Calibrate the business problem before defining the hire
A search often begins before the role is clear. I work with the hiring manager to understand what needs to change, which capabilities the team already has, and where the gap sits. Sometimes that changes the proposed level or role scope. Sometimes it raises a more useful question about ownership, support, or whether another hire is the right answer.
For me, raising Talent Density starts with understanding what this person could add to the team, including how they help others succeed. The success profile is something we build together. It connects the work, the authority to do it, the expected contribution, and the evidence we will use to judge progress. Scope, compensation, location, and market availability have to make sense together.
A target such as “reduce latency by 40%” needs a starting point. I would ask which workload we mean, what the baseline is, and who can establish it. Where the answer is unknown, we can agree how to find out. That is part of defining the work.
Understand the environment someone will join
Capability becomes useful in a particular setting. I want to understand how decisions happen, how often priorities change, which dependencies slow the work, and what support the hiring manager can provide. Those conditions belong in the brief and in the candidate conversation.
Someone who thrives with broad authority may find a more interdependent role difficult. Another person may do their best work where specialist colleagues and established systems let them go deeper. Neither setting tells us, on its own, how strong the person is.
I would test the relevant conditions through examples: a decision made with incomplete information, a change negotiated across teams, or work handed over so others could use it. The candidate should also be able to examine the environment. A conversation with a future colleague can reveal more than a statement of company values.
Find relevant talent and earn the conversation
I have led searches across technology, advisory, engineering, and business functions. The craft is in recognising where someone has solved a relevant problem, including when their title or industry makes that experience less obvious.
I map target organisations, adjacent pools, and variations in role scope, then test those assumptions through research and conversations. Outreach needs a credible connection between the person’s work and the problem ahead. What I learn from the market changes where I look next.
I built Sourcing Compass to make that early reasoning visible: target companies, adjacent pools, less obvious sources, and related titles. It gives a recruiter and hiring leader something concrete to examine together before outreach begins.
A conversation can remain valuable when the current role is wrong for someone. I want to understand what would make a future conversation useful and ask permission to stay in touch. When an introduction makes sense, a short brief they can forward gives the other person a choice. Relationships deserve attention beyond the vacancy that brought us together.
For AI-related searches, I follow the same discipline through the work someone has built, their contribution, and how they test and improve it. Read more about my approach to finding and assessing AI builders.
Make the opportunity relevant to the person
I start with the problem, the possible contribution, and the conditions around the work. Then I listen. What caught their attention? What would they want to understand before exploring it further? Their questions help me see whether the work connects with what they want next.
Consider two candidates for the same engineering role. One wants greater authority over technical decisions. The other wants to deepen their craft with strong peers. I would explore decision rights with the first and the actual review and learning environment with the second. The role stays the same; the conversation becomes more relevant.
The first call also needs room for assessment, practical constraints, and the candidate’s questions. By its end, I want both of us to understand whether there is enough reason to continue and what the next conversation should resolve. A compelling pitch has to survive closer examination.
Understand how ability becomes impact
I look closely at how someone applies their skills: the problem they chose to solve, their own contribution, the decisions they made under constraints, and what happened as a result. Those details help me understand both capability and the conditions in which it will translate to this role.
One question I return to after discussing a project is:
What would you do now if you were to do this work from scratch again?
The answer opens up their learning and judgment. I follow what they would keep, what they would change, and which new evidence shaped that view. With an early-career candidate, a small project can reveal how they learn and use feedback. With a senior candidate, I also examine scope, trade-offs, influence, and what they personally owned. Specialist depth needs the right specialist assessor.
The same discipline matters in a debrief. I ask what observation supports a judgment and what we still need to learn. An unanswered question is different from a demonstrated gap. That distinction affects whether we need a focused follow-up or have enough evidence to decide.
Interview Evaluator extends that discipline into interviewer development. Built as part of my interviewer training program, it helps interviewers recognise their strengths, identify areas for improvement, and practise a more structured approach to assessment.
Be the advisor who keeps the search moving
Hiring managers need counsel they can act on. I bring a recommendation, its evidence, the trade-off it creates, and the decision needed. That can mean revisiting a must-have after market feedback, sharpening what an interview should test, or resolving disagreement about a candidate.
When a search stalls, I trace the constraint. An unclear hiring need, a narrow talent pool, repeated interviews, and delayed decisions call for different responses. A reset needs an agreed change and an owner. Adding candidates to an unresolved problem usually carries that problem forward.
I will challenge a decision when its reasoning does not hold up, including pressure to lower an agreed essential standard. The hiring manager owns the hiring decision. My responsibility is to make the evidence, risks, and alternatives clear, and to escalate concerns that exceed that decision-maker’s authority.
Help a candidate make a decision they believe in
Closing starts with understanding the person: what they want to build, what they need from their next environment, and what gives them pause. I carry that context through the search, prepare them for meaningful conversations, and help the hiring team address the questions that will shape their decision.
I ask myself: if we selected this person tomorrow, what would they still need to know or resolve before saying yes? The answer may concern authority, learning, compensation, working arrangements, or confidence in the hiring manager. It tells me which conversation matters next.
That includes being clear when the role cannot meet a priority. A respectful decision not to proceed can be the right outcome. When we do move forward, I want the commitments made during the search to reach the people responsible for onboarding and the work itself.
I built Offer Wizard to carry that understanding into the offer itself: what stood out about the person, their connection to the company, and the opportunity ahead. The artifact makes the final communication personal and grounded in the conversations that came before it.
Develop teams through the work
I coach recruiters, hiring leaders, and interviewers through the decisions a live search demands: how they frame the role, explain the market, distinguish an assessment claim from its evidence, and advise the hiring leader. I ask them to bring a recommendation, make their reasoning clear, and own the next action.
The aim is growing independence in judgment. Reviewing a difficult intake, an interview, or a candidate conversation gives someone a specific decision to learn from. After a hire joins, I want to revisit the success profile with the hiring leader: did the person receive the work, authority, and support we described? What contribution is becoming visible, and what needs to change? The answers help the new hire succeed and improve the next search.
The same standard guides how I use AI. Research and synthesis can create more room for recruiting, but generated claims need source checks. A polished summary cannot establish a candidate’s capability. Recruiters and hiring managers remain responsible for the evidence and the decision. The TA Operating System shows how that principle carries through the wider hiring workflow.
I have written more about this practice in the revised and expanded second edition of Raising the Bar.