In an AI world, you don't hire for roles. You hire for people.
The old model is dead: Define role → list requirements → find matching person → slot them in for years.
The new model: Find interesting person → understand who they are → figure out their role based on what's needed.
Here's why this shift matters, and how to hire for the person you'll actually work with.
The Old Model Is Dead
The traditional hiring process:
- Define a role ("front-end developer")
- List specific requirements (React, 5+ years experience, CS degree)
- Find person who matches requirements on paper
- Slot them into defined role
- Expect them to do that role for years
This assumed roles were stable. They're not.
What's a "front-end developer" when AI writes front-end code? What's a "content writer" when AI writes content? What's a "data analyst" when AI analyzes data?
The work changes constantly. The person stays.
Example of the old model breaking down:
2022 hire: "Senior React Developer" with 6 years React experience 2024 reality: React development increasingly AI-assisted, role becomes more about product judgment and user experience strategy 2025 need: Someone who can direct AI tools, understand user psychology, and make strategic technical decisions
The person we hired for React expertise now needs completely different skills. Their React knowledge is commodity. Their judgment and strategic thinking matter more.
If you hired for the role, you have a mismatch. If you hired for the person, you have someone who can adapt.
The New Model: Person-First Hiring
"What we do differently is basically, we take a look at this person and say, okay, this person's personality is this, this person's pros and cons are this."
The new hiring process:
- Find interesting person (through network, referrals, demonstrated work)
- Understand their core strengths and weaknesses (how they think, work, decide)
- Understand who they are as a human (values, motivation, work style)
- Determine if you want to build with them long-term (5-10 year relationship)
- Figure out their role based on what's actually needed (fluid, evolving responsibility)
The fundamental shift: From "can they do this job?" to "do I want to build with this person?"
The Airport Lounge Test
"Is this someone I wanna get stuck at an airport lounge for 10 hours?"
This sounds soft. It's actually the hardest business test there is.
Here's why:
You'll be in the trenches together:
- Crisis moments when everything breaks
- Strategy sessions that go until midnight
- Difficult decisions with no clear answers
- High-pressure situations where personalities emerge
You need genuine working chemistry:
- Can have honest disagreements without drama
- Can brainstorm together for hours productively
- Can handle stress without taking it out on team
- Can maintain perspective during difficult periods
Chemistry beats credentials:
- Harvard MBA who's exhausting to work with < Community college grad who energizes the team
- 10 years experience who creates friction < 2 years experience who facilitates collaboration
- Technical expert who can't communicate < Solid performer who makes everyone better
Real example from my hiring:
Candidate A:
- Perfect resume: Stanford CS, Google, senior engineer
- Technically excellent in interview
- Airport test: Would drive me crazy in 2 hours
- Condescending, couldn't admit uncertainty, made conversation feel like performance
Candidate B:
- Good resume: State school, startup experience, solid skills
- Technically competent in interview
- Airport test: Could easily spend day working together
- Curious, honest about limitations, made conversation feel collaborative
Hired Candidate B. 18 months later, they're leading product development and I enjoy every interaction.
Candidate A would have been technically superior but operationally destructive.
What You Ignore vs What Matters
What doesn't matter (and I completely ignore):
- School name or prestige
- Previous company brand names
- Years of experience in specific technology
- Certifications or credentials
- Perfect resume formatting
What matters entirely:
- Can they think independently? Do they form their own opinions or just repeat what they've heard?
- Do they take ownership? When something breaks, do they fix it or find someone to blame?
- Are they honest about limitations? Do they admit what they don't know or pretend expertise?
- Do they push back intelligently? Can they disagree without being disagreeable?
- Would you want to be stuck with them? The airport lounge test.
Example questions that reveal character:
Instead of: "How would you optimize this React component?" Ask: "Tell me about a time you disagreed with a technical decision. How did you handle it?"
Instead of: "What's your experience with our tech stack?" Ask: "Describe a project where you had to learn something completely new. How did you approach it?"
Instead of: "What are your career goals?" Ask: "What kind of problems do you get excited about solving? What kind do you avoid?"
The answers reveal thinking patterns, work style, and character. Technical skills can be learned. Character can't.
