The Talent-Tech Blindspot: The Biggest Hiring Mistake We KEEP Making

Let’s play a game.

You’re hiring for a key role. Two candidates walk in.

Candidate A:

✅ Perfect resume. Their experience checks every single box. They’ve done the job before, and on paper, they’re a flawless match. But… they struggle in fast-paced environments. They don’t love collaboration. They’re brilliant but need structure and a lot of hand-holding.

Candidate B:

🤔 A bit less experience. They’re missing a couple of technical skills but thrive in dynamic, collaborative teams. They’re adaptable, fast learners, and excel in uncertainty. They bring energy, creativity, and resilience to the role.

So… who are you hiring?

B, right? Of course!

Candidate B is the one who will actually succeed. The one who will mesh with the team, grow into the role, and stay longer. Candidate A? They’ll probably struggle, disengage, and—worst case—leave in a year.

The Insanity of the Hiring Process

Now here’s the crazy part: We all know this… but we don’t hire this way.

We keep investing in technology that finds Candidate A. The entire hiring tech industry is built to scan resumes, check qualifications, and match hard skills to job descriptions. It’s a glorified game of keyword bingo.

But here’s the kicker: Matching ≠ Fit.

We match skills.
We match years of experience.
We match job titles.

But we don’t match team dynamics, work style, adaptability, learning speed, or values—the very things that determine whether someone will actually thrive in a role.

Why Hasn’t Tech Caught Up?

It’s wild that we’re in 2025 and “fit” still isn’t a standard data point in hiring.

We have AI that can predict what kind of coffee you’ll order before you do. ☕
We have algorithms that know you’ll binge-watch that new Netflix show before you even click it. 📺
But hiring? Still stuck in the stone age of “Does their resume have the right words?”

We keep hiring Candidate A, when what we really want is Candidate B.

Let’s Bring ‘Fit’ Back

And while I’m at it, can we stop digging on the word ‘fit’?

Fit has a bad reputation—and honestly, it deserves to.

For years, “fit” became synonymous with gut feel. And gut feel? It’s riddled with unconscious biases, dominated by majorities over minorities, and shaped by all the things that keep workplaces homogeneous and stagnant.

But that was then. Now, we have data.

Everyone, in the end, wants to fit. They want to feel good in the place they work. They want to be in an environment that connects with them, fuels their purpose, and drives them forward. Fit isn’t the enemy—bad hiring methods are.

So let’s make fit a thing again. But this time, with data to support it. Now’s the time.

The Opportunity: Tech That Matches AND Fits

This is where things get interesting. What if hiring tech didn’t just match skills, but also predicted fit?

What if we could measure: 🎯 Does this person thrive in ambiguity, or do they need rigid processes? 🎯 Will they energize the team, or drain it? 🎯 Do they work best solo, or do they thrive in high-collaboration environments?

Companies like HireGains are actually doing this—bringing “fit” into the equation. Instead of just scanning resumes, they’re assessing work styles, values, and team dynamics—the things that separate an okay hire from a game-changing one.

The future of hiring isn’t just about finding “who can do the job.” It’s about finding who will thrive in it.