Hiring is broken. Too many businesses rely on outdated, one-size-fits-all methods—polished CVs, rigid interviews, AI screening, and generic personality tests. But none of these tell you whether someone can actually do the job.
We believe hiring should be about capability and character, not just CV credentials and quotas.
That’s why project-based hiring and role-and-culture-relevant assessments are the necessary way forward for the future of work.
Instead of relying on what candidates say they can do, we focus on what and how they actually deliver.
Project-Based Hiring
A great CV and a confident interview don’t mean much if someone can’t perform. That’s why project-based hiring shifts the focus from words to results.
Instead of making assumptions based on job titles or polished LinkedIn profiles, businesses get real insight into a candidate’s:
✔ Problem-solving ability
✔ Technical skills
✔ Adaptability under pressure
✔ Cultural and team add
✔ Engagement levels
Diversity also happens naturally. Instead of hiring based on false proxies and quotas, outdated markers like university names or years of experience, we focus on observable behaviours and results. We uncover talent potential and impact that others miss.
Hiring Tests That Make No Sense
When choosing how to assess candidates—whether it’s interviews, tasks, assessments, or personality tests—there’s one key question to ask:
Does this actually test what is needed in the role and what is important to our culture?
Too often, hiring processes don’t match reality.
🚫 Why would an actuary—who works independently, analysing financial risks—be evaluated in a high-pressure panel interview with six extroverted executives firing rapid-fire questions?
🚫 Why should a remote worker be judged on their ability to answer on-the-spot questions in a formal interview when their actual job requires written clarity, asynchronous collaboration, and managing tone in emails?
Every role needs a relevant test. The goal isn’t to hire someone who’s great at interviews—it’s to hire someone who’s great at the job, enjoys the job, and adds to the culture.
The Problem With “Communication” Assessments
One of the biggest hiring mistakes is to judge “communication skills” without defining what that actually means.
Good communication looks different in different jobs.
💬 A finance admin working remotely doesn’t need to be the most charismatic speaker—they need to be clear, concise, and proactive in keeping stakeholders informed.
📞 A salesperson might need strong verbal persuasion skills, while a tech lead might need to communicate ideas effectively in writing.
If a hiring team can’t define what good communication looks like in a specific role, they’ll end up hiring someone who talks well but doesn’t deliver.
Hiring for Communication? Get Specific.
To properly assess communication skills, businesses need to be clear on:
Which skills are essential vs. nice-to-have
What the communication needs to achieve (Influence? Trust? Efficiency?)
What the actual work environment requires—verbal clarity, written precision, fast decision-making?
And most importantly:
Replicate real-world conditions. If the role requires remote collaboration, test how they manage tone in emails, respond under pressure, and navigate async tools. If they’ll be handling high-stakes decisions, put them in a realistic pressure test.
A blanket communication test won’t cut it. Hiring teams need to design assessments that mirror the real job.
The Hidden Cost of Generic Hiring
The current talent shortage isn’t just about competition—it’s about poor hiring processes. Businesses are overlooking exceptional candidates because their hiring models aren’t designed to identify them.
We need bespoke, role-relevant assessments that test for:
✔ Real-world job performance
✔ Cultural alignment
✔ Skills that actually matter
✔ Engagement alignment
Overselling the Role Will Backfire
We hear countless stories of people leaving roles because the reality didn’t match the pitch. And nothing creates faster churn, wasted hiring costs and brand damage than broken promises.
🚩 You say they’ll have full autonomy, but they end up being micromanaged.
🚩 You tell them they’ll be in a strategic role, but they spend most of their time on admin.
🚩 You sell a culture of innovation and risk-taking, but they quickly learn every idea needs five layers of approval.
We get it—you really want them on your team. But they will find out the truth when they start.
And when they do? You lose credibility and trust. They leave, your hiring costs sink, and your reputation takes a hit.
Be honest. Set clear expectations. Hire people who are congruent to the role and culture —not the version you wish it was.
AI as an Enabler, Not a Replacement
AI and data-driven recruitment can drive efficiency, but when hiring becomes purely automated, something vital is lost—human insight. Over-reliance on AI risks creating hiring processes that are exclusionary, impersonal, and blind to the very qualities that make a candidate truly exceptional.
The real power lies in human-AI collaboration—where technology enhances decision-making, removes bias, and streamlines processes, while humans bring judgment, emotional intelligence, and a deep understanding of people, potential, and purpose.
We hear first-hand how people with transferable skills and non-linear careers—those who have overcome greater challenges, a true predictor of potential—get overlooked simply because we overvalue job titles.
When AI-driven hiring relies too much on rigid criteria, businesses miss out on extraordinary talent hiding in plain sight.
Comments