Why This Works in the AI Era
Roles are becoming fluid:
Traditional developer: Writes code in specific language/framework AI-era developer: Directs AI to write code, focuses on architecture and product decisions
Traditional marketer: Creates campaigns and content AI-era marketer: Uses AI for content creation, focuses on strategy and customer psychology
Traditional analyst: Processes data and creates reports AI-era analyst: Uses AI for data processing, focuses on insight generation and business implications
The specific skills change. The underlying abilities matter:
Adaptability: Can learn new tools and approaches as technology evolves Judgment: Can evaluate AI outputs and make strategic decisions Communication: Can translate between technical and business contexts Problem-solving: Can identify root causes and creative solutions Ownership: Takes responsibility for outcomes, not just process
These qualities are person-dependent, not role-dependent.
The Long-Term Relationship Mindset
"I'm building a long-term business and I do not no longer hire for roles."
Traditional hiring optimizes for:
- Immediate productivity in defined role
- Skills match with current job requirements
- Quick onboarding and short-term performance
Long-term hiring optimizes for:
- Growth potential over 5-10 year relationship
- Character fit with evolving business needs
- Investment in person who will adapt as company changes
The math of long-term hiring:
Year 1: Person-first hire may be 20% less productive than role-first hire Year 2: As roles evolve, person-first hire adapts better, productivity gap closes Year 3-5: Person-first hire excels in new responsibilities role-first hire can't handle Year 5+: Person-first hire becomes irreplaceable, role-first hire becomes obsolete
Long-term thinking changes everything about how you evaluate people.
Real Examples: Person-First Hiring Wins
Example 1: The Philosophy Student Who Became Head of Product
Background:
- Philosophy degree, no tech experience
- Worked in consulting, clear analytical thinking
- Airport test: Could discuss complex problems for hours
- Curious about technology but honest about inexperience
Why we hired him:
- Excellent reasoning and problem breakdown
- Asked better questions than experienced product managers
- Could communicate complex ideas simply
- Genuinely excited about learning business and technology
18-month outcome:
- Learned business and technical concepts faster than anyone expected
- Built product roadmap that balanced user needs with technical constraints
- Became bridge between engineering and business teams
- Now leading product strategy and user research
Would never have passed traditional "product manager" hiring filter. Perfect fit for person-first approach.
Example 2: The Burned-Out Consultant Who Became Operations Leader
Background:
- MBA, 5 years management consulting
- Leaving consulting due to burnout and travel
- Airport test: Thoughtful, direct, good sense of humor
- Wanted ownership and long-term building rather than client projects
Why we hired her:
- Excellent at breaking down complex operational problems
- Experience managing stakeholders and difficult conversations
- Craved ownership and building something lasting
- Could handle ambiguity and changing priorities
24-month outcome:
- Built operational systems from scratch as company scaled
- Managed vendor relationships and partnership negotiations
- Became go-to person for any complex cross-functional problem
- Created frameworks other team members now use
Traditional hiring would have focused on "operations experience." Person-first hiring identified transferable problem-solving and ownership qualities.
Example 3: The Junior Developer Who Became AI Strategy Lead
Background:
- 18 months coding experience, self-taught
- Strong portfolio of personal projects
- Airport test: Intellectually curious, asked great questions about business strategy
- Excited about AI but realistic about limitations
Why we hired him:
- Clear thinking about technology trade-offs
- Could explain complex technical concepts simply
- Genuinely interested in business impact, not just technology
- Honest about what he didn't know, quick to learn
12-month outcome:
- Became expert in AI tool integration and workflow optimization
- Led evaluation of AI tools for different business functions
- Built AI-human collaboration processes that others didn't think of
- Now consulted by other companies for AI implementation strategy
Role-first hiring would have seen "junior developer." Person-first hiring saw strategic technical thinking.
How to Implement Person-First Hiring
Step 1: Reframe Job Descriptions
Instead of: "Senior React Developer with 5+ years experience" Write: "Technical problem-solver excited about building user-focused applications"
Instead of: "Marketing Manager with B2B SaaS experience" Write: "Strategic thinker who understands customer psychology and growth dynamics"
If you're finding this useful, I send essays like this 2-3x per week.
