A CV arrives with three unrelated jobs, a qualification from an unfamiliar institution and a career break that is not explained.

The easy decision is to move on to the neat CV beneath it. The better decision is to ask whether neatness was ever part of the job.

Hiring for potential does not mean choosing an inspiring story over capability. It means refusing to confuse familiar packaging with evidence. The bar stays fixed; the routes candidates can use to reach it become more thoughtful.

Separate the bar from the usual background

Write the minimum standard as outcomes and capabilities, not as the biography of the person who previously succeeded.

If the role requires someone to reconcile daily transactions accurately, that is the bar. “Three years in our industry” may be one route to the skill, but experience in another controlled environment may demonstrate it too. If a degree is required by law or genuinely essential to the work, keep it. If it is only a familiar shortcut, test whether it excludes capable people without adding useful evidence.

South Africa’s Employment Equity Act applies its unfair-discrimination provisions to applicants as well as employees. A disciplined requirements review is therefore both an operational and fairness habit.

Read a non-linear CV as a set of questions

Regina Hartley’s TED talk contrasts the polished “silver spoon” CV with the “scrapper” who has travelled a less predictable route. Her useful challenge is that a patchwork history can carry more than one meaning.

Job changes could signal instability, but they could also reflect short contracts, relocation, caring responsibilities, retrenchment or a deliberate skills shift. A prestigious background may show achievement, but it does not automatically prove judgment in this role.

Do not romanticise adversity or ask candidates to disclose trauma. Convert uncertainty into job-related questions:

  • Which responsibilities continued across these different roles?
  • What did you learn quickly in an unfamiliar environment?
  • Tell us about a result you produced with limited resources.
  • Which part of this role would require the steepest learning?

The candidate chooses the evidence. The panel assesses the work, not the hardship.

Add a second evidence gate

If CV screening is the only gate, CV-writing skill can dominate the decision. Add one low-burden method for candidates who meet genuine essentials to demonstrate ability.

Options include a structured phone screen, a short portfolio prompt or a small work sample. A service supervisor might prioritise three fictional customer incidents and explain the order. A junior analyst might check a small invented dataset and describe the errors found.

Use the same task, time limit, instructions and scoring anchors for comparable candidates. Keep it short and do not use applicants to complete real productive work. Offer a reasonable alternative if the format creates an accessibility problem unrelated to the capability being tested.

The US Office of Personnel Management describes work samples as assessments that mirror tasks performed on the job. That principle is useful, but the design still needs local legal, accessibility and role-specific judgment.

Score learning signals carefully

Potential is not a vague feeling that someone is “hungry.” Define the signals you need.

For a candidate changing sectors, returning after a gap or moving through short contracts, these might include:

  • Applies feedback to a second attempt.
  • Explains a learning method rather than claiming to learn fast.
  • Transfers a principle from one setting to another.
  • Recognises the boundary of their knowledge.
  • Persists without hiding errors.

Build these signals into a structured question or exercise. For example, give a candidate a small task, provide one piece of feedback and let them revise. Score how they used the feedback, not whether their first attempt resembled an experienced employee’s work.

Do not demand proof of future performance that no candidate can provide. Potential is a reasoned estimate based on observable behaviour, and it remains uncertain.

Keep essential standards explicit

Expanding routes to evidence does not require lowering safety, licensing, integrity or technical standards.

Mark each requirement as one of three types:

  • Essential before appointment.
  • Learnable within a defined period.
  • Helpful but not required.

Tell interviewers which is which. A panel should not reject one person for lacking a “helpful” skill and overlook the same gap in a familiar candidate.

Where psychometric or other assessments are considered, obtain appropriate advice and ensure they meet applicable South African requirements. A vendor’s marketing claim is not proof that a test is valid, fair or suitable for the role.

Audit who advances and why

After each round, review the reasons recorded at application, interview and assessment stages. Look for phrases such as “not polished,” “not our type,” “overqualified” or “unstable” without job-related evidence behind them.

Compare patterns across groups where lawful and appropriate. If one route repeatedly filters out people who later perform well when referred through another route, investigate the gate. Keep the sample size and context visible; a handful of hires cannot establish a universal rule.

Finally, review the chosen evidence with the manager after the new hire has had a fair opportunity to learn. Which signal proved useful? Which requirement was noise? Update the next scorecard before the next CV arrives.

Hiring for potential is not charity and it is not a bet on personality. It is a decision to examine capability through more than one doorway. The standard becomes clearer, the evidence becomes richer and a tidy life story loses its accidental power over the shortlist.

Sources and limits

The “scrapper” idea is a perspective, not evidence that adversity predicts success. Do not infer protected characteristics, hardship or capability from a CV. This article is an original synthesis and general information, not a transcript or legal advice.