The best book I've read on hiring is "Who: The A Method for Hiring." It's so good in fact that I feel kind of bad sharing it, almost as if I were giving away a competitive advantage.

It makes a very simple point that runs counter to most silicon valley talk about "hire for slope not Y intercept" or "hire hustle" or whatever:

Hire people that have the skills necessary for the job that needs to be done. That's it! It sounds simple to the point of ridiculousness, but the truth is that most job descriptions/roles in an organization are written in a lazy way, in which the org has not actually done the work to figure out what specific skills are required by the organization to complete it's mission.

So instead, they hire for generalists, or for "people they like" or for people that fit a pattern--all because they haven't actually done the work to figure out what skills are actually needed.

Examples. A small startup puts up a job description for "senior ruby engineer." If the org is bottlenecked because they are working on very tricky code they should be interviewing for a very different engineer than if they are bottlenecked because they actually need someone who can ship simple CRUD features fast. "oh, but see we only hire senior engineers because {reasons}." Balderdash! Think about the problems you actually have, the skills and experience required to guarantee (or as close to it) that a candidate can Do The Job, and go.