Almaty is Kazakhstan's largest city: by mid-2026 more than 2.3 million people live here, and it is the densest and most competitive labour market in the country. With unemployment at around 4.6 percent and a national labour force of roughly 9.8 million, strong specialists are almost always already working somewhere — you do not look for them among the unemployed, you have to lure them away and, more importantly, keep them. In such an environment the old approach of "we need a good person for the role" stops working. In our Almaty branch we put it more bluntly long ago: don't hire the good — choose the best. It sounds like a slogan, but there is a concrete methodology behind it, and in this article we examine it honestly, weak points and all.
FSSA has been recruiting since 2007, and the Almaty operation has given us perhaps our most telling experience: it is here, in an overheated market, that you can see the gap between an average and a strong employee measured not in percentages but in multiples. One precisely chosen person in a key role closes tasks that would otherwise take two or three people. So the "perfect team" is not a team where everyone is good, but a team where each person is the best in their place and, at the same time, makes the others stronger. What follows is how that is assembled in practice.
Why "good" is not enough
The temptation to hire someone merely good is understandable: they fill the vacancy, cause no trouble at the interview, accept the salary. But an average employee costs the company far more than it seems, and that cost is hidden.
First, an average worker sets the bar for the whole team. The strong ones pull up to a leader, but they also sink to an average: if someone next to them systematically does less, the rest stop giving their best. Second, a hiring mistake does not cost one salary. While the person is in place but not coping, you pay them, lose on unfinished tasks, spend the manager's time on supervision, and then go through the entire recruiting and onboarding cycle again. In a competitive market like Almaty this is especially expensive: while you hold on to the wrong person, the best candidates go to those who decide faster.
Third, an average employee almost never grows into a strong one on their own. The belief that "we'll train them on the job" is an illusion. The basic qualities — motivation, learning ability, responsibility — come with the person; they are not instilled in a quarter. So betting on "the best" is not perfectionism but economy: it is cheaper to hire right once than to redo it three times.
"The best" is not the strongest but the most fitting
This is where the main misunderstanding lies. "Choose the best" does not mean "take the loudest resumes." The best is not the abstractly strongest on the market, but the one who fits this particular role, this team, and this stage of the company best.
The most experienced candidate with an impressive track record can be a poor choice if the role is too small and they grow bored in two months, or if their working style breaks an established team. And the reverse: a person with a modest resume but the right motivation and an exact match to the tasks often turns out to be that very best. So the first thing we do before searching is not write a vacancy but describe a profile of success: which three or four results the person should deliver in six months, which qualities are critical for that, and which are a pleasant bonus. Without this, "the best" turns into a matter of taste, and each interviewer chooses by their own feeling.
An important detail: fit includes values and working manner, not just skills. A skill can be tested and, if necessary, fine-tuned. Attitude to work, honesty, willingness to take responsibility — cannot. So in a borderline case we would rather take someone slightly less experienced but an exact match on values than a virtuoso the team will not gel with.
A team is built on complement, not on clones
Even if each person is individually the best, they will not necessarily form a team. A common managerial mistake is to hire people similar to oneself: the same way of thinking, the same strength. The result is a group that is good at one thing and equally weak at another.
The perfect team is assembled on the principle of complement. A strong idea generator needs someone who carries things to a result. An analyst is balanced by a communicator. The person who keeps the pace is balanced by the one who watches quality. In our Almaty branch we recruit not simply for a vacancy but for the existing line-up: we look at which role the team lacks and search for the missing strength, not another copy of an existing one. This is harder than closing a position by formal requirements, but it is exactly what turns a set of strong individuals into a working mechanism.
From this follows a non-obvious rule: the same candidate can be the best for one team and unsuitable for another. So a universal "top candidate" does not exist — there is the match of a specific person with a specific context.
How we select: process instead of intuition
To choose the best consistently rather than guess, selection must be a process, not a series of charming conversations. We hold to several principles.
