Backward-Designed Hiring: Build your team by starting at the end

29 May 2025

Introduction: What’s Broken in Hiring

Most of us still hire the same way.
Someone quits, there’s a scramble, and we pull out the last job ad, tweak a few lines, and repost it.
The focus? Fill the gap. Fast.

But that approach doesn’t tell you what good actually looks like in the role — it just helps you find someone who ticks the old boxes.

I’ve made that mistake more than once.

Now I try something different.
I start by imagining what success looks like after they’re in the role — 3, 6, 12 months on.
Then I work backwards from there.

It’s not perfect, but it’s helped me make better calls — and avoid a few near-misses too.

What Is Backward-Designed Hiring?

It’s flipped: start with the outcome, not the vacancy.

Instead of asking “Who do we need to fill this role?”, ask:
“What does success look like once they’re in it?”

That question shifts everything.
It moves you from just filling a seat to designing for impact.

This idea isn’t new — educators use it when they plan curriculum.
Designers use it when building products.
But in hiring, we still jump straight into job ads and screening.

Backward-designed hiring says:

• Picture what a thriving employee looks like
• Map out what they’ll need to deliver
• Decide how you’ll spot the behaviours that lead to that success
• Then shape the hiring journey around it

Admittedly, it’s a bit slower up front. But it saves time — and pain — down the track.

The 6-Step Journey (Backward-Designed Hiring in Action)

1. Envision a Thriving Employee

Don’t start with the PD. Start with the person.

Picture someone three months into the role — they’re thriving.
What are they doing? What does their team say about them?

This step forces clarity: you’re not hiring a list of skills — you’re hiring for impact.

2. Define the Role Outcomes

Now get specific: what will this person actually deliver?

Not vague tasks like “manage stakeholders.”
Think outcomes like “unblock decision-making across three teams” or “improve handover speed by 30%.”

If you can’t name it, you can’t hire for it.

3. Spot the Behaviours That Matter

Once you’ve named the outcomes, ask:

“What kind of thinking and doing leads to that?”

You’re not looking for vague traits like “resilient” or “collaborative.”
You’re looking for real-world signals tied to your role.

Example:
If the outcome is “unblocks decision-making across teams,” then you want behaviours like:

• Builds trust quickly
• Knows when to push, when to step back
• Communicates clearly across messy org charts

Those are the patterns you need to screen for.

4. Design the Hiring Touchpoints

Now build the journey that helps you find that person.

Each step — job ad, resume screen, interview, reference check — should be shaped by what you just mapped.

• Use the role outcomes to write the ad
• Use the behaviours to design the interview questions
• Use the whole picture to judge real fit — not just vibe or experience

This is where most hiring drifts off-course.
You’ve done the thinking — don’t lose it in the process.

5. Check Reality: The First 90 Days

This is where the plan meets the person.

Did the behaviours show up on the job?
Are they delivering on the outcomes you mapped?

If yes — brilliant. If not, it’s time to ask why.

• Were expectations unclear?
• Did the interview miss something?
• Did your tools filter out the wrong people?

The first 90 days tell you more about your hiring process than any scorecard ever could.

6. Loop Back and Learn

Here’s the part most teams skip.

Take what you learned from the first 90 days and feed it back into the next round.

• Tweak the role outcomes
• Refine the interview
• Rethink the tools you used

Every hire should make your next one smarter.

Tech That Helps — or Hides

Tech runs through every step of hiring — often invisibly.
Sometimes it lifts the process. Sometimes it wrecks it.

The trick is knowing when it’s doing which.

✅ Tools that help

These bring clarity. They help you spot what matters.

• Job ad builders that prompt clear, outcome-based writing
• CV parsers that flag relevant experience without punishing messy career paths
• Interview platforms that guide you toward real evidence, not just gut feel
• Skill tests that simulate real tasks
• Reference tools that ask targeted, role-specific questions

🚫 Tools that hinder

These create noise — or worse, false confidence.

• Keyword filters that reward CV stuffing
• Black-box ATS systems with no transparency
• Generic psych tests with no role context
• Vague interview templates (“Shows initiative” — says who?)
• Auto-reject emails with zero or generic feedback

The question I keep coming back to:

Is this tool helping me see the person — or just automating the wrong stuff faster?

Closing Thoughts: Design for What Matters

Backward-designed hiring isn’t a silver bullet. But it’s made me think harder — and hire better.

It shifts the focus from just filling a role to building a fit.
It surfaces the stuff that actually matters — not just what looks good on paper.

It’s not always faster. But it’s clearer, fairer, and way less likely to end in “maybe we hired the wrong person.”

If we say people are our most important asset, we should design hiring like we mean it.

Your Turn

What would you change if you hired this way?

I’d love to hear what’s worked, or not, in your own hiring journey.