Don’t let a generalist screen your technical hires.
Here’s the thing. I’ve seen this movie play out dozens of times. HR screens a “technical expert” who knows all the right buzzwords. They ace the interview. Everyone’s impressed.
Six months later? You’re dealing with the fallout. Projects derailed. Clients frustrated. Team morale in the toilet.
BTW, this is a pattern I’ve watched destroy businesses. Smart companies, good people, terrible technical hires. All because the wrong person did the screening.
Stop it.
You NEED someone who actually knows the technical stuff to be part of the interview process. Not someone who “understands marketing.” Not your operations manager who “gets technology.” Someone who can smell BS the moment a candidate opens their mouth.
Why generalist screening fails every single time
I’ve noticed this pattern repeatedly: When non-technical people interview technical candidates, they focus on the wrong signals.
They hear confidence and mistake it for competence. They hear terminology and assume understanding. They see certifications and think expertise.
But here’s what actually happens in these interviews:
Your HR manager sits across from a candidate. The candidate drops terms like “machine learning algorithms” and “conversion optimization.” HR nods along, impressed by the vocabulary.
What HR doesn’t catch? The candidate just strung together buzzwords without understanding how they connect. It’s like someone saying they’re a chef because they can name ingredients.
The compound cost of bad technical hires
After working with hundreds of companies, I’ve seen the same expensive pattern:
Bad technical hires don’t just fail at their job. They create cascading problems. Projects get delayed while they “figure things out.” Team members waste time fixing their mistakes. Clients lose confidence when deliverables don’t meet expectations.
And you wonder why good employees start leaving. They’re tired of covering for someone who shouldn’t have been hired in the first place.
The real damage? It’s always bigger than just salary waste. It’s lost opportunities, damaged relationships, and months of cleanup work.
What experts hear that generalists miss completely
A real expert can gauge someone’s knowledge just by listening to HOW they talk about the work.
Let me show you the difference. When interviewing an SEO specialist, I ask: “What’s working in SEO right now and how would you approach link building for a new client?”
What the generalist hears: “Well, SEO is really about creating high-quality content and building domain authority through backlinks. I’d focus on getting links from high-authority sites and make sure we’re targeting the right keywords with good search volume.”
They think: “Great! They mentioned all the important things!”
What an expert hears: Generic textbook answer. No mention of link velocity, link profile diversity, or penalty risks. Nothing about the importance of nofollow links in a natural profile. Zero understanding that topical relevance beats raw domain authority. No consideration of the client’s competitive landscape or current situation.
This person memorized blog posts. They’ve never actually ranked anything competitive.
The nuance that reveals real experience
Here’s what actual expertise sounds like:
“It depends on the client’s current link profile and competitive landscape. For a new site, I’d start conservative with nofollow links and guest posts to establish baseline authority, then gradually increase link velocity while monitoring for penalties. I’d focus on topical relevance over pure domain authority—a link from a relevant industry blog at DA 30 often outperforms a generic DA 70 link. Also need to check if they’ve been hit by any algorithm updates before building anything.”
Hear the difference? They’re mentioning:
- Link velocity (how fast you build matters)
- Nofollow links in the mix (natural profiles need both)
- Topical relevance over raw metrics
- Penalty awareness and algorithm history
- Context-specific strategy
I see this pattern across every technical discipline. Real experts ask clarifying questions. They talk about tradeoffs. They mention edge cases.
Depth vs. breadth indicators
Through years of interviews, here’s what separates real expertise from surface knowledge:
Depth indicators experts listen for:
- Specific examples from real experience
- Understanding of tradeoffs and edge cases
- Knowledge of when rules don’t apply
- Awareness of recent changes or updates
- Ability to explain complex concepts simply
Breadth indicators that fool generalists:
- Using industry terminology correctly
- Mentioning popular tools or platforms
- Citing best practices from articles
- Discussing theoretical concepts
- Quoting industry statistics
The difference? Someone who’s read about the field versus someone who’s solved real problems in it.
Pretenders? They have memorized answers for everything.
The expert interview framework that actually works
After watching countless bad hires happen, here’s the framework I recommend to every business:
Step 1: Get the right expert involved
For your first technical hire in any area, you need expert evaluation. Period.
Can’t evaluate SEO candidates yourself? Bring in an SEO consultant for interviews. Yes, it costs money. But it costs way less than a bad hire.
