A CV tells you what someone has done. It doesn’t tell you how well they did it. It doesn’t tell you how they think. And it definitely doesn’t tell you what they could do next.
Yet we’ve built the entire hiring process around it.
Why CVs Exist
To be fair, CVs solved a real problem. They created a standard format. They made it easier to compare candidates. They gave hiring managers something quick to scan.
When there were fewer applicants and more time to review them, that worked. But hiring has changed.
The volume has increased. The pace has accelerated. And the CV hasn’t evolved with it.
Where CVs Break Down
At scale, the limitations of CVs become hard to ignore. They’re designed to present a version of the truth, not necessarily the full picture. They favour those who can articulate their experience well, not always those who perform best. They reward linear careers and penalise anything unconventional.
Most importantly, they lack context. Two people can have the same job title and deliver completely different outcomes. A CV rarely captures that difference.
So we compensate. We add layers. Screening questions. Keyword filters. Structured interviews. But we’re still working from the same starting point.
A proxy.
The Problem with Proxies
A CV is a proxy for capability. It assumes that what someone has done before is a reliable indicator of what they can do next.
Sometimes that’s true. But often, it isn’t.
Especially in a world where:
- Roles evolve quickly
- Skills become outdated
- Career paths are less predictable
The further we move from stable, repeatable roles, the less reliable proxies become. And yet, we still depend on them.
What Actually Predicts Success?
If CVs aren’t enough, what should we be looking at? The answer isn’t more data. It’s better signals.
Signals that show how someone actually operates, not just how they describe themselves.
Things like:
Evidence of work
Projects, portfolios, outcomes. What someone has built, contributed to, or improved.
Behaviour
How they approach problems. How they communicate. How they make decisions.
Learning velocity
How quickly they adapt, pick things up, and apply new knowledge.
Motivation and alignment
What they care about. Why they’re interested. Where they’re heading.
These are harder to capture. But they’re far more predictive.
Signals vs Snapshots
A CV is a snapshot. It captures a moment in time, often polished and curated.
Signals are different. They’re ongoing. They’re observable. They build over time.
A project completed. A collaboration that worked. A contribution to a community.
Individually, they might seem small. Collectively, they tell a much richer story.
Why This Matters Now
The current system struggles because it tries to make high-stakes decisions using low-resolution data. Then compensates with more process. More filtering. More stages. More effort on both sides.
But the underlying issue remains. We’re not seeing people clearly enough to make confident decisions early.
A Shift in Thinking
If we want better outcomes, we need to rethink what we prioritise. Not more polished CVs. Not more complex processes. Better ways to understand people.
That means:
- Moving from static profiles to dynamic signals
- Valuing demonstrated ability over described experience
- Creating environments where those signals can emerge naturally
A Different Direction
This is where things start to change. When you reduce reliance on CVs, you create space for something better.
More relevant candidate pools. More meaningful early interactions. More confidence in decisions.
At Matchez, we’re exploring how to surface these signals in a way that benefits both candidates and hiring managers. Not by adding complexity, but by shifting the focus from what people say they’ve done to what they actually do.
Because we don’t need better CVs. We need better ways to see people.
If you’d like to contribute your perspective, please join Matchez and we’ll be in touch, so that you can share your experience.