I could make you right or wrong for a role. Should I?
I once heard a colleague say they could make any candidate right or wrong for a role. The uncomfortable part is that they weren't wrong. Every experienced recruiter has that skill. We know which strengths to put in front of a client and which gaps to play down. We know how to frame a career break, a short stint or a step sideways. We know how to make a shortlist tell a story.
The question isn't whether we can. It's whether we should.
How I do it instead
My approach is a little different. I tell my clients what I actually think, including the parts that don't fit neatly.
Sometimes that sounds like: "I think this candidate can do the role, but for this reason, they may not be right for it." Other times it's the opposite: "Technically, they're a little light. But they'd be a great fit for the team, and the gaps are trainable."
Both are honest. Both give the client what they need to make a real decision, rather than a decision I've quietly made for them. And both mean that when a candidate starts, there are no surprises on either side.
Bias exists. Sorry if that offends.
Bias and discrimination exist in hiring. That's not a controversial statement, it's a fact. Age discrimination is against the law in Australia, and it still happens.
I see it at both ends of the market. Graduates get ruled out because they have no experience, for roles that are meant to be where you get experience. Experienced candidates get ruled out as "overqualified", or because someone has decided they'll get bored and leave. In over a decade of recruiting, I've never once asked a candidate what year they graduated. It tells me nothing about whether they can do the job. It tells me a lot about how old they are.
To be fair, a lot of bias isn't deliberate. Some of it is unconscious. Some of it is confirmation bias: the hiring manager forms an impression in the first few minutes, then spends the rest of the interview hearing the answers that prove them right. Most people would be horrified to think they're doing it. They're still doing it.
And sometimes, it isn't bias
Here's the part candidates don't always want to hear. Sometimes you're not right for the role, and it has nothing to do with bias.
You might think you're perfect for it. On paper, you might be. But the reason you're not the right fit might not be anything you can point to. It might be the way the team works, the pace, the personalities, or what the manager needs from this hire that they couldn't put in the ad.
If we only placed people based on what they were technically capable of, there'd be no culture and no teams. Just a group of people with the right skills, sitting next to each other. Yet culture is one of the main things people tell me they want from their next role. They want a good culture. The catch is that what's good for one person won't be for another.
"Young and thrusting"
One of my old directors used to describe certain teams as "young and thrusting". I'm fairly sure it didn't mean what he thought it meant. But I knew exactly what he was getting at: a team that moves fast, socialises together and is mostly at the start of their careers.
That's where assumptions creep in. Put a highly experienced candidate in front of that team, and the questions start. Will they want to step back into a role like this? Will they take direction from a manager ten years younger? Will they fit in at Friday drinks?
Some of those questions are fair. Some of them are assumptions dressed up as fit. The difference is whether anyone actually asks the candidate. My job is to ask, and to tell the client what the candidate says, not what the client is assuming.
What works for you changes
Here's the other side of it. As your career develops, you work out what works for you, and it's often not what worked at the start.
The teams I was attracted to early in my career are not the teams I'd want now. Not to put it bluntly, but I don't want to socialise after work. I want to go home to my family. Monday morning meetings that could have been an email? No thanks.
That doesn't make those teams bad. For someone at the start of their career, a social, fast-moving team can be exactly what they need. It's just not right for me anymore, and I know that about myself.
So sometimes the assumption about an experienced candidate turns out to be true. They might not want that team. But that's for them to decide, not for someone else to decide on their behalf. The more you know about what works for you now, the better you'll be at spotting the right team, and the easier it is to say so early, before anyone has to guess.
The market is the market
None of this is an argument for how hiring should work. It's how it does work. Everyone has to navigate the market as it stands right now, and there's no point wishing it was different, because it isn't.
So, if you're a candidate:
Know what works for you now, not what worked five years ago, and look for the team that fits.
Address the assumption before it's made. If you're stepping back, say why, and say it early. "I've done the management role, and I want to get back to the work I enjoy" changes the whole conversation.
If you're a graduate, stop apologising for having no experience. Talk about what you've done, what you've learnt and how quickly you pick things up.
When you don't get the role, ask what the gap was. Sometimes it's something you can work on. Sometimes it's fit, and fit isn't a verdict on you.
Work with a recruiter who'll tell you the truth, even when it's not what you want to hear.
And if you're hiring:
Notice when "not the right fit" is really "not what I pictured".
Ask the candidate about the thing you're worried about, rather than deciding the answer for them.
Expect your recruiter to tell you what they really think. If everyone on the shortlist sounds perfect, someone's making them right for the role.
I could make someone right or wrong for a role. I'd rather tell you the truth and let you decide.