Why “Smart” hires fail - and what Founders should look for instead

Founders often say they’re hiring for “capability”.

What they usually mean is:

• someone who’s done the job before

• someone credible on paper

• someone who feels safe

That makes sense - especially in early-stage companies where time is tight and mistakes are expensive.

But after nearly 20 years of recruiting - including for startups without big brands or polished EVPs - I’ve noticed a pattern:

Many early-stage mis-hires aren’t caused by lack of experience.
They’re caused by hiring the wrong kind of intelligence.

Capability is visible. Intelligence compounds.

In startups, most roles aren’t static.
The scope shifts.
The context changes.
The “right” answer evolves.

That means a lot of what people need to do in-role is learned after they join.

So the real question isn’t:

“Can they do this already?”

It’s:

“Can they figure this out fast, with limited information, and without constant instruction?”

That’s what I mean by intelligence.

Not IQ.
Not polish.
Not confidence in meetings.

But the underlying foundations that let someone learn, adapt, and take ownership.

The foundations of intelligence

Over time, I’ve come to see intelligence as built on a set of interconnected foundations:

→ Curiosity - the drive to understand, not just execute

→ Critical thinking - the ability to question assumptions and assess information

→ Communication - explaining thinking clearly and listening properly

→ Collaboration - working with others rather than around them

→ Creativity - generating options when there’s no obvious answer

→ Critical reflection - learning from mistakes rather than repeating them

→ Compassion - understanding people, not just tasks

→ Cognitive flexibility - adapting thinking as context changes

Not every role needs all eight in equal measure.

But here’s where founders get stuck.

Where hiring goes wrong

When founders feel stretched, they often reach for reassurance:

“We just need someone who’s done this before.”

What they’re really saying is:

• we need ownership

• we need judgement

• we need someone who won’t need babysitting

Experience can signal that.
But it’s an unreliable proxy.

Some of the weakest hires I see have impressive CVs but lack curiosity or critical thinking.
They wait to be told what to do.
They execute literally.
They don’t join the dots.

And when that happens, founders label it as:

“They just don’t have initiative.”

Often, what’s actually missing is:

• permission to think

• context to connect work to goals

• or the foundational intelligence to ask better questions in the first place

The real hiring mistake

The mistake isn’t hiring junior people.
And it isn’t hiring senior people.

It’s hiring without being explicit about which foundations of intelligence the role actually requires.

When that isn’t clear, hiring defaults to surface signals:

• titles

• logos

• years of experience

And that’s how people debt starts to accumulate quietly.

People who look capable on paper but struggle in ambiguity.
Founders stepping back in to compensate.
Initiative dying.
Frustration rising.

A better way to think about potential

Hiring for potential doesn’t mean lowering the bar.
It means moving the bar.

From:

“Have you done this exact thing before?”

To:

“Do you show the foundations that will let you do this well here?”

Christmas, weekends, and pressure moments tend to expose this.
Because when context disappears and support thins out, foundations are all that’s left.

That’s why intelligence - real intelligence - matters more than most founders realise.