The first is to assess by results and behaviour, not by self-presentation. Instead of "tell me about yourself" we ask about specific situations: what the person actually did, what decision they made, what came of it. Past behaviour predicts the future better than promises.
The second is structure. The same key questions and a single rating scale for all candidates for a position. This removes the likeability effect, where the charming but weak overtakes the quiet but strong.
The third is several independent views. The decision on a key position is not made by one person. When several assessors compare impressions on one scale, individual error and bias are smoothed out.
The fourth is a reality check where possible: a test task, a case discussion, a trial day. Half an hour of practice says more about a candidate than an hour of talking about themselves.
Onboarding: the best can be lost in the first month
Selecting the best is half the job. Companies regularly fail the other half: they take a strong person and leave them to figure things out alone. In a competitive market this is a direct path to losing them in the first weeks — a good candidate always has fallback options, and they leave for the place that brought them into the work rather than left them on their own.
So a perfect team requires deliberate onboarding. A new person needs clear expectations for the probation period, a mentor they are not afraid to approach, and first quick wins that confirm they did not err in their choice. This is especially true of strong candidates: they are less tolerant of chaos and pointlessness than average ones, and they leave faster if they see disorder in the team. Retaining the best begins not a year later with bonuses, but in the first month — with clarity and attention.
Limitations and weak points
The "choose the best" approach is not a universal cure, and naming its limitations honestly matters more than presenting it nicely.
First. It is longer and more expensive at the entrance. Finding and assessing the best takes more time and resource than closing a vacancy with the first suitable person. When a position must be filled urgently, the ideal has to be deliberately lowered.
Second. The risk of overcomplicating. An endless search for the ideal candidate ends with the position standing empty for months while the team burns out under overload. Sometimes a good hire today beats an ideal one in three months.
Third. The best are harder to keep. A strong employee costs more, hits the ceiling faster, and is readier to leave for growth. Building a team of the best means committing to constantly giving them development, or they will go.
Fourth. The subjectivity of defining "the best." Without a profile of success described in advance, assessment slides into personal sympathy. The methodology works only with discipline; on intuition it turns into its opposite.
Fifth. Not justified for every position. In simple, routine roles with high turnover, chasing the best makes no economic sense — there, speed of filling and the robustness of the process matter more than each person's star quality.
Practical conclusion
What to do depends on the role.
For the recruiter. Before the search, describe a profile of success: three or four results for six months and the critical qualities. Assess by past behaviour and a single scale, bring in several independent views, and verify by practice, not just conversation.
For the manager. Hire for the team, not only for the vacancy: look for the missing strength, not a copy of yourself. And remember that selecting the best does not end at the offer — set aside resource for the first month of onboarding, or you will lose the one you found with such difficulty.
For the owner. Decide deliberately where you truly need the best and where a reliable process is enough. For key roles, budget more time and money for recruiting and a commitment to provide growth; for routine ones, build a robust system without overpaying for star quality. A perfect team is not a gathering of stars but an exact match of people, roles, and context.
Frequently asked questions
Does "choose the best" mean hiring the most experienced?
No. The best is the one who fits a specific role, team, and company stage most closely, not the abstractly strongest on the market. A candidate too strong for the role grows bored and leaves as quickly as a weak one fails to cope.
What if a position must be filled urgently?
Deliberately lower the bar and take a good hire now rather than an ideal one after months of downtime. The ideal is justified for key roles; for urgent and routine ones, speed and the robustness of the process matter more.
How do you build a team rather than a set of strong individuals?
Recruit on the principle of complement: look for the strength the team lacks, not another copy of an existing one. The same person can be the best for one team and surplus to another.
Why does a strong employee leave in the first month?
Most often because of abandoned onboarding. The best are intolerant of chaos and a lack of clarity; if they are hired and left to figure things out alone, they leave for the place that brought them into the work. Retention begins in the first month, not a year later.