The brief is the first assessment
A hiring team that cannot agree on outcomes will struggle to agree on candidates.
Many searches start with a list of traits: sector experience, years in a role, pedigree, a familiar title. A better starting point is to write down what must be different twelve months after the hire. Has a new channel opened? Has credit policy improved? Has a partnership become a repeatable revenue stream? That answer changes who belongs on the shortlist.
Separate evidence from preference
Try three columns: outcomes, evidence and constraints. An outcome might be “build a bank-partnership pipeline”; evidence might be examples of negotiating and launching partnerships with a similar complexity; a constraint might be regulatory familiarity or location. A past employer’s logo is neither an outcome nor evidence by itself.
Ask what a candidate actually controlled
A role can look impressive because the institution has a large balance sheet or a strong brand. Probe the person’s own decisions: which partners did they originate, what trade-offs did they make, what broke, and what did they change? If a candidate cannot separate personal contribution from team results, the hiring team still has work to do.
Agree before the first interview
Choose four or five criteria, write what strong evidence looks like for each, and decide who will assess it. Otherwise the process becomes a string of unstructured impressions, and the loudest interviewer may decide by default.
The role is not a collection of adjectives. It is a set of outcomes with evidence attached.
A sharper brief does not guarantee the right hire. It gives the team a way to test the fit and explain its decision.