Why traditional hiring signals aren’t telling you what you actually need to know anymore

I had a conversation this week with a director of an established accountancy firm - decades in, a solid team, a strong reputation.

But hiring?

That was the thing sitting underneath the whole conversation.

They’d just been through two hires in quick succession that didn’t work out.

Time lost. Energy drained. Confidence knocked.

And now they’re back in it - role live for a couple of days…

“We’ve had over 100 applications already… I just wish I could interview 50 of them.”

I paused on that for a second.

Because what she was really saying wasn’t about volume.

It was: “I don’t trust what I’m seeing enough to decide.”

The tension underneath

On paper, everything looked right.

They’d refined the role.

Even changed the job title to attract a different type of candidate.

Applications were flowing in.

But when it came to actually reviewing them, what she was really saying was:

“Looking at CVs and cover letters just isn’t telling me enough.”

And you could feel the frustration in that.

Because she was doing the work.

Reading them properly. Comparing. Trying to be thoughtful.

And still.. it didn’t feel any clearer.

The assumption most teams make

And this is where most teams go next.

“We just need to be better at picking.”

Ask better questions. Scrutinise more closely. Improve the reach.

Because the problem must be the candidates… right?

What was actually going on

But as we talked it through, something else became clearer.

And this is the bit I said to her - the bit I’d pay attention to if this feels familiar:

Sometimes the issue isn’t who you’re hiring… it’s that the process you’re using can’t show you what actually matters anymore.

Because most hiring processes still rely on signals that just don’t hold the same weight they used to.

Applications take seconds now.

CVs are polished, templated, often AI-assisted.

Cover letters can sound great… and tell you very little.

So you end up with 100+ applications - all well-written, all considered…

And still no clearer on who could actually do the job.

The moment things shifted

So we stopped talking about CVs for a minute.

And I asked her something slightly different:

“What do you actually need to see to feel confident hiring someone into this role?”

Not what’s standard. Not what you’re supposed to do.

What would actually help you decide?

Because when she said:

“I wish I could interview 50 people…”

What she really meant was:

“I want to see how they show up - not just what they say they’ve done.”

The bit teams don’t always see

And that’s the bit most hiring processes miss.

They’re designed to filter people out based on the past.

But when you’re building a team, especially a close one, you’re not just hiring for that.

You’re hiring for:

how someone shows up
how they think
how they engage with others
what they could grow into

And none of that shows up properly in a document.

You only see it in interaction.

What that’s looked like in practice

I’ve felt this from her side too.

In a previous business, we were running recruitment rounds for sales roles and hitting a similar wall.

Loads of applications.

Lots of time spent screening.

And still that nagging feeling of:

“I don’t actually know if this person can do the job.”

So we changed the first step.

For Junior Reps

Instead of asking for a CV, we asked for a short video answering three simple questions:

Why this role?
Why now?
What about us caught your attention?

And straight away, things changed.

Not because the answers were perfect - but because you could see things you couldn’t before.

How they communicated. Whether they’d actually taken the time to understand who we were. What kind of energy they brought to it.

We stopped getting hundreds of applications.

We didn’t get 100 applications anymore.

We got 20 - 30.

But they were the right 20 - 30.

And within a few minutes, we had a much clearer sense of:

“Could I see this person doing this job?”

For Manager

We tried something similar for a team manager role, but in a different way.

We brought candidates into the office - not just to meet us, but to spend time with the team.

No structure. No script.

Just:

“Use this time however you want - and come back and tell us what you’d do in the role.”

And we told the team:

“You’re part of this decision. This person will impact your day-to-day.”

The difference was huge.

Because suddenly, it wasn’t about how well someone could interview.

It was about how they showed up in a real environment.

And the team’s feedback was often the most useful part.

They’d say things like:

“They asked really thoughtful questions.”
“They didn’t really engage with us.”
“I could see how their experience would actually help here.”

You just don’t get that from a CV.

For all hires

We also started using small, practical tasks.

Nothing heavy. No long assignments.

Just something that reflected the actual work.

Because at some point, it clicked:

CVs tell you what someone has done.

But they don’t tell you:

how they’ll approach your work, in your team, on a normal Tuesday.

A more grounded way to look at it

If this feels familiar, it probably doesn’t mean you need to overhaul everything.

It might just mean adding one step that lets you see something real.

That could look like:

A more human first interaction.
A simple task that reflects the role.
involving your team in the process
or simply asking: what am I actually trying to see here?

Not more process.

Just better visibility.

Because here’s the truth

When you strip it back:

You’re not just hiring based on what someone has done. You’re hiring based on how they’ll show up - and what they could become.

One thing to take away

So if hiring feels harder, slower, or riskier than it should right now…

I wouldn’t jump straight to tightening your criteria.

I’d look at this first:

Is your process actually helping you see the things that matter - or just helping you filter faster?

Could the way you’re hiring be hiding the people you’re actually looking for?