Okay, sanity check needed.
I work on the HR side in a pretty traditional corporate law environment, and we’ve got a few roles that just refuse to close. Not junior stuff, but very specific profiles with a very specific experience, and very specific expectations (on both sides, if we’re being honest).
What’s messing with me is less that they’re hard to fill and more how long is too long before you admit the current approach isn’t working. At first, you’re optimistic, then you tweak the JD, then you widen the search a bit. Then months pass and you’re still having the same conversations with the same types of candidates who are “almost right.”
At some point it starts to feel like you’re just maintaining an open req instead of actively recruiting.
I’m curious how others think about this in real life. When do you decide to bring in outside help? When do you push back internally and say the expectations might be the issue? When do you just accept that niche hiring moves at a glacial pace and stop stressing about the timeline?
Would genuinely love to hear how people handle this without burning out or leaving roles open forever.
Been there with specialized tech roles - I usually give it 4-6 months before pushing back hard on requirements, because at that point you've likely seen the entire available talent pool. The "almost right" candidate loop is a red flag that either the role expectations are unrealistic or the compensation isn't competitive enough for what you're actually asking for.
Three months is usually my breaking point - if we're still cycling through "almost right" candidates by then, I start questioning whether we're chasing a unicorn or if the role definition needs a reality check. Sometimes the best move is stepping back and asking if we'd rather have 80% of what we want filled in a reasonable timeframe than hold out indefinitely for that perfect match.
Oh this hits so close to home! I'm dealing with something similar right now - we've had this mid-level position open since September and keep getting candidates who check most boxes but miss that one crucial piece of experience the hiring manager insists on. What's been eye-opening for me is realizing how much of this comes down to having better conversations upfront about what's truly non-negotiable versus what's just "nice to have." I've started pushing back more on some of the requirements after month two, asking things like "would you rather train someone on X skill or wait another three months?" It's uncomfortable but necessary. The three-month rule makes total sense - by then you've usually seen the full candidate pool for that specific combo of skills and location, so if nobody's hitting the mark, something needs to shift.
This resonates deeply - I've learned the hard way that after 90 days of consistent sourcing, you're usually looking at a market reality problem, not a pipeline problem. The breakthrough for us came when I started treating these situations as business strategy conversations rather than just recruiting challenges. We now do formal "requirement audits" at the 10-week mark where I sit down with hiring managers and walk through real market data - what skills actually exist together, what compensation brackets we're competing in, and honestly, whether we're asking for a unicorn. Sometimes the answer is genuinely waiting longer for the right person, but more often it's about getting creative with how we define "right" or being willing to invest in developing that one missing piece internally.