·No spam
Instead of: "Data Analyst with SQL and Python skills" Write: "Analytical mind who can turn data into actionable business insights"
Focus on thinking patterns and problem-solving approach rather than specific tool experience.
Step 2: Design Character-Revealing Interviews
Replace technical trivia with scenario-based discussions:
For any role: "Walk me through a time you had to figure out something completely outside your expertise. How did you approach it?"
For collaborative roles: "Describe a disagreement you had with a colleague about the right approach. How did it resolve?"
For ownership roles: "Tell me about a project that didn't go as planned. What was your role in the outcome?"
For strategic roles: "What's a popular opinion in your field that you disagree with? Why?"
Step 3: The Airport Lounge Simulation
Create scenarios that reveal working relationship dynamics:
Collaborative problem-solving: Give them a real business problem and work through it together for 60-90 minutes
Stress response: Present them with incomplete information and changing constraints
Communication style: Have them explain a complex topic to both technical and non-technical team members
Values alignment: Discuss scenarios that reveal how they make decisions under pressure
Step 4: Reference Checks That Matter
Instead of: "Was John a good employee?" Ask: "What kind of problems did John get most excited about solving?"
Instead of: "How were John's technical skills?" Ask: "How did John handle situations where he didn't know the answer?"
Instead of: "Would you hire John again?" Ask: "What kind of person would work best alongside John?"
Focus on understanding character and work style rather than performance ratings.
The Objections (And Why They're Wrong)
"But you need people who can actually do the work"
The response:
- AI increasingly handles execution, humans handle direction and judgment
- Technical skills can be learned faster than ever with AI assistance
- Character and thinking ability determine who can learn effectively
- Better to hire smart person who learns tools than tool expert who can't adapt
"What about specialized expertise?"
The response:
- Still need domain knowledge for complex fields (medicine, law, deep technical areas)
- But even specialists need character fit for collaborative work
- Expertise without good judgment and collaboration creates more problems than solutions
- Hire for expertise + character, not expertise alone
"This seems inefficient for immediate needs"
The response:
- Short-term efficiency vs long-term effectiveness trade-off
- Role-first hiring optimizes for first 6 months, person-first optimizes for years 2-10
- Cost of hiring wrong person far exceeds short-term productivity loss
- AI tools reduce onboarding time, making skills gap less critical
"How do you evaluate people without role requirements?"
The response:
- Focus on problem-solving ability rather than specific tool knowledge
- Use scenario-based evaluation rather than credential checking
- Assess learning speed and adaptability rather than current expertise
- Test working relationship compatibility rather than resume matching
The Competitive Advantage
While your competitors hire for roles that may not exist in 2 years:
- You're building team of adaptable people who can handle unknown future challenges
- Your team develops better working relationships and collaboration
- You avoid skills obsolescence by focusing on thinking and character
- You create culture of learning and adaptation rather than rigid role performance
The result:
- Higher team satisfaction and retention
- Better adaptability to changing business needs
- Stronger collaborative problem-solving capability
- More innovative solutions through diverse thinking approaches
Person-first hiring creates antifragile teams that get stronger when disrupted rather than breaking when challenged.
Questions to Ask Yourself
About current hiring:
- Am I optimizing for immediate productivity or long-term partnership?
- Do I hire people I'd want to work with for years, or just people who meet job requirements?
- Are my job descriptions focused on who I want to work with or what I need done?
- Would my current team pass the airport lounge test with each other?
About team composition:
- Do team members adapt well to changing responsibilities?
- Can team handle disagreement and conflict productively?
- Are people learning and growing, or just executing defined roles?
- Would team be stronger or weaker if roles changed significantly?
About company culture:
- Do we value thinking and character over credentials and experience?
- Are people excited about building together long-term?
- Can team handle ambiguity and changing priorities?
- Do people take ownership of outcomes rather than just following processes?
The Stakes
The companies that win in the AI era will be built by teams of people who:
- Adapt quickly to changing roles and responsibilities
- Collaborate effectively under pressure and uncertainty
- Take ownership of outcomes rather than just executing tasks
- Learn continuously and help others learn
- Make good decisions with incomplete information