Beyond the Resume
Hiring for Potential: A Playbook for Building Tech Teams on a Start-Up Budget
When I worked as Head of Technology at a start-up, one of my biggest responsibilities was managing the budget. On paper, this might sound straightforward: you’re given a number, and you decide how to spend it. But in reality, budget decisions are about trade-offs. Every dollar you allocate to one area means another area goes without.
In a start-up, those trade-offs are amplified. Profitability isn’t guaranteed, growth is unpredictable, and every decision feels high-stakes. Twice a year I was given a lump-sum budget covering both people and software. With Microsoft’s Power Platform and Dynamics 365 as our backbone, I knew I needed specialized skills to keep us running smoothly. The problem? Those skills were scarce and expensive—often $125k+ for a single experienced hire. That was well beyond what our start-up could afford.
So I had to think differently. Instead of trying to “buy” talent that already had the skills, I focused on hiring for potential and building the talent in-house.
Why Hiring for Potential Works
At first, it felt like a compromise. I knew I was paying people below market value, and I worried if I was setting them up for success. But the more I leaned into this model, the more I realized it had long-term benefits:
For the business: I got smart, motivated team members at a sustainable cost.
For the individuals: They gained in-demand skills and launched careers that would eventually double their salaries elsewhere.
For me as a leader: I learned how to spot raw potential and turn it into capability.
This approach only worked because I was intentional about who I brought in, how I trained them, and how I assessed their fit.
Step 1: Finding the Right Candidates
Hiring for potential doesn’t mean hiring just anyone. The key was looking for people with transferable skills, curiosity, and resilience. Over time, I found a few patterns in strong candidates:
STEM backgrounds outside tech. Math and science teachers often stood out. They had analytical skills, patience, and discipline, but were often searching for higher-compensated, more rewarding careers.
Non-STEM but curious learners. A history major with a sharp mind for patterns or someone with business operations experience could thrive if they were eager to learn.
Career switchers. People leaving one field for another often had a hunger to prove themselves and the grit to push through a steep learning curve.
Most importantly, I didn’t just wait for résumés to come in. Proactive recruiting—tapping networks, reaching out to under-the-radar candidates—helped me find hidden gems others overlooked.
Step 2: My Two-Part Interview Process
Once I narrowed the pool, I designed an interview process that balanced both soft skills and problem-solving ability.
1. Behavioral Interview (45 minutes)
This was about gauging fit more than technical skill. I asked:
Had they researched the company or tools ahead of time?
Could they communicate clearly and kindly (a must for working with end users)?
Did their career story show resilience and curiosity?
This stage filtered out people who looked good on paper but wouldn’t thrive in our team environment.
2. Hands-On Assessment (90 minutes)
This is where the real insight came. I broke it into two exercises:
Exercise A: The Scenario Workshop
I set the scene: I’m a veterinarian running a clinic, and you’re my consultant helping me design a Dynamics 365 solution.
First 15–20 minutes: The candidate asked clarifying questions. Did they explore reporting? security? long-term needs? I wanted to see how they approached discovery.
Next 30–40 minutes: They sketched a data model, explained normalization, and identified ways to use existing D365 functionality. I wasn’t grading perfection—since I’ve never actually built for a vet clinic myself—but I cared deeply about how they thought out loud and solved problems logically.
This exercise couldn’t really be rehearsed. That made it one of the most authentic ways to see how someone approached problem-solving.
Exercise B: The Prioritization Grid
Start-up life is messy. You’re always juggling competing requests: bug fixes, design docs, urgent reports. I gave candidates a stack of post-it notes with common tasks, then asked them to place them on a grid of priority (top to bottom) vs. effort (left to right).
After 10 minutes, they had to explain:
Why did they rank tasks the way they did?
How would they adjust if a stakeholder pushed back?
Did they ask clarifying questions to better understand the trade-offs?
This tested not just prioritization but also confidence in defending decisions.
Step 3: Adapting for Remote vs. In-Person
When possible, I preferred to do these assessments in person—whiteboards and post-its made it more dynamic. But if the role was remote, I switched to tools like Miro and Microsoft Teams. That way, I also tested how well they could collaborate in the actual environment they’d be working in.
Why This Worked
This system wasn’t perfect, but it gave me consistent results.
The behavioral interview tested for communication, adaptability, and curiosity.
The hands-on scenario revealed logical problem solving and ability to think under pressure.
The prioritization exercise showed whether someone could juggle chaos and still deliver.
Together, they gave me confidence that—even if the person lacked direct experience—they could grow into the role and succeed in the long run.
Final Thought
Hiring for potential is slower than hiring someone “ready-made.” It takes time to mentor and train, and there are missteps along the way. But for a start-up with limited resources, it was the best path forward.
More importantly, it created a ripple effect: team members who once doubted they could work in tech eventually left for new opportunities, stronger, more confident, and well-paid. That’s something I’ll always be proud of.
Because at the end of the day, building teams isn’t just about budgets or software—it’s about people. And if you invest in the right ones, the returns are exponent
