One of the most important steps in any hiring process is defining what we are looking for. Without clear criteria, it is difficult to compare candidates and ultimately make a well-informed decision.
The problem starts when we treat all of them as equally important.
A candidate may meet every requirement in the job description and still not be the best choice. Another may have obvious gaps on paper but show qualities during the process that make them worth serious consideration.
We can often see this even before the interview.
Some CVs simply stand out, and it is not because they all follow the same format. Some are simple, others more creative. Some include a photo, others do not. What they often have in common is clarity. They are easy to read, specific and give us the information we need without unnecessary detail. We can quickly understand what someone has done, what they are good at and what they want us to know about them.
There are other things we notice as well. How does the candidate communicate? What kind of questions do they ask? Do they follow through on what has been agreed? How do they respond when they do not know something or need more information? Do they return a missed call, let us know when something changes or acknowledge feedback, even when it is sent automatically? They may not have the perfect answer to every interview question, but the way they think, listen and communicate can tell us a lot.
None of these things is enough to draw a conclusion on its own.
But together, they begin to form a pattern.
A good assessment means recognising that pattern and looking at it alongside everything else we know about the candidate and the role.
Not Every Criterion Matters Equally
A real example shows why this distinction matters.
In one hiring process for a Recruitment Marketing Specialist, one of the candidates was an internal employee who had never worked in the role and lacked some of the technical skills we were looking for.
But he had spent years in operations. He knew the organisation, its culture and its people extremely well. He understood the business and the types of candidates we hired most often, and he had a strong network within the company. He was open, creative and a strong communicator, and over the years had already proven himself to be a reliable team player. The move would be a significant step forward in his career, and he was highly motivated to learn and prove himself.
The other shortlisted candidate had experience with the tools required for the role and was a closer match to the profile on paper. At first glance, she seemed like the safer choice. But the qualities that made him stand out were far less evident in her case.
The decision came down to more than what each candidate knew at that point. We had to consider which of those differences would actually matter six months or a year into the job.
Facing a similar challenge? Let’s talk about how Talyn can help.
Send enquiryThe technical tools could be learned. His knowledge of the organisation and the candidates we typically hired, the trust and relationships he had already built, his proven ability to work well with others, his communication skills, creativity and strong motivation were much harder to develop.
The point was not to ignore what he was missing. Quite the opposite. We needed to understand how much of a risk those gaps actually presented, how difficult they would be to close and what his other strengths could bring to the role.
He was given the opportunity, did exceptionally well in the role, stayed with the team for years and continued to progress in his career.
But the principle behind that decision matters more than the outcome:
What really matters for success in this role, and what can be learned?
The answer will be different for every role. Just because several criteria appear in the same job description does not mean they should all carry the same weight.
Without making that distinction, it is easy to choose the person who is the closest match on paper today rather than the one who is more likely to succeed in the role and in that particular environment over time.
Understanding the Context
The same applies when something on paper looks like a potential risk.
Someone with far more experience than the role requires can easily be labelled “overqualified”. The assumptions tend to follow: the job will not be challenging enough, they will quickly lose interest or leave as soon as a better offer comes along.
Any of those things could happen. But we cannot know that from a CV alone.
A conversation gives us the context we are missing. Why is this person considering this particular role at this point in their career? What are they looking for in their next job? What matters less to them now, and what has become more important? Do they fully understand the level of the role and the conditions they would be accepting?
Sometimes, understanding that context also opens up an option that was not even being considered at the start of the hiring process.
In one project involving the opening of a new office, this led to a very different decision. One candidate showed potential beyond the role we were hiring for, even though she had applied for that role knowing exactly what it involved and was genuinely interested in it. A Team Lead position was not open yet, but it was already clear that one would soon be needed.
Understanding the business and the bigger picture made all the difference. Rather than trying to fit her into the role that happened to be open at the time, we agreed with the operations leaders that she would join directly as a Team Lead, a position that was a much better match for her experience and capabilities.
It quickly became clear how important that decision was. Challenges emerged early on that she was able to address quickly and responsibly because she was already in a leadership role. Without someone in that position at that stage, those challenges could have created further problems and potentially led to losing part of the team.
More importantly, she was still with the company more than five years later and had progressed further into roles that reflected her qualifications and capabilities. On paper, it might have seemed likely that she would leave relatively quickly. In the broader context, the picture looked very different. Her qualifications, motivation and expectations, together with the needs of the business, told a much more complete story.
Principles of Good Recruitment
Roles, industries and markets can be completely different. Processes can change, and technology can take over much of the administrative work and help us access information faster.
But a few things remain fundamental.
Recognising a pattern rather than drawing a conclusion from a single signal. Knowing what really matters for success in a role and what can be learned. Understanding the context behind the information. Recognising potential even when it does not fit neatly into the initial picture. And being able to make the case for a candidate when the best choice is not the most obvious one.
Clear criteria and a structured process matter because hiring decisions should not be based on impressions alone. But good recruitment is not about finding the “perfect candidate” who meets every requirement on paper. That alone is no guarantee that someone will succeed in a new environment, with different people, expectations and challenges.
The key is to recognise which criteria really matter, which carry less weight or can be learned, while also taking the candidate’s context and potential into account.
Experiences like these have shaped the principles behind the way we approach recruitment at Talyn today.