Stop searching for the perfect hire—Start hiring perfectly

How many times have you seen a job description that reads like a wish list? Organisations want a unicorn—someone who checks every box. But in today’s workplace, does the ‘perfect hire’ even exist? This relentless pursuit of the ideal employee is understandable as appointing the wrong candidate can prove costly from a financial, operational, and productivity perspective. However, in today’s economic landscape, the concept of a perfect hire seems closer to fantasy than reality, as many organisations are forced to appoint employees who do not check all the boxes because of persisting skills shortages, budget constraints, and evolving job demands.

Although many factors are outside an organisation’s control, some can still be managed—like Dolly Parton wisely said, “We cannot direct the wind, but we can adjust the sails”. Hence, by shifting focus from the person to the process, organisations can stop searching for the perfect hire and start hiring perfectly instead.

Rethinking the ‘Perfect Hire’ Mindset

1. Acceptance of imperfection and realistic person-environment fit expectations

Organisations should accept that there is rarely a perfect hire and stop romanticising this idea. There will almost always be a degree of person-environment misfit, which may present itself through mismatches between the candidate and their job or work role, the people they interact with or report to, or the organisation at large. These mismatches often arise from differences in values, personality, and interests between the individual and other organisational role players.

In these instances, the individual will experience, what is generally referred to as:

• person-group,

• person-team,

• person-people,

• person-supervisor, or

• person-organisation misfit.

The reality is, that neither the organisational environment nor individuals remain static. Organisations constantly evolve to keep abreast with the newest developments in their operating markets to stay competitive and sustainable. This may involve changes in how they conduct business, adopting new technology, restructuring operations, refining strategies, and fostering a culture of continuous learning and innovation to meet emerging challenges and opportunities.

Similarly, employees are also evolving, honing their skills, adapting to new technologies, refining their work approaches, and embracing lifelong learning to stay relevant and match the pace of organisational change.

Additionally, individuals’ needs evolve due to factors like marriage, parenthood, career progression, health changes, financial responsibilities, and shifting personal ambitions. Therefore, although an employee may be a great fit today, their future fit is not guaranteed. Similarly, someone initially struggling to align with their role can gradually fit better through targeted training and development initiatives.

So, to sum up:

• The perfect employee hardly exists.

• A degree of person-environment misfit is inevitable.

• Experiencing fit today does not necessarily equate to fit in the future. The same principle applies to person-environment misfit.

When organisations make peace with imperfection and have realistic person-environment fit expectations, they can direct the necessary time, effort, and energy into focussing on what they can control.

2. What You Can Control in the Hiring Process

Although the preceding factors may complicate hiring practices, organisations still have a fair amount of control when recruiting and selecting candidates.

Control over what you ask?

1. Identifying the core competencies needed for the vacant position.

2. Deciding how these competencies can best be assessed.

Step 1: Identify the Core Competencies That Truly Matter

Meticulously identifying core competencies is essential for any position, as even individuals with the same job title may have vastly different responsibilities. For example, although individuals A, B, and C may be project managers, one may operate in construction, one in IT, and one in marketing. Not only do they work in different divisions or industries, but the nature of their work, daily responsibilities, and required expertise vary considerably. Therefore, clearly defining job titles, levels, roles, responsibilities, skills, qualifications, and experience helps differentiate between desirable (i.e. nice-to-haves) and essential (i.e. critical and non-negotiable) technical and non-technical competencies. When these competencies are clearly distinguished, outlined, and understood, organisations can strategically select assessment methods that provide the most value in matching candidates to specific competency profiles.

Selecting competencies: an example.

Let’s assume that Hospital Z has a vacancy for an oncology nurse. After a thorough job analysis, Hospital Z decided that in addition to the relevant qualifications, experience, and technical skills, the following three non-technical competencies are non-negotiable:

• Emotional intelligence and empathy. The nurse should be capable of providing emotional support to patients and families, while simultaneously managing their own emotions in taxing situations.

• Communication and interpersonal skills. The nurse should be capable of explaining procedures, side effects, and treatment plans in understandable terms, and navigating difficult conversations with patients, families, and colleagues.

• Resilience and stress management. The nurse should be capable of handling the demands of working with critically ill patients and able to remain composed in stress-laden situations.

Now that Hospital Z knows which competencies are necessary, they can move to the next step in selecting the appropriate assessment methods to evaluate to what extent their candidates demonstrate the required competencies.

Want to learn more about competencies? - check out this blog post

Step 2. Using appropriate assessment methods

Developing a competency profile through identifying the required competencies is already half the battle won. Next, we must ask ourselves: “Which assessment method will give me the most accurate and reliable results when searching for someone who scores high on a specific competency?”. This is an important question, as some competencies are better assessed through psychometric tests, whereas others are more effectively evaluated using methods like interviews, observation, simulations, or situational judgment tests. Hence, it is important to understand the pros and cons of different assessment methods, how they complement or deviate from one another, and their applicability in evaluating various competencies. For example, some test developers explicitly state that their tests are designed for development purposes and should not be used for recruitment and selection.

Hence, selecting the appropriate assessment method requires careful consideration of multiple factors. The following check list can help guide the process:

• Is there sufficient empirical evidence to suggest that this method works in assessing A, B, or C?

• Is the method reliable and valid?

• Will the method give everyone in the applicant pool a fair chance?

• Is the method meant to be used in selection settings?

• Is the method suitable for the target audience?

• Will a standalone method suffice, or will a multi-method approach yield better insights?

(Have a look at this article for additional ways to identify a good assessment)

Making evidence-based hiring decisions reduce bias, improve accuracy, and ensure the best possible fit—without chasing unrealistic perfection.

Final thoughts

Perfection in hiring is a myth, but precision is not. By shifting focus from finding a flawless candidate to refining the hiring process, organisations can build a workforce that grows, adapts, and thrives.

The equation seems simple: ditch the wild goose chase and start hiring intentionally.