Hiring for Who They Are, Not What They Do

As AI changes our work, I want to assess adaptability alongside the requirements of the job.

A fixed role description can become dated. That does not remove the current work, necessary expertise or required credentials.

My approach is to define the work, examine job-relevant evidence and understand how a candidate learns, decides and collaborates.

Here's why this shift matters, and how to hire for the person you'll actually work with.

Editorial update, October 11, 2026: This shorter edition keeps my preference for judgment, adaptability and collaboration. The candidate story is my account, not an independently verified hiring study. Use role-relevant work samples and consistent criteria; necessary expertise and credentials still matter. OPM’s structured-interview guidance describes job-related competencies, common questions and a common rating scale. The airport metaphor is not a reason to hire people who resemble me socially.

The New Model: Person-First Hiring

"What we do differently is basically, we take a look at this person and say, okay, this person's personality is this, this person's pros and cons are this."

The new hiring process:

1. Define the work and necessary skills first (before sourcing candidates through more than one channel)
2. Assess each candidate against the same job-related criteria (using comparable work samples and rating standards)
3. Assess relevant learning and collaboration (alongside the expertise and qualifications the role requires)
4. Discuss the actual working relationship and expectations (without assuming a five- or ten-year commitment)
5. Explain the responsibilities and how they may evolve (while keeping the present job requirements clear)

The questions belong together: can they do this job, and how would we work together as its needs change?

The Airport Lounge Test

"Is this someone I wanna get stuck at an airport lounge for 10 hours?"

This was my informal shorthand for a working relationship, not a validated selection test. Social similarity is not evidence of job performance.

Here's why:

You'll be in the trenches together:

• Crisis moments when everything breaks
• Strategy sessions that go until midnight
• Difficult decisions with no clear answers
• High-pressure situations where personalities emerge

You need genuine working chemistry:

• Can have honest disagreements without drama
• Can brainstorm together for hours productively
• Can handle stress without taking it out on team
• Can maintain perspective during difficult periods

Job-relevant collaboration needs evidence alongside necessary skills and credentials:

• School prestige and social rapport do not substitute for evidence of job performance.
• Assess experience and collaboration together against the actual work.
• Check required technical competence and the communication needed to use it effectively.

Real example from my hiring:

Candidate A:

• Perfect resume: Stanford CS, Google, senior engineer
• Technically excellent in interview
• Airport test: Would drive me crazy in 2 hours
• Condescending, couldn't admit uncertainty, made conversation feel like performance

Candidate B:

• Good resume: State school, startup experience, solid skills
• Technically competent in interview
• Airport test: Could easily spend day working together
• Curious, honest about limitations, made conversation feel collaborative

Hired Candidate B. 18 months later, they're leading product development and I enjoy every interaction.

I cannot know how Candidate A would actually have performed. That counterfactual is not an outcome we observed.

How to Implement Person-First Hiring

Step 1: Reframe Job Descriptions

Instead of: "Senior React Developer with 5+ years experience" Write: "React developer who can demonstrate the required skills, explain technical decisions and build user-focused applications"

Instead of: "Marketing Manager with B2B SaaS experience" Write: "Marketing manager with the B2B SaaS skills this role requires and evidence of sound customer and growth decisions"

Instead of: "Data Analyst with SQL and Python skills" Write: "Data analyst who can demonstrate the required SQL/Python skills and explain the resulting business insights"

Assess thinking and problem-solving alongside the specific skills and qualifications the work requires.

Step 2: Design Character-Revealing Interviews

Replace technical trivia with scenario-based discussions:

For any role: "Walk me through a time you had to figure out something completely outside your expertise. How did you approach it?"

For collaborative roles: "Describe a disagreement you had with a colleague about the right approach. How did it resolve?"

For ownership roles: "Tell me about a project that didn't go as planned. What was your role in the outcome?"

For strategic roles: "What's a popular opinion in your field that you disagree with? Why?"

Step 3: The Airport Lounge Simulation

Create scenarios that reveal working relationship dynamics:

Collaborative problem-solving: Give them a real business problem and work through it together for 60-90 minutes

Stress response: Present them with incomplete information and changing constraints

Communication style: Have them explain a complex topic to both technical and non-technical team members

Values alignment: Discuss scenarios that reveal how they make decisions under pressure

Step 4: Reference Checks That Matter

Instead of: "Was John a good employee?" Ask: "What results did John deliver, and how did he approach the problems he was responsible for?"

Instead of: "How were John's technical skills?" Ask: "What evidence showed John's technical competence, and how did he handle situations where he did not know the answer?"

Instead of: "Would you hire John again?" Ask: "Would you hire John again for comparable work, and what collaboration evidence informs that answer?"

Ask for specific evidence of performance, learning and collaboration, using consistent job-related criteria.

Questions to Ask Yourself

About current hiring:

• Am I optimizing for immediate productivity or long-term partnership?
• Do I assess necessary job skills and relevant collaboration with the same criteria for every candidate?
• Do my job descriptions explain the work, necessary skills and collaboration the role requires?
• What job-relevant evidence shows how my team collaborates under pressure?

About team composition:

• Do team members adapt well to changing responsibilities?
• Can team handle disagreement and conflict productively?
• Are people learning and growing, or just executing defined roles?
• Would team be stronger or weaker if roles changed significantly?

About company culture:

• Do we assess thinking and collaboration alongside required expertise, credentials and experience?
• Are people excited about building together long-term?
• Can team handle ambiguity and changing priorities?
• Do people take ownership of outcomes rather than just following processes?