Hiring for people, not just CVs
•
•
2 min read
“Hire for attitude and passion” is one of those statements that’s basically true — but it gets messy when we treat it like a rule that applies to every job.
Regulated roles: the floor is the floor
For regulated roles, the basics are non-negotiable. You’re not “taking a chance” on a doctor because they’re passionate. The qualifications exist for a reason.
But software is different
Software isn’t exempt from competence — it’s just a field where competence doesn’t always follow a neat, traditional path.
I’ve met people who are genuinely exceptional and still didn’t do well in formal education. Not because they weren’t capable, but because the format didn’t suit them. Sometimes they struggled with broad “filler” requirements. Sometimes they only really came alive once they could focus on what they actually cared about.
I relate to that more than I’d like to.
Even doing a B.S. in Computer Science, I took plenty of courses that were interesting — but they weren’t great predictors of whether someone can write clean code, work inside a messy codebase, or ramp quickly into a new stack.
A lot of learning happens outside the degree
A degree gives you foundations, but a lot of becoming effective in software happens outside the degree. In practice you’re constantly learning what the work demands: getting comfortable in unfamiliar code, picking up new tools and frameworks, debugging real issues, and figuring out how to ship changes safely.
That’s where the signal often flips. Some people who look “perfect” academically struggle when learning stops being structured, while others who didn’t shine in school do incredibly well once they’re in a real environment and can learn in their own way.
CVs are a blunt tool
The problem is that our hiring filters don’t always reward that kind of growth.
CVs are useful for getting a rough picture, but they’re also very good at filtering out non-traditional candidates before you ever hear them speak. If someone doesn’t have the right keywords, the right companies, or the “expected” degree path, they can be screened out immediately — even if they’d be strong in the actual role.
So when people say “hire for attitude and passion,” I agree. But you also have to hire in a way that gives those traits a chance to show up.
The signals that matter (to me)
The best signals usually aren’t “years in role.” They’re more like:
- How someone handles being stuck — do they narrow the problem, test assumptions, and ask good questions?
- How they explain decisions — can they articulate tradeoffs and constraints clearly?
- Whether learning is a habit — do they keep growing without a syllabus or external pressure?
- Whether they’ve built anything with care — even small projects can show judgment and follow-through.
Hiring steps that match real work
If you want to find people like that, your hiring steps should resemble the work:
- Project walkthroughs: have them walk through something they built — what they chose, why they chose it, and what they’d change now.
- Tradeoff-focused questions: “what did you optimize for?” is often more revealing than trivia.
- Practical, role-shaped tasks: small, realistic exercises that reflect the day-to-day job (and don’t require hours of unpaid work).
- Portfolio/repo review as evidence: treat it as signal about judgment and execution, not just polish.
I’m not anti-experience. I’m not anti-credentials. I’m just wary of treating paper as the whole person.
Because some of the best contributors won’t look perfect on a CV — but if you give them a fair shot, they’ll surprise you.