Article
What do I look for in potential colleagues?
Common Sense, Personality and Mutual Chemistry: More Important than Experience
Common Sense
Sure, I can teach online advertising and marketing data interpretation, but I cannot teach common sense. Either it is there or it is not. When someone overcomplicates simple tasks or ignores the obvious solutions, working with them becomes a challenge. Common sense is a quality that I try to find in potential colleagues during the practical part of the interview.
Chemistry
Another thing that you cannot force is chemistry. In my experience, when there is great chemistry among colleagues, any problem can be tackled. On the flip side, without it, even minor issues seem insurmountable. If someone in the team disrespects others, or is generally toxic, it needs to be addressed. It is vital to identify these traits during the hiring process or probationary period.
Motivation
It is tough to spark internal motivation in someone if they do not have it within themselves. I can inspire and energize someone temporarily, but I cannot sustain that for them. Working with someone who always needs a push is exhausting. This trait is often hidden during the hiring process because many people can fake determination and motivation. The truth usually comes out in the first few weeks of working together.
So, what do I look for in potential colleagues? Good chemistry, common sense, and internal motivation. It is simple.
Summary
Common questions on this article's topic
Why is personality more important than experience when hiring?
What is common sense in a professional context and can it be taught?
Why does team chemistry matter more than individual skill?
Can internal motivation be created through management?
How can you identify personality traits during the hiring process?
What should you prioritise when building a team?
If you have any thoughts, questions, or feedback, feel free to drop me a message at mail@richardgolian.com.
Related articles
Yesterday I could not tear myself away from the computer. When I lifted my head, it was half past eight in the evening. I had been sitting alone upstairs for about three hours.
Will AI take my job? A certified Google trainer told me in June 2024 that my profession would cease to exist. Twenty-two months later, my job title has not changed — but ninety percent of what I do during the day is different. I have delegated more of my thinking to AI agents than I thought possible. I am not afraid. This is why, and what it means for anyone asking the same question.
I have conducted roughly one hundred and fifty practical interviews over the past four years. Fifty for data specialist roles. A hundred for advertising and performance marketing specialists. Almost every one of them involved sitting down with a candidate over a practical task — something close to a real problem we actually need to solve at the company. Not theory. Not trivia. Applied problem-solving. Over time, I started noticing a pattern.
More articles
In April, in the first part of this series, I wrote about an AI prediction system I had started building on my own machine. At the time the software was a few hours old and the prediction record was empty. The record since then has shown one thing — the system does not yet understand the market it is being asked to forecast. It can pull macro context, book value, earnings. But it cannot put those together into something that helps it understand the price.
Prague, 13 May 2026. On my way to work I started thinking about something that stayed with me for days. If most routine work on a computer disappears in the next ten years, and a large share of repetitive manual work disappears with it, what happens to the flow of money? Who pays whom for what? Which economic layers will exist, how large will they be, and what relationships will run between them? This is the six-layer map I sketched as an answer.
I am building an AI system to predict the S&P 500. It runs on my own machine, uses free public data — yfinance, FRED, the Shiller dataset — and grades every forecast against reality. This series documents the build itself: the decisions, the methodology, the mistakes. What I will eventually share from the running system is a separate question, and an honest one.
One hour. Fifty-five minutes. That is how long it took to build what a Czech software firm had quoted at over €50,000. I built it with Claude Code. Not a prototype. Not a proof of concept. A working tool — the one the company actually needed. By the evening of the same day, it was running on staging. This is not about Claude Code. It is about what Claude Code exposes.
Before you can teach AI to understand anything, you need to see what it is hiding from you.
The moment other people needed access to it, the problem changed completely. It was no longer about whether the agent could learn. It was about who gets to teach it.
I wanted to build an agent that doesn't just assist. One that acts.
Four days in Catalonia. No computer, no AI, almost no social media. I bought this notebook so that I could write down what I would think about, and what I would come across and learn on the trip.