How do you prioritize requirements in a job description?

That's such a relatable situation - I've definitely been there with the mixed-up priorities! What's helped me is sitting down with hiring managers and literally categorizing everything into "deal-breakers" (like your state certification), "strong preferences" (tech skills), and "nice bonuses." Since using Talantly, I've actually gotten better at this because their system kind of forces you to think through what you're really screening for upfront, which has made my job descriptions way clearer.

This is exactly the kind of strategic clarity that separates effective talent acquisition from just posting job descriptions and hoping for the best. From an organizational perspective, I've found that the most successful approach is creating a formal requirements hierarchy with hiring managers before any role goes live - it forces those critical conversations about what actually drives performance versus what sounds good on paper. The ripple effects go beyond just better candidate pools; when your requirements are properly prioritized, your entire interview process becomes more focused and your hiring decisions more defensible. What I've learned over the past few months is that investing time upfront in this kind of strategic thinking actually accelerates everything downstream, even though it feels like it's slowing you down initially.

You're absolutely not alone in this - I made similar mistakes early on and it's such a learning curve! What's been game-changing for me is actually mapping requirements to specific performance outcomes first, then working backwards. So instead of just listing "classroom tech tools," I'll sit with the hiring manager and dig into what that actually means for day-to-day success - is it about engaging students, streamlining admin work, or something else entirely? That conversation usually reveals that half the "requirements" are actually preferences, and the real must-haves are often things we hadn't even written down. The tricky part is that this process takes way longer upfront than you'd expect, especially when you're trying to get hiring managers to think beyond their wish lists. But like that previous reply mentioned, it really does speed everything up once you get rolling - your screening becomes so much more targeted and you stop wasting time on candidates who look good on paper but miss the actual core needs.

I've found that creating a simple three-bucket system really helps - absolute deal-breakers (like that teaching certification), performance-critical skills, and nice-to-haves. The key conversation I have with hiring managers is asking "if someone was missing this specific requirement, would you still consider them for an interview?" - it's amazing how quickly that separates the true must-haves from the wish list items. What's been tricky for me is that some hiring managers initially resist this exercise because they want "the perfect candidate," but once they see how much faster we move through qualified applicants, they're usually sold. The integration piece with our ATS took some tweaking to make sure these priority levels actually translated into our screening workflow, but it's definitely worth the upfront effort.

That three-bucket approach is spot-on - I've been wrestling with similar prioritization issues in healthcare tech hiring. What I've learned is that the "would you still interview them" question needs to be even more granular. I actually started mapping requirements against specific job functions because I kept seeing hiring managers say something was "critical" when it really only applied to maybe 20% of the actual work. The data piece has been eye-opening too - tracking which missed requirements actually correlate with poor performance versus which ones we just *think* matter. It's honestly made me realize how much of our "must-have" lists were based on assumptions rather than real impact on job success. The setup complexity around getting these priority levels to actually work in our screening process was more involved than expected, but seeing how much cleaner our candidate pools are now makes it worthwhile.

From a strategic standpoint, I've found that the most effective approach is getting hiring managers to think about performance outcomes rather than just qualifications on paper. We started requiring managers to identify the top 3 things that would make someone successful in their first 90 days - it forces them to separate actual job-critical skills from their wish list. The data tracking piece mentioned above is crucial; we've discovered that some of our "non-negotiables" had zero correlation with actual job performance, which was honestly a bit humbling. What's helped us tremendously is building requirement prioritization into our intake process with hiring managers upfront, so we're not scrambling to figure out what really matters after we've already posted the role.

I love that 90-day performance outcome approach - it's such a practical way to cut through the wishlist mentality that hiring managers (and honestly, we recruiters) can fall into. What I've started doing is actually walking through real scenarios with them: "If someone amazing applies but doesn't have X qualification, would you still want to interview them?" It's amazing how quickly that clarifies what's truly essential versus what just sounds good on paper. The trickiest part I've found is when hiring managers say everything is critical - sometimes you have to push back a bit and help them see that casting too wide a net actually hurts their chances of finding the right person quickly.

Yeah, that scenario question approach is gold - I've found it forces hiring managers to actually think through trade-offs instead of just saying "we need it all." The pushback part is real though, especially when you're dealing with multiple stakeholders who each think their pet requirement is non-negotiable.

Oh, I totally feel this! In e-commerce, I've learned that getting hiring managers to actually rank requirements is like pulling teeth - everyone thinks their department's needs are the most critical. What's helped me is doing a quick "if we only get 5 applicants" exercise with them, which forces some real prioritization pretty fast. I'm still figuring out the best ways to structure this in our system, but even just having that conversation upfront has saved me from similar situations where we'd get tons of applications that missed the mark on the actual deal-breakers.

That "if we only get 5 applicants" exercise is brilliant - I'm definitely stealing that one. We've had similar issues where hiring managers would insist everything was "critical," and it wasn't until we started doing structured requirement reviews that we caught how many contradictory priorities we were putting out there. The cross-regional piece adds another layer since what's considered essential in one market might be completely different elsewhere, so now we do separate priority discussions for each region before posting.

Oh wow, this thread is hitting home for me! I've been dealing with similar challenges lately, especially with entry-level positions where hiring managers sometimes confuse "would be nice" with "absolutely necessary." What's helped me is literally creating a two-column document during our planning meetings - one for "deal-breakers" and one for "bonus points" - and making managers justify why something belongs in the first column. It's amazing how quickly "5+ years experience" becomes "2+ years or equivalent internship" when you actually push back a little! The hardest part I'm finding is when departments have never really thought about this systematically before, so there's definitely a learning curve for everyone involved in getting more intentional about requirements.

That two-column approach is brilliant - I've started doing something similar after realizing our "required" lists were basically wish lists that scared off good candidates. The pushback piece is key though; I've found hiring managers often haven't actually thought through what they can live without versus what would genuinely make someone fail in the role.

I've been there with the wishlist problem! What's helped me is actually walking through real scenarios with hiring managers - like "if we had two candidates, one with perfect tech skills but basic classroom management, versus one who's a teaching wizard but needs tech training, who would you pick?" That exercise usually reveals what they *actually* care about versus what sounds good on paper. I've also started tracking our post-hire feedback to see which "requirements" actually correlate with success six months in. Turns out some of our "must-haves" were completely irrelevant to job performance, while things we listed as "nice-to-have" were make-or-break. The data piece has been huge for pushing back when hiring managers want to add every possible skill under the sun.

Oh wow, this resonates so much! I went through something similar when I was newer to talent coordination - I'd basically create these kitchen-sink job descriptions that confused everyone, including myself. What's really helped me is doing what the previous commenter mentioned about scenario planning, but I also started asking hiring managers "what would make someone fail in this role in the first 90 days?" instead of just what would make them succeed. That question usually cuts through all the wishlist items pretty quickly and gets to the real deal-breakers versus the things that would just be nice bonuses.