I've heard this so many times....But, i believe that there is always the possibility that someone who is not a perfect match can evolve and learn to become the

I've heard this so many times....But, i believe that there is always the possibility that someone who is not a perfect match can evolve and learn to become the perfect match. I've also seen the case - though rare - where the "perfect candidate" fails to evolve to learn new things, or fails to adapt to new conditions because they're too intsrested in only a specific scenario. I've been on both the candidate side as well as (many times) the hiring manager side. I think too many HR departments and hiring mangers lack the mechanism to gauge candidates, so they fall back to metrics that might be too generalized. Granted, a non-standard approach to finding that candidate who can evolve is not super-scalabel - i get it - but its still my preferred direction. In all cases, when i have hired using my approach, i have always had great candidates; my approach has yet to fail me. Meanwhile, my peers who hire using too rigid a set of metrics...well, let's say that they've gotten good candidates only about half the time.