That's such a smart reframe! I've started using a similar approach - asking "what would cause someone to struggle or fail here?" instead of just listing everything we'd ideally want. It's amazing how quickly that cuts through the fluff. I've also found it helpful to literally separate requirements into three buckets when I'm working with hiring managers: absolute must-haves (like that teaching certification!), strong preferences, and nice-to-haves. Sometimes I'll even ask them to rank just the top 3-5 things if they're still throwing everything at me. The scenario planning thing is brilliant too - I'm definitely going to try that next time I'm stuck with a manager who insists "everything is critical." It's such a learning curve figuring out how to balance being thorough without creating these overwhelming job posts that scare off good candidates or attract the wrong ones entirely.
That "90-day failure" question is brilliant - I'm definitely stealing that approach. I've found that breaking requirements into clear tiers (must-have, preferred, nice-to-have) in separate sections really helps candidates self-select better, though it took some trial and error to get hiring managers to actually stick to those distinctions.
That's such a smart reframe! I've found that "failure mode" thinking really does cut through the noise - when I ask hiring managers what would make someone crash and burn, suddenly the state certification becomes obviously non-negotiable while the tech skills drop to "we can train that." The tricky part I've run into is that some managers still want to keep everything as "must-have" even after that exercise, so I've started pushing back with something like "if we require all ten of these things, we'll get three applicants in six months - which three matter most?" It's been a game-changer for actually filling roles instead of just posting wish lists into the void.
That's a really smart approach - the "failure in 90 days" question cuts right to the core of what actually matters versus what we think we want. In my experience across different regions, I've found that legal requirements and core competencies should always be your non-negotiables, while everything else becomes a nice-to-have that you can evaluate during interviews. The tricky part is getting hiring managers to be honest about what they can live without, since they often want the unicorn candidate who checks every single box.