Are You Missing Great Hires?
Why the best candidates might not have the experience you think you need
I hired a Help Desk manager once who was bright, energetic, customer-service oriented, and motivated to drive change.
One of my best hires, ever.
Did I mention—he had never run a Help Desk and had no management experience?
At another institution, the Service Desk manager asked me to interview two finalist candidates for, funnily enough, another Help Desk role.
Both candidates were early in their careers. One had about a year of Help Desk experience; the other was an alum who had been working as a music educator since graduating the prior year.
Our Service Desk manager was leaning toward hiring the candidate with practical experience. After talking to both candidates, the choice was overwhelmingly clear to me. While the experienced candidate knew what he knew, the music teacher was deeply inquisitive and full of ideas.
I asked my Service Desk manager to consider which candidate would be better on day one, and which one would make the most impact six to 12 months in.
We hired the music teacher, who turned out to be another amazing hire.
Hire the Person, Teach the Skills
Early in my career I had a boss share his hiring philosophy with me:
“Hire the smartest person you can find and then get out of their way.”
In other words, hire for intelligence, curiosity, and drive (or what we might call “bias for action” at Amazon).
It’s been a core part of my hiring philosophy ever since, which may explain why I love Amazon’s hiring process so much. At Amazon, we look for:
clear evidence of our leadership principles—how candidates have demonstrated these behaviors in the past, and
candidates’ long-term growth potential with Amazon—do they have the potential to learn, grow, and take on new roles, or are they limited in what they can do?
A lot of people I know subscribe to this hiring philosophy.
It’s also becoming increasingly important—the half-life of our skills keeps shrinking, and technologies like AI are reshaping not just what jobs exist, but how we do the work itself.
Why then—if so many of us are aligned that this is the best way to hire—do so many job descriptions still have requirements like “degree in [specific] field” and “XX years [specific functional] experience”?
Rethinking Role Requirements
It’s time we take the “hire the person, teach the skills” philosophy and turn it into practice, although this may be easier said than done.
Early Career Roles
Entry-level and early career jobs are one place where it should be relatively easy to move away from skills-based hiring.
Candidates typically don’t have a lot of experience and the roles don’t require it. In fact, a lack of experience may be an advantage so the company can train a new employee in their particular methods, processes, or style.
The gap between some experience and no experience is easily bridged with smart and ambitious candidate, as was the case with our newly-graduated Help Desk hire.
Mid-Career Roles
Mid-career roles are where it may be the most challenging to imagine hiring someone without direct experience and a related degree.
We expect mid-career professionals to be able to jump into their roles and add value quickly based on their subject matter expertise and, in some cases, professional certifications.
Some roles clearly require a base level of skill. It’s difficult to imagine hiring a software developer who doesn’t know how to do basic coding, for example. But what about other types of roles where the technical requirements aren't as specific, like those in program management, marketing, business development, or product management?
In an AI-empowered world, is deep domain experience still necessary? How does AI change what we actually need in these roles versus what we’re still requiring based on a legacy model that may not serve us well moving forward?
Leadership Roles
The desire for deep domain expertise in leadership roles has always perplexed me. Leadership at the highest level is rarely about the functional area you oversee. Instead, true leadership is about:
strategy and vision
communications
relationship building
team development
If you're still deep in the tactical weeds of a functional domain, you're missing the bigger leadership opportunity.
In fact, hiring a leader outside of the functional domain you’re asking them to lead may actually net better results—you get someone without preconceived notions of what’s “right” or “best” and the clarity of an outsider’s perspective.
What Do You Choose?
Do you hire for personal characteristics and work style—looking for qualities like smart, adaptive, fast-moving, risk-taking, etc.—or for functional skills?
Assuming you’re faced with two equally strong but different candidates, which would you hire: the one who is strong functionally or the one with the personal qualities you’re looking for?
History is clear on which one I’d choose.
Bonus read: If you’re hiring anyone right now, they’d better be applying AI in their work. Here’s how they—and you—can level up with AI.
Spot on as always. You highlighted one of the most perplexing issues around leadership hiring - why aren’t hiring managers filtering for actual influence, management, and strategic skills and instead over indexing on technical skills? 🫠