The Myth Of The Top 1% Closer: Why Hiring \"Super Closers\" Is Bad For Business

I sent a long email to a longstanding client yesterday who was trying to figure out how to bring in "better talent".

I told him that's his problem.

Here's the thing most forget:

The TRUE top 1% (super closers as I like to call them) are almost NEVER on the market.

They’re already at established companies with steady lead flow, big earnings, and progressive comp struture—Cush.

If they do leave, they typically move through their network quietly either to their plan B or they were poached.

They’re not floating around in recruiter pipelines.

(which mean no, they’re not sitting in some agency's secret pool—anyone claiming that is lying through their teeth).

I digress.

Even if you DO land a super closer...be warned:

they’re high-risk.

Yes. I didn't stutter (this time).

High-Risk.

Here's why:

(Note: the rep may not be intentially trying to be difficult here)

At their old company, they got special treatment—priority leads, richer comp, smoother systems, flexible cheduling, and far less scrutiny over their methods.

But that treatment doesn’t carry over when they’re the “new guy” at a fresh offer.

Besides the fact they didn't START that offer as a super closer—they became one, they weren’t great in a vacuum;

they were great inside a SYSTEM that gave them every advantage.

Take away the system, and half their magic disappears.

Drop them into a new offer and suddenly they’re just another closer starting from scratch.

The problem is, if a super closer does hit the market,

they’ll want to keep doing exactly what made them successful in their last offer—but that rarely carries over.

Which means those "killers" can look average, fast.

The other thing people often overlook: sometimes a closer only looks good because they’ll say anything to get the deal.

Now, setting aside the top dogs who actually DO have strong ethics—how many times have we let “top performers” bend the rules or allowed them to do stuff no one else get's to,

just because the numbers looked good?

How many times have we chosen NOT to dig deeper, because ignorance felt easier

and allowed for plausable deniability?

And then 2–3 months later, the truth shows up… in chargebacks, refunds, pissed-off clients and a soured culture.

The third thing we have to understand is this:

Top performance is CONTEXTUAL.

Big numbers on one offer don’t automatically translate to another.

You’re betting on success in someone else’s role, not yours—and that’s a massive leap of faith.

That’s because the whole ‘top 1%’ obsession only measures HARD skills—the easiest thing to check.

It ignores soft skills entirely, which is why it produces so many false positives.

What's the fix then?

The safer play for most businesses is to focus on "mid-tier" seasoned talent with solid chops and character.

Or more green but coachable people you can train without baggage or ego.

“Proven track records” don’t tell you anything about:

- Work ethic (HOW they do their job)

- How coachable they are

- How well they will fit into your culture.

Hard skills are easy to check.

Character is not.

So stop chasing the mythical top 1%.

Build with steady, coachable people who stick.

As Garvy V says, hire fast, fire faster, and promote the fastest.

Figure out through real work (trial hires) who's got the sauce (is an ideal team player) and cut the rest as soon as possible.

Avoid hiring based on faulty metrics.

Flash is fragile.

Character compounds.

Plus, who’s to say YOUR system, if well-oiled,

can’t produce your OWN super closers?

Stay Humble, Hustle Hard.