In Defense of “Personality Hires”
I’m here today to champion the “personality hire.” This was a popular topic last year that is now well past its 15 minutes. I’m adding delayed commentary because while working on last week’s Feel the Learn, I kept getting content on “personality hires,” and found what’s out there unnecessarily click-biaty.
There’s plenty of research on personality hires. And infinitely more thought pieces (here’s another one)! Below are three from Forbes published over a 9-month span. Two for, one against.
To varying degrees, they each pose the concept of sacrificing technical capabilities for “soft skills,” and offer the insight that “employees are more engaged and productive when their colleagues are agreeable and good at their job.”
So, these are my thoughts based on 20+ years of experience as a HR/People professional (and a “personality hire”).
Capability vs. personality is a tired, misogynistic trope. Don’t fall for it. Immediately question anything that frames ideas as a binary.
Framing “personality” and “competence” as diametric factors is stupid (and insulting to anyone likeable or capable). Believing that hiring for “personality” equates to sacrificing competence says a lot more about you(r boring ass) than it does about anyone likeable.
The term “personality hire” is a lie. No one is hired for their personality. How do I know this? Because resumes don’t crack jokes and ATSs can’t screen for wit. Personality can certainly contribute or be a deciding factor to a candidate’s success, but not once — in the history of time — has someone lacking relevant experience or qualifications been hired solely because they were fun.
The notion that companies “sacrifice” skill is preposterous. The (questionable) Forbes piece Avoiding Personality Hires notes that (in 2024) companies started indexing more for “personality,” and lowered technical skill requirements, because the candidate market lacked the desired technical skills. They didn’t say “Screw capability! Let’s get fun people!” They said “Crap, we can’t find people! We either keep looking (while work piles up and teams burn out), OR we assess for other important skills, get butts in seats, then (hopefully) train them.” The decision to hire vs. prolong a search is a serious one with important trade-offs. But it’s stupid to cry “Beware of the fun people.”
I have to note, that Forbes piece cites research published in Personality Science, a peer-reviewed journal, for the “legitimate reasons to make personality hires,” and then cites a monster.com poll for reasons that personality hires are “A No-Win."
The obvious, but boring and not click-bait-y truth is that it’s not one or the other. So, what can you do to ensure your company isn’t “sacrificing” either? The answer may surprise you: be realistic and put a bit of effort into the interview process. BOOM!
A lot of interview decisions go off resume skims and vibe checks, especially at startups where People infrastructure is nascent (or non-existent). That’s fine, just structure your vibe check.
Here are three easy steps to help you up-the-game on your interview vibe checks:
Step 1: WRITE OUT WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING FOR in the three area below. This will clarify for you (and others) what you actually want. This is — without a doubt — the most effective step to avoiding bad hires.
What do they gotta KNOW?
What should they be an expert in? If they know X well enough to talk about it without sounding like an idiot, they’ll be able to keep up, teach others, etc.
What do they gotta DO?
This is what boring people think gets “sacrificed.” What actions do they capably need to carry out? When they do X, the work gets done, outcomes are delivered, results happen.
What do they have to BE LIKE?
This is the personality thing. What characteristics or traits matter for the role, team, and company? If they are X, they’ll click. Use adjectives: friendly, reflective, detailed, action-biased, not-an-asshole.
Step 2: SELECT HALF THE ITEMS ON YOUR LIST AS “DEALBREAKERS/GOTTA HAVE IT.” The other half are “Bonus” items. You have to prioritize what you need (and what to check for in an interview) No, the entire list can’t be Dealbreakers. See below.
Step 3: DETERMINE HOW WELL THEY GOTTA KNOW, DO, OR BE THOSE DEALBREAKERS? This helps you calibrate and make tradeoffs. Don’t expect 10/10 in every Dealbreaker. You don’t need that. Some are good at a 8/10, others you only need 5/10.
You don’t have to pick between skills or vibes. You can have both. But FFS, stop thinking that you, miraculously, will be the one company in the whole world that will somehow repeatedly find (1) overqualified 10/10 candidates, (2) who’ll work long hours (3) for a “competitive” salary (4) because they’ll care more about your super special opportunity than MONEY, (5) so they should want to do grunt work, (6) while being strategic. GTFOH with that. This is why companies feel they have to “sacrifice.” They don’t need to sacrifice, they need to wake the fuck up.
Again, if you’re realistic and put in some effort, you can solve the “personality” vs. “capability” problem.