I need some advice.
I’m a talent coordinator at a private school system, and I had a bit of an embarrassing situation recently. I was writing a job description for a teaching role, and I listed different requirements like experience with classroom tech tools, state teaching certification, etc. At the time, all felt important. But we ended up getting a bunch of applicants who were great with tech… and completely unqualified to teach legally.
The problem is… I’m not actually sure how to prioritize. I’ve always just thrown everything in one list: must-haves, nice-to-haves, soft skills - all mixed together. And now I’m seeing how confusing that can be for candidates. And since we’ve started using Talantly, I’ve started to suspect that my approach is far from industry standard when it comes to prioritization.
So I’m curious: how do you decide what’s truly essential for a role versus what’s just a bonus? Do you sit down with hiring managers and sort it out? Do you go by what’s tripped you up in the past? Or is it more instinct?
It definitely stalled the hiring process more than I expected, so any advice would be hugely appreciated.
Oh, I totally get this - we had similar chaos when I first started organizing requirements. I've found that sitting down with the actual hiring manager and literally asking "if we could only screen for 3 things, what would they be?" helps cut through all the wishlist items to find the real deal-breakers.
The three-question approach is solid - I've found it forces hiring managers to really think beyond their initial wish list. What's helped me lately is creating a clear hierarchy: legal/certification requirements first, then core competencies that directly impact day-one performance, and finally the developmental skills we can train for. The tricky part is getting everyone aligned on what actually constitutes "trainable" versus "must-have," especially when different stakeholders have varying tolerance for onboarding time.
This resonates so much with what we deal with in consulting staffing - though admittedly, our stakes are a bit different since we're matching consultants to specific client engagements rather than permanent hires.
The hierarchy approach mentioned above is spot-on, but I'd add that timing considerations are crucial too. In our world, we've learned to distinguish between "client-facing day one" requirements versus "project completion" requirements. For example, a client might need someone with advanced financial modeling skills for a six-month engagement, but if we have a strong analyst who's 80% there and can get up to speed in the first few weeks, that's often acceptable - especially if they bring other valuable skills to the table.
What's been game-changing for us is actually mapping requirements against project phases. We'll sit down with the engagement manager and literally walk through: "Week 1-2, what does this person absolutely need to do? Month 2-3, what becomes critical then?" It sounds tedious, but it prevents that kitchen-sink mentality where everything feels equally important.
The certification piece you mentioned is particularly tricky in consulting because client requirements can be... fluid. We've had situations where a client initially insisted on specific industry certifications, only to later prioritize problem-solving ability and communication skills when they realized those were harder to find. Now we always ask the follow-up: "If you had to choose between candidate A with perfect credentials but limited client presence, versus candidate B with 90% of the technical requirements but exceptional stakeholder management skills, which would you take?"
One thing that's helped reduce our screening time is being brutally honest about development timelines upfront. Instead of listing "project management experience preferred," we'll specify "ability to manage 3+ workstreams simultaneously within 30 days" - it gives candidates a clearer picture and helps us avoid the tech-savvy-but-unqualified situation you experienced.
The alignment challenge is real though. Getting partners, engagement managers, and clients all on the same page about what's truly non-negotiable versus what's aspirational remains one of our biggest ongoing challenges.