Start from results, not from a list of tasks
An old job description usually holds a list of tasks: lead the team, prepare the budget, report to the board of directors. That list says what a person does, not what must change because they are there. A good briefing starts from a different question: after two years, what should be better in this company because this person is here?
A good answer is specific and can be checked. For example, not 'improve operational performance', but 'reduce delivery delays at two plants and prepare successors for three department head positions'. From a result like that, the competencies needed almost write themselves.
Separate binding requirements from preferences
Almost every briefing contains a requirements list that is too long. If everything is treated as mandatory, no one meets it, or the search narrows for no reason. Divide it into three groups:
- Binding requirements. Without these, the person cannot do the role, for example a particular professional licence, experience leading a unit with profit and loss responsibility, or the ability to work in a particular region.
- What can be trained. What a fundamentally strong person can learn in six to twelve months, for example specific industry knowledge or internal systems.
- Preferences. Things that are nice to have but must not rule out a candidate who is strong on the two groups above.
One important note: requirements must relate to the work. Criteria unrelated to the ability to do the role, such as age or gender, are not sound requirements. Beyond the risk to the company's reputation, such criteria screen out people who may be the best fit.
Describe the context as it is
Senior candidates choose with their eyes open. They will ask why the position is vacant, what the biggest challenge is, and what the relationship with their superior and the board is like. If the briefing contains only the company's best side, the firm has nothing to answer honestly with, and the candidate will find the reality at the final stage, when it costs the most.
Discuss the uncomfortable things: a position left by someone who struggled, a structure not yet in order, conflicting expectations from shareholders, or a culture in the middle of change. A good firm knows how to convey these without revealing secrets unnecessarily.
Decide who decides
One of the biggest sources of delay is a decision that turns out to involve more people than was said at the start. Write it down clearly: who takes part in the interviews, who has the final say, and how long each stage may take. Strong candidates do not wait long. They have other options.
Agree how progress will be reported
- How often you will hear from the firm, and in what form.
- When the first candidate will be presented, and what number is reasonable.
- What counts as a sign that the mandate needs to be reviewed, for example if after a set number of weeks no candidate meets the binding requirements.
- How confidentiality will be kept, including who inside the company may know.
A good briefing does not make the search easier. It makes the search honest.
Common mistakes
- Copying the old job description without asking whether the role is still the same.
- Demanding a combination of experience that barely exists in the market, then wondering why there are no candidates.
- Hiding the company's problems, so the candidate is surprised at the final stage.
- Leaving the final decision unclear, so the process stalls on the desk of someone who was not involved from the start.
- Treating the briefing as finished after one meeting. A role often becomes clearer once the first few candidates have been met, and the briefing needs to be adjusted.
An example of a weak and a strong briefing
Imagine a manufacturing company looking for a head of operations. The weak briefing reads: find an operations director with fifteen years of experience, who has led a large team, understands lean and works hard. Almost nothing here helps the firm tell a suitable candidate from an unsuitable one.
The strong briefing explains that the company has two plants with a high rate of delivery delays, that the previous leader left because of a difference of view with the board about investment in machinery, and that within two years the company wants to reduce delays and prepare two department heads for promotion. From this it is clear what the candidate must prove: experience improving operations that are already running, the ability to persuade a board, and a record of developing people.
Building the competency list from the results
Once the two-year results are written down, ask for each one: what ability is needed for this to happen? Reducing delays takes the ability to analyse processes and change habits on the plant floor. Persuading the board takes the ability to build a financial argument. Developing people takes the habit of giving feedback and delegating. A competency list that comes from results is far more useful than a list of general traits.
Questions firms usually ask in a briefing session
- What would make you call this placement a success after two years, and what would make you call it a failure?
- Who held this position before, what did they do well, and what did they not?
- Where is your ideal candidate likely to be working now, and why would they be willing to move?
- What can you offer besides compensation, and what can you not change?
- Who must not know that this search is under way?
The last question is often missed, yet it determines how the firm approaches people and stores documents. State clearly who may and may not know about the search.
A note to put into practice
Prepare one page with five parts: the two-year results, three binding requirements, what can be trained, the context as it is, and the decision path. Share it with everyone who will help assess candidates before the search begins, and ask them to mark any part they disagree with. Disagreements that surface at this stage are far cheaper than disagreements at the offer stage.
