How do you find someone who will strengthen our business?
This is probably one of the most frequent phrases you hear from your managers, or even say yourself: “We need a strong candidate.” Sounds logical, right? Well, here’s the standard list of requirements: 5+ years of experience, initiative, flexibility, stress resistance, proactivity… Painfully familiar.
But let’s be honest: what does “strong” really mean? In most cases, it is not a specific characteristic, but a subjective expectation. And it is this expectation that becomes the main trap in hiring.
We constantly see a paradox: the same specialist with an identical resume is considered not strong enough or not suitable in one company, while in another company they become a real star and engine of growth. Why is this happening? And what can you do to ensure that your next hire is a hit, not a costly mistake?
The key to successful hiring is context, not an abstract “strong candidate.”
The problem is not that the candidate is weak or that there is no one to hire. The problem is that they are not suitable for your context. The quality of hiring does not increase from endlessly raising the bar of requirements. It improves when you are able to honestly and as accurately as possible describe the environment in which the new employee will work.
Instead of chasing the mythical “best on the market,” who may turn out to be the worst in your company tomorrow, shift your focus. Ask yourself one, but the most important question: “Who will give the maximum result specifically in OUR conditions, with OUR resources, and with OUR specifics?”
When you hire, what is really more important than an extra year on a resume or experience working in that cool company, from where can they bring experience?
– The real pace of work in the company, not words in the job description. If you write “dynamic startup,” but in reality you have daily emergencies, overtime, and chaos 24/7, the candidate must be prepared for this. Otherwise, they will burn out in a couple of months.
I know that few people want to reveal such “minor” details in interviews, such as the number of deadlines per week, the average number of tasks in progress, and the frequency of changing priorities. But if you do, it will be much easier to hit the mark.
– The level of chaos that you will have to deal with. How regulated are the processes? Are there clear instructions or do you constantly have to invent and fix something? Some people thrive in uncertainty, others need predictability.
Clarifying this is very simple – are there ready-made regulations for 80% of tasks or only for 20%? For many people, the availability of ready-made processes is fundamentally important.
– Management style. Does your team practice micromanagement or complete autonomy? Are there weekly statuses or only quarterly planning? The candidate’s ability to work in a specific management system is critical to their success.
Management styles are different, and you need to understand what type of candidate is suitable for each to your style.
– The strength of a candidate is a function of the environment, not an absolute value.
Imagine expensive designer clothes. If it doesn’t fit you, what difference does it make how much it costs and what brand it is? It will just hang in the closet because it is non-functional for you.
The same with a strong candidate. Without taking into account the environment, without understanding your unique context, this person is just an expensive purchase that may simply not suit you.
3 fatal mistakes that kill your hiring:
1. Searching by brand, not by real tasks.
You see the names of market leaders (Google, Wise, Bolt, Swedbank) on the resume and automatically attribute “star quality” to the candidate. But a person who felt great in a well-established ecosystem of a large corporation may be completely lost in a startup environment, where you need to build from scratch and wear 10 hats at the same time. They are used to working with ready-made processes, and you don’t have them.
Consequences: The “star” fades, facing a lack of structure, clear tasks, and resources. You get a demotivated employee and wasted time.
How to fix: Look not for those who simply used the ready-made, but for those who built, launched, optimized in conditions of uncertainty. Ask in the interview about the experience of creating, and not just using.
2. Ignoring the company’s cultural code.
Each company has its own unspoken set of rules, values, and expectations; let’s call it a cultural code. A candidate who was successful in a directive, hierarchical culture may seem passive and confused in a company with a horizontal structure and an atmosphere of complete democracy. And vice versa.
Consequences: Conflicts, misunderstandings, low engagement. The person will feel like a stranger, and the team will feel annoyed.
How to fix: Be extremely honest. Describe 3-5 real facts about the style of leadership, decision-making, and communication in your company. Without embellishment. For example: “We value directness, even if it’s uncomfortable” or “Your initiative will be supported, but you will have to find resources yourself.”
3. Hiring “for growth” without adequate resources.
You hire a strong lead or manager, expecting a breakthrough from them, but at the same time you don’t give them a budget, a team, or sufficient authority. You want them to move mountains, but at the same time you take away their shovel.
Consequences: Rapid burnout, frustration, and demotivation. Such an employee will leave the company in 3-6 months, feeling useless, and you will spend money and time on a new search.
How to fix: The level of the candidate should be commensurate with the level of resources that you are willing to provide. If you are waiting for a strategic leader, give them a team and a budget to implement the strategy. If you are waiting for a tactician, make sure that they have everything they need for operations. Don’t hire a general to paint the fence.
How to create a job profile that works?
To find your right candidate, don’t rely on abstractions. Answer these questions before starting your search and be sure to discuss them with the candidate during the interview:
– The main challenge at the start: What is the biggest “headache” or critical task that the candidate must solve in the first 30-90 days of work? Describe it as specifically as possible.
– Areas of responsibility and autonomy: At what stages of decision-making will the candidate have complete autonomy? And where will they need repeated approval or selling their ideas? Where does their responsibility end?
– Specifics of the environment and corporate culture: What is more important in your company for this position – the ability to quickly adapt and build processes on the fly in conditions of uncertainty, or scrupulously follow regulations, ensuring stability and accuracy? Describe the dominant way of working.
A “strong candidate” is not a mythical creature with a perfect resume. This is a person whose skills, experience, and, most importantly, personal qualities and approach to work perfectly match the unique context of your company and the requirements of the specific position.
Stop looking for a diamond in a vacuum. Start describing the conditions in which this diamond can shine.