environment.
- 4
Corroborate the account
Compare the story with work samples, references, metrics, or other interview evidence. Treat demeanor as context, never as the decision.
Pro tip Verify the outcome and the candidate's actual scope separately.
Watch out Do not penalize nervousness, disability, neurodivergence, or cultural communication differences.
In the wild
Navarro contrasts a candidate saying they know Excel or Microsoft tools with a candidate explaining a problem they solved, how efficiently they solved it, and what their own contribution was. For a management role, he would also ask how well they observe people.
→ The interview surfaces evidence of applied judgment instead of stopping at tool familiarity.
Common mistakes
Hiring the skill list
Knowing a tool does not show whether the candidate identifies and resolves the problems the role creates.
Treating emotion as proof
The transcript offers emotional detail as a clue, but it cannot establish ownership without corroboration.
Is it for you?
Best for
Hiring managers assessing candidates for roles that require independent judgment, management, or problem solving.
Not ideal for
Making a hiring decision from storytelling style, visible emotion, or body language without corroborating evidence.
From the transcript
“give me a list of the problems you have solved”
“how good are you at observing”
From the episode
Former FBI Agent: If They Do This Please RUN! Narcissists Favourite Trick To Control You! They're Controlling You Like A Puppet!