Why ‘Good on Paper’ Hires Often Fail, According to Leanne Bridges

In a recent LinkedIn post, Leanne Bridges discusses a common pitfall in hiring: prioritizing technical qualifications over essential judgment and critical thinking skills. Bridges highlights how many growing Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) often find themselves short of individuals who can demonstrate sound judgment, a crucial element for navigating complex business challenges.

Bridges opens by recounting an anecdote shared by a Managing Director (MD) who expressed frustration over a hire who “looked perfect on paper.” This individual possessed all the requisite qualifications and experience, yet struggled to perform effectively six months into the role. The core issue, according to Bridges, was not a lack of technical ability but a deficiency in the capacity to think beyond immediate tasks.

“He looked perfect on paper.” That’s what an MD said to me about a hire that wasn’t working out. Great CV. Right qualifications. Years of experience in the industry.

The post details how this employee failed to proactively address critical issues. Examples cited include not flagging cost implications when a client changed a project’s scope, delaying communication about slipping deadlines until it was too late to rectify, and choosing to work around an underperforming team member rather than addressing the situation directly. These critical omissions, Bridges points out, were not evident during the interview process but became clear within months of employment.

The Missing Ingredient: Judgment

Leanne Bridges argues that the MD had, in essence, “hired for the wrong thing.” The focus had been solely on technical skill, neglecting the more vital attribute of how the individual approached their work. Bridges posits that judgment is the quality most lacking in growing SMEs.

To illustrate this, Bridges contrasts two types of managers. One calls when a client pushes back on scope, while the other handles the situation independently, protects the company’s profit margin, and reports back afterwards. Similarly, Bridges differentiates between an employee who waits for instructions on what is important and one who inherently understands priorities.

You can teach skills relatively quickly. Judgement takes longer to develop and it’s much harder to build if it wasn’t there to begin with. Which is why it’s worth hiring for it in the first place.

The implications for recruitment processes are significant, according to Bridges. Many current methods are designed to assess capability rather than the candidate’s thinking process. With over 30 years of interviewing experience, Bridges asserts that the questions typically asked by MDs do not effectively identify the best candidates for the job.

Rethinking Recruitment Strategies

Bridges suggests that if an organization’s best hires are those who “just got it” and the worst were those who appeared strong on paper, this pattern is not a matter of luck but an indicator of a flawed hiring process. The process, in this scenario, is measuring the wrong attributes.

After thousands of interviews over 30 years, I can tell you, the questions most MDs ask won’t get them the best person for the job.

The takeaway from Bridges’s analysis is a call for a fundamental shift in how companies evaluate potential hires. Instead of solely relying on résumés and technical assessments, organizations should develop interview strategies that probe for critical thinking, problem-solving abilities, and sound judgment. These are the qualities, Bridges contends, that truly differentiate an average employee from a high-impact team member capable of driving business growth and resilience.