You Hired the Wrong Candidate

Hiring engineers is one of the most critical, yet nuanced, responsibilities for any growing company. It’s easy to rely on familiar patterns, seeking candidates who reflect what we already know and do. But let me pose a thought experiment—one that may reveal an often-overlooked dimension of your hiring process.

The Scenario

Imagine you’re leading a SaaS company experiencing rapid growth and success. Behind the scenes, however, a production failure is looming—a catastrophe so severe it will cripple your reputation and earnings for the next year. You don’t know this yet, but the problem stems from a blind spot in your team’s collective expertise.

Now, let’s zoom in on two candidates from a recent round of interviews.

The Two Candidates

In the first interview, your networking expert posed a challenging question about a routing nuance. Candidate A responded with ease, demonstrating a clear understanding of the problem. Candidate B stumbled, asking a series of probing questions to understand it better.

Next, your systems architect presented a high-level design question about the company’s core architecture. Candidate A sketched a design eerily similar to your current approach. Candidate B took an entirely different route—not “wrong,” but unfamiliar, rooted in a philosophy shaped by their prior experience.

In the end, Candidate A received the offer. Candidate B was passed over. Three months later, the catastrophic failure occurs—one that Candidate B’s philosophy might have prevented.

A Real-World Example

This scenario isn’t just hypothetical. Early in my career, I interviewed a developer whose answers were riddled with minor gaps. He didn’t know certain acronyms or tools, but his problem-solving approach and hunger to learn stood out. Despite his nerves, he asked thoughtful questions and displayed clear, systematic thinking.

We hired him. Months later, he told me he thought he was hired despite my feedback, not because of it. He was wrong—I’d been his strongest advocate. What I saw in him wasn’t the technical expertise he lacked but the determination, intelligence, and perseverance he brought to the table. Skills can be taught; drive and curiosity cannot.

The Lesson

When we hire, we often look for reasons to eliminate candidates, unintentionally excluding those who could expand our team’s knowledge and resilience. The allure of the "perfect candidate" is strong, but we should ask ourselves: Are we hiring to replicate what we already know, or to grow beyond it?

Practical Strategies for a Better Process

1. Reframe Interviews Ask questions that reveal a candidate’s thought process, not just their familiarity with specific tools or patterns. Evaluate their potential to challenge and complement your team’s strengths.
2. Reward Curiosity A candidate who asks insightful questions during an interview demonstrates a willingness to learn and adapt—qualities that often outweigh immediate technical alignment.
3. Balance Philosophical Diversity Embrace candidates whose approaches differ from your own, as long as they align with your company’s broader goals. Diverse perspectives drive innovation and resilience.
4. Look Beyond Elimination Instead of focusing solely on disqualifying factors, seek out indicators of growth potential. A candidate’s ability to fill gaps in your team’s expertise is often more valuable than their ability to replicate what’s already there.

Conclusion: Rethinking the Hiring Playbook

Hiring is about building a team that can adapt, grow, and thrive in the face of the unknown. The next time you evaluate a candidate, ask yourself: Are you hiring to reinforce your current strengths, or to prepare for the challenges you haven’t yet imagined? The right hire isn’t just a fit for today—it’s an investment in tomorrow.