For subsequent hires, your best performer should interview all candidates. They know what good looks like because they do it daily.
Step 2: Use real scenarios, not theoretical questions
Stop asking “What tools do you use?” Start asking “Walk me through how you’d handle this specific situation.”
Examples that reveal real expertise:
For SEO: “A client’s organic traffic dropped significantly overnight. Walk me through your diagnosis process.”
For developers: “We need to integrate with a poorly documented API. How do you approach this?”
For PPC specialists: “A client wants to scale spend 5x. What typically breaks first?”
Surface-level candidates give generic answers. Experienced ones ask about context before answering.
Step 3: The follow-up probe technique
This is where fake expertise crumbles. When they mention any approach, dig deeper:
“What are the limitations of that method?” “When would you NOT use that?” “What’s your backup plan when that doesn’t work?”
I’ve watched candidates confidently explain their process, then go silent when asked about edge cases. Real experts have encountered problems. They know what breaks and why.
Red flags that should end the interview
Through years of observing interviews, these patterns always predict failure:
The “I know everything” candidate
Real experts say “it depends” frequently. Because context matters in technical work.
If someone has immediate, definitive answers to complex questions without asking for context, run. They’re either inexperienced or dangerously overconfident.
Good technical people know that most problems have multiple valid solutions. The right one depends on specific circumstances.
The buzzword avalanche
Watch for responses that sound like they swallowed a technical dictionary:
“I leverage synergistic methodologies to optimize holistic digital presence through data-driven paradigms…”
What does that mean? Nothing. It’s word salad designed to impress non-technical people.
Here’s how experts actually talk: Clear, direct language. Specific examples. Acknowledgment of tradeoffs.
No questions about your specific situation
Experienced technical people are curious about your unique challenges. They ask about your tech stack, your team structure, your current problems.
Candidates who launch into generic solutions without understanding your context? They’re selling you a one-size-fits-all approach that rarely fits anyone.
Building your technical screening process
Here’s a practical framework you can implement immediately:
Before any technical interview:
- Identify your technical evaluator (not optional)
- Prepare 3 real scenarios from your business
- List follow-up questions for common answers
- Define clear evaluation criteria
During the interview:
- Start with open-ended scenario questions
- Probe every tool or technique mentioned
- Note their questions about your context
- Watch for “it depends” thinking
- Test knowledge of recent industry changes
Warning signs to document:
- All answers sound rehearsed
- No clarifying questions asked
- Can’t explain tradeoffs
- No mention of past challenges
- Heavy buzzword usage
How to win the HR conversation (without making enemies)
Sometimes HR insists they can handle technical screening alone. Here’s how to win that conversation:
“I appreciate your expertise in evaluating culture fit. For technical roles, we need domain experts to assess capability. It’s like asking me to assess a surgeon – I might understand what surgery is, but I can’t tell if they’re qualified to hold the scalpel.
Let’s collaborate: HR handles culture screening, technical expert evaluates skills. This protects everyone’s time and ensures we get it right.”
Frame it as partnership, not criticism. Most HR pros get it once you explain.
Your implementation checklist
Here’s exactly what to do before your next technical hire:
This week:
- Identify who will be your technical screener for each role type
- Document 3 real problems they could solve in your business
- Create a simple evaluation rubric
For your current team:
- Review recent technical hires and their screening process
- Identify patterns in successful vs unsuccessful hires
- Update your interview process based on learnings
For future hires:
- Build a bench of technical experts you can tap for interviews
- Create role-specific scenario banks
- Train interviewers on the follow-up probe technique
The bottom line on technical hiring
You can’t evaluate what you don’t understand. It’s that simple.
I’ve watched too many smart companies make dumb hiring decisions because they let the wrong person do the evaluation. The pattern is always the same: impressive interview, terrible execution, expensive lesson.
Get someone who speaks the technical language involved in screening. Yes, it takes more coordination. Yes, it might cost money if you need outside help.
But compared to the cost of a bad technical hire? It’s the best investment you’ll make.
Because here’s what I know for sure: When technical people interview technical people, BS doesn’t survive the first follow-up question.
And that’s exactly how it should be.
BTW – still relying on HR alone for technical screening? I get it. It seems easier. But easy hiring leads to hard problems. Time to fix your process before it costs you big.
