How We Approach Difficult Hires.

Some roles are hard not because of seniority — but because expectations are unclear, talent is scarce, or the business cannot afford to get it wrong.

Difficulty Is Rarely About Seniority

We work on roles across levels — junior, mid, and senior — that are difficult for different reasons:

 

  • niche skill combinations
  • unattractive mandates or locations
  • tight budgets under high expectations
  • stalled or failed searches
  • internal misalignment on what “good” looks like

 

Titles don’t make roles hard.
Decisions do.

Clarity Before Search

Before we speak to a single candidate, we work with hiring managers and TA to clarify:

 

  • what problem this role must solve
  • which trade-offs are acceptable
  • what success looks like after 6–12 months
  • what will not be prioritised

 

Most weak shortlists come from weak role definition.


We fix that first.

Disciplined Screening, Not Volume

Every candidate is screened directly by recruiters with proven agency track records and in-house hiring experience.

 

Our team has delivered in agency environments and later succeeded in internal roles — which means we assess candidates with a realistic understanding of:

 

  • on-the-job performance
  • stakeholder expectations
  • delivery under pressure

 

We do not optimise for pipeline size.
We optimise for decision quality.

End-to-End Ownership

Searches are handled hands-on, from brief to offer.

 

There are:

  • no junior handoffs
  • no account layers
  • no disappearing acts

 

The person defining the role is the same person engaging the market, screening candidates, and managing the process through closure.

 

Accountability is direct.

Timely Feedback Is Part of the Process

Good candidates disengage quickly when feedback is unclear or delayed.

 

We ask for:

  • early alignment
  • timely feedback on shortlists and interviews
  • clear signals, even when the answer is “no”
  • In return, we manage candidate expectations carefully and protect your employer reputation throughout the process.

 

Hiring works best when judgment and feedback flow both ways.

When Companies Typically Engage Us

  • When a role is hard to fill, regardless of seniority
  • When the cost of a wrong hire is high
  • When internal teams need external judgment, not more CVs

 

If speed or volume is the only goal, we are usually not the right partner.

 

What This Approach Delivers

  • fewer candidates, stronger shortlists
  • clearer hiring decisions
  • less interview fatigue
  • better long-term fit

 

It is not designed for:

  • mass hiring
  • speculative searches
  • checkbox-driven recruitment

Built by Recruiters Who’ve Sat on Both Sides.

Experience on both sides leads to better judgment — and better hiring decisions.


Proven on Both Sides of the Table

Every recruiter at Substance has:
- built a track record in agency environments
-delivered outcomes in in-house hiring roles
-worked under real business constraints — headcount limits, budgets, timelines

This dual experience shapes how we assess roles, candidates, and trade-offs — realistically, not theoretically.


Judgment Shaped by Real Hiring Decisions

We don’t screen in isolation.

Our recruiters have:
-hired into their own teams
-partnered directly with business leaders
-managed hiring decisions under scrutiny

This gives us a clear sense of what actually works once someone is in the role — beyond what looks good on paper.


Direct Accountability, Not Layered Delivery

Searches are led hands-on.

The same recruiter:
-defines the role
-engages the market
-screens candidates
-manages the process through offer

There are no junior handovers, no sales layers, and no dilution of accountability — because difficult hires require ownership.

hear from our clients

Learn why our clients consistently choose us to hire for their needs