When a role is difficult to fill, the first instinct is often to add more requirements. Another credential, another adjacent skill, another year of experience. The brief gets longer, but the decision does not get clearer. Strong candidates may opt out because they cannot see what matters most, while interviewers assess different versions of the job.
Start instead with the work. What must this person make possible in their first year? Which problems will they own, and which relationships will help them succeed? Separate the capabilities that are essential on day one from the skills a good hire can learn. That distinction gives candidates a more honest picture and gives the hiring team a usable set of criteria.
A useful brief also names the context: why the role exists now, how decisions get made, and what support is available. Share the trade-offs openly. If pace matters more than process-building, say so. If the team needs someone to create structure, make that explicit. Specific context attracts better-informed interest than a broad list of adjectives.
Before the search begins, ask each interviewer to describe what strong evidence would look like. Agreeing on that evidence helps conversations stay consistent and makes feedback easier to compare. The result is not simply a shorter job description. It is a shared understanding of the work, communicated clearly enough for the right people to recognize themselves in it.