When a hiring process goes wrong, the typical diagnosis is “there’s no talent out there”. But in practice, the failure usually happens earlier: the role was never properly defined.
You can spot it quickly: the description is full of qualities (“autonomy”, “vision”, “leadership”), but almost empty of verifiable outcomes. That leaves the assessment in the hands of personal preferences. And when the criterion is “I’ve got a good feeling about them”, the process fills up with noise: too many interviews, mid-course changes, and questionable decisions.
The most expensive part of this mess isn’t just the time. It’s the internal wear and tear: each area pushes towards a different profile, messages to the candidate contradict each other, and, in the end, no one can clearly explain why someone is rejected or chosen.
The antidote is simple and not very glamorous: lock down “minute zero” before you publish.
On a single page:
- Role objective: the problem the role is there to solve, in one sentence.
- Three outcomes at six months: measurable, observable, no heroics.
- Valid evidence: what proof you will accept (real cases, metrics, work samples, references).
- Decision and timeline: who decides, based on which signals, and on what date.
When this exists, interviews improve on their own. You’re no longer looking for “someone good”; you’re looking for “someone who can deliver X under Y conditions”. And that turns hiring into a fairer, faster, and more defensible conversation.
Sources
