Why I Describe the Hard Parts of a Role Before Anyone Joins

When I described my assistant selection process in a July 2020 recording, I was talking about a particular travel-heavy arrangement I used then. It involved events, equipment, and long days away from home. It should not be read as a current job posting or as the terms anyone works under today.

The principle I wanted to explain was simpler: describe the difficult parts before someone commits. A person who learns the hard parts only after joining may reasonably decide the role was misrepresented.

Make the real work visible up front

In that recording I said many people asked to assist me, while very few were a fit for what I needed. The work I described included travel, carrying luggage and camera equipment, event setup, and unpredictable schedules. I wanted applicants to know that before they tried to persuade me they could do it.

I said, I don't talk them into it, I try to talk them out of it. I meant that I would name the parts they might dislike, then ask why they still wanted the arrangement. A good conversation gives the other person room to say no. If the timing, demands, or terms do not fit their life, that answer saves trouble for both of us.

In the video I used forceful language about commitment and described the terms of that 2020 arrangement. Those details were specific to that situation. The more useful test for any collaboration is whether the scope, compensation, schedule, travel, and expectations have all been made clear, and whether both sides freely agree to them.

Ask what the other person wants from it

I ask why a candidate wants to do the work and what they hope to achieve. I also want to know whether we can work well together when a plan changes or a trip runs late. Competence matters, but so does whether the arrangement serves both people’s goals.

One example I gave was a late night at an event in Greece. A colleague who had been working with me for over a year looked exhausted. We acknowledged it, joked about it, and finished what needed to be done. I remembered the exchange because we could speak honestly in a tiring moment. I do not present exhaustion itself as a hiring criterion or a badge of merit.

That distinction matters. You can explain that a role sometimes involves late nights and still be clear about limits, rest, and agreed terms. The point of describing a difficult scenario is to learn how a person would handle it and whether the role is a fit, not to surprise them after they have committed.

Keep the agreement mutual

I told the group that if I know the other person’s goals, I can make their progress part of the arrangement too. In return I want someone who understands what we are trying to accomplish together. That is more concrete than telling a candidate simply to be loyal.

Before a person joins, I would rather have the direct conversation: here is the work, here are the hard parts, here is what each of us expects, and here is how we will know whether it is working. The same habit appears in my article about setting expectations early. Once someone is on the team, the next test is whether both sides keep the commitments they made.