Why You Should Hire Imperfect Candidates (And Why It Leads to Better Teams)

Every company says it wants to hire the best people. But "the best" doesn't mean flawless. In fact, some of the strongest hires you'll ever make are the ones with a visible gap on their resume or an awkward answer in the interview. If you're building a hiring process that filters out anyone with a rough edge, you may be filtering out your future top performers.

The Perfection Trap
For years, companies like Google leaned heavily on pedigree. Candidates with average grades or a gap in their work history were often passed over, no matter how impressive their actual accomplishments were. Google eventually found something surprising: the employees who went on to perform best weren't the ones with spotless records. They were the ones whose strengths were so significant that a weakness or two simply didn't matter.

This makes sense once you think about how skill actually develops. Strength and weakness usually come from the same place. Someone who has spent thousands of hours becoming exceptional at one thing has, by definition, spent less time somewhere else. A candidate who looks flawless on paper may simply be someone who never took a real risk.

History Backs This Up
Abraham Lincoln learned this lesson the hard way during the Civil War. He appointed several generals who looked ideal on paper, and each one failed him. His breakthrough came with Ulysses S. Grant, a man who had struggled in multiple careers and carried a reputation for drinking. Grant also had something none of the "perfect" generals had: relentless drive and a rare ability to stay calm under pressure. Lincoln stopped searching for a general without flaws and started searching for one with the right strengths. It changed the course of the war.

You can see the same principle in sports. Major League Baseball scouts traditionally chased "five-tool" players who looked great by every measure. The Oakland Athletics famously took a different approach, prioritizing players who got on base consistently, even if they didn't pass the eye test. That strategy, made famous in Moneyball, helped a low-budget team set a league record with a 20-game winning streak.

Build Teams, Not Checklists
Talented people balance each other out. A great team doesn't need every member to be well-rounded. It needs members whose strengths cover for each other's gaps. When you hire only for a spotless resume, you often end up with a team full of similar people and similar blind spots. When you hire for genuine strength, even alongside a visible weakness, you build a group that can cover far more ground together.

This doesn't mean ignoring red flags. Common sense still applies, and no strength should excuse dishonesty or behavior that would harm your team or your culture. But an imperfect track record in an unrelated area is rarely a reason to walk away from real talent.

What Hiring Managers Should Keep in Mind
The next time a strong candidate shows up with an imperfect resume, a career pivot, or an interview answer that wasn't polished, resist the urge to move on. Ask a better question instead: what are they exceptional at, and does that strength matter for this role? The candidates who end up being the most valuable hires are rarely the ones without flaws. They're the ones whose strengths are big enough that their flaws stop mattering.

Hiring for strengths instead of perfection isn't a lower bar. It's a smarter one, and it's how the best teams actually get built.