Lou Adler recently shared something that caught my attention. In his post, he argued (paraphrasing his core point) that: "Stop hiring based on skills, years of experience, and buzzwords. Define the real work first. If you want better hires, write a performance profile that spells out what success looks like and then interview for evidence someone can do that work."

That idea resonates because it flips the usual hiring process on its head. Most teams start with a familiar template, add a laundry list of requirements, and hope the right person self-identifies. Lou Adler is pushing for the opposite: start by defining success, then find people who have already delivered something similar.

In this article, I want to expand on what Lou Adler is pointing to and make it practical: how to translate "define the work" into better job descriptions, better interviews, and better decisions.

The real shift: from credentials to outcomes

Lou Adler explained that hiring improves when you stop describing a person and start describing performance.

Traditional job descriptions often answer the wrong question: "What kind of person do we want?" They focus on traits and proxies:

Years of experience
Specific tools or industry keywords
Degree requirements
"Must be a self-starter" style personality claims

A performance-based approach answers a better question: "What must someone accomplish in this role, and what does good look like?"

Key insight: You do not hire a resume. You hire someone to deliver outcomes.

When you define outcomes, two good things happen:

You widen the funnel in a smart way. People who can do the work but do not match your proxies now have a reason to apply.
You raise the signal in interviews. The conversation becomes evidence-focused instead of opinion-focused.

Why skills-and-years filters are a weak predictor

As Lou Adler mentioned, skills lists and years of experience are easy to write, but they are not the same as proof of performance.

Here is the problem with proxies:

"5+ years" assumes time equals capability. It often does not.
Tool lists ignore that great people learn tools quickly when the outcomes are clear.
Industry-only requirements can block high performers from adjacent spaces.

None of this means skills do not matter. They do. The point is sequencing: define outcomes first, then determine which skills are truly necessary to achieve them in your environment.

A quick example:

If the job is "own monthly reporting," you might list "Excel" and "SQL" as hard requirements. But if the real outcome is "deliver accurate insights to leaders by the 3rd business day," you open options: maybe the best candidate used different tools, automated similar workflows, or built dashboards with a modern BI stack. They still achieved the same outcome.

Building a performance profile (the practical template)

Lou Adler made a point about defining the work that really resonated with me, so here is a concrete way to do it.

Think of a performance profile as a short list of measurable outcomes, written in plain language. Ideally it becomes the backbone of your job post, interview plan, and onboarding.

Step 1: Write the role mission in one sentence

Example: "Improve customer retention for our SMB product by strengthening onboarding and lifecycle education."

Keep it simple. If you cannot summarize the mission, the role is probably not clearly defined.

Step 2: List 5 to 7 performance objectives

These should be accomplishments, not activities.

Good performance objectives look like:

"Within 90 days, diagnose the top 3 churn drivers using product, support, and billing data, and present a prioritized plan."
"Within 6 months, launch an onboarding program that increases activation by 15%."
"By end of year, reduce churn by 2 points through targeted lifecycle campaigns and product feedback loops."

Notice what is missing: "must be strategic" or "excellent communicator." Those are not outcomes.

If you can measure it or verify it, it belongs in the performance profile.

Step 3: Add context and constraints

Two people can deliver the same outcome in very different environments. Make yours explicit:

Team size and available support
Tools and data access
Decision rights and stakeholders
Pace (steady vs high-change)
Budget constraints

This is where a lot of hiring mismatches come from. Candidates accept a role thinking the environment is one thing, then discover it is another.

Step 4: Calibrate with top performers

Before you post the job, ask: "Who on our team has done something similar? What did they actually do in their first 6 to 12 months?"

This prevents fantasy requirements and forces realism.

Interviewing for evidence (not confidence)

Lou Adler pointed out that once you define the work, you can interview properly. This is the part many teams skip. They write requirements, then run generic interviews.

A performance-based interview plan should map directly to the performance objectives.

Use evidence questions tied to outcomes

For each objective, ask about comparable work:

"Tell me about a time you improved activation or retention. What was the baseline, what changed, and what was the result?"
"Walk me through the analysis you did. What data did you trust, and what did you ignore?"
"What tradeoffs did you make when stakeholders disagreed?"

Then probe for specifics: timelines, constraints, artifacts, metrics, and decision logic.

Add a work sample when the role demands it

If the role is analytical, use a small case.
If the role is writing-heavy, use a short writing prompt.
If the role is leadership, use a scenario about prioritization and stakeholder alignment.

Work samples are not about "gotcha" tests. They are about reducing uncertainty.

Confidence is not competence. Evidence beats impressions.

Common mistakes when adopting performance-based hiring

I have seen teams like the idea Lou Adler describes, but implement it halfway. Watch out for these traps.

Mistake 1: Turning outcomes into vague slogans

"Drive growth" is not a performance objective. "Increase pipeline by 20% in two quarters by improving outbound targeting" is closer.

Mistake 2: Keeping the old requirements anyway

If you keep the full proxy list (years, degree, industry, tool stack) you did not really change anything. Be ruthless about what is truly required.

Mistake 3: Interviewing without a scorecard

A performance profile should become a scorecard. If interviewers do not rate evidence against the same objectives, you will drift back into "I liked them" hiring.

Mistake 4: Ignoring ramp and onboarding

Defining success is also the start of onboarding. Those first 90-day objectives can become the new hire plan.

Why this message tends to go viral

Lou Adler's post performed well because it challenges a default behavior that many people are frustrated with.

Candidates are tired of unrealistic checklists.
Hiring managers are tired of "great resumes" that do not translate into results.
Recruiters are caught between templates and the reality of what teams need.

The promise of performance-based hiring is simple: clearer roles, fairer evaluation, and a better match between expectations and execution.

This is also a good reminder for anyone creating LinkedIn content: clarity wins. A sharp point of view, grounded in practical experience, is the kind of content strategy that spreads. That is especially true for viral posts that offer a better model people can use immediately.

Closing thought

Lou Adler is essentially asking hiring teams to do the hard work upfront: define what success looks like, then hire for proof someone can deliver it. If you only take one action from this, rewrite your next job description as a performance profile with 5 to 7 concrete outcomes. Everything else gets easier from there.

This blog post expands on a viral LinkedIn post by Lou Adler, CEO, Performance-based Hiring Learning Systems. Author, Hire with Your Head and The Essential Guide for Hiring.. View the original LinkedIn post →