Why good conversations make for better hires

Many job descriptions are based on the past

When a position becomes available, the response is often predictable. The old job description is pulled up, updated here and there, and published again. That may seem efficient, but it relies on an important assumption: that today’s needs are the same as yesterday’s. This is often where things go wrong. Organizations are constantly changing. Teams take on different responsibilities, technology changes how work is done, and projects create new demands for employees. Yet job descriptions often remain largely unchanged for years. As a result, a vacancy may focus mainly on who needs to be replaced, while paying far less attention to the problem that actually needs to be solved. The difference may seem small, but in practice it is significant.

Every vacancy hides a different challenge

A manager might ask for an experienced project manager. The immediate response is often to search for exactly that profile. But a deeper conversation may reveal that the role is mainly about stakeholder management. Or driving change within a team. Or creating structure in a complex project. In that case, the job title matters less than the underlying need. The same applies to years of experience. Organizations often ask for ten years of experience, while five years of relevant experience combined with the right skills may be just as valuable. Sometimes organizations are looking for a specialist, while a generalist with the right ability to learn may be a better fit for the organization’s future direction. That is why the most successful vacancies are often not the ones written fastest. They are the ones where time is taken to explore the question behind the question.

The perfect candidate usually does not exist

Another consequence of insufficiently defining the need is the creation of what could be called a ‘wish-list vacancy’. Almost everyone recognizes them. Job descriptions with long lists of requirements, certifications, qualifications, systems, and experience levels. It can feel as if an organization is trying to combine three jobs into one profile. This often happens with the best intentions. No one wants to compromise on quality. Yet in a labor market where scarce professionals have plenty of choice, this approach can work against the organization. It not only reduces the number of potential candidates. It also keeps organizations focused on an ideal profile that rarely exists in practice. Successful organizations are therefore increasingly asking what is truly essential. Which skills are indispensable? Which knowledge can be developed? And where is there room for potential? This often leads to a broader and more relevant group of candidates.

A better job description leads to better conversations

The quality of a selection process is often linked to the conversations held with candidates. Rightly so, but quality actually starts much earlier. When a job description is clear, candidates have a better understanding of what they are applying for. Recruiters can search more effectively. Suppliers understand which expertise is genuinely required. And managers assess candidates against the same expectations. This helps prevent misunderstandings, incorrect assumptions, and discussions later in the process. It also creates room to look beyond the CV. When it is clear which challenge needs to be solved, it becomes easier to recognize talent that may not meet every formal requirement but does have the right skills and potential.

In a tight labor market, the question matters more

As talent remains scarce, defining the need clearly becomes even more important. Many organizations understandably focus on sourcing, employer branding, or recruitment marketing. These are valuable tools, but they only address part of the challenge. The quality of the initial question matters just as much. The better organizations understand what they actually need, the more likely they are to recognize the right talent when they encounter it. Sometimes this means taking a step back before moving forward. Less focus on the vacancy itself and more attention to the conversation that comes before it. Perhaps that is one of the most overlooked steps in talent selection. Ultimately, the quality of the question often determines the quality of the answer. And that also determines the quality of the match.