Where Hiring Usually Breaks

Most hiring problems come from the same places:

 

  • roles are loosely defined
  • “nice to have” becomes “must have” mid-search
  • different stakeholders assess candidates differently
  • shortlists grow, but decisions don’t move

 

More activity doesn’t fix this.

Clearer decisions do.

WHAT WE DO DIFFERENTLY

We Reduce the Decision, Not Inflate the Pipeline

 

We don’t aim to show effort.
We aim to make a decision possible.

 

That means:

  • fewer profiles, not more
  • clear reasons why someone is or isn’t right
  • no speculative candidates added “just in case”

 

If a candidate doesn’t move the decision forward, they don’t belong in the process.

WHY OUR JUDGEMENT IS DIFFERENT

Experience on Both Sides Matters

 

Every recruiter at Substance has:

 

  • performed in agency environments
  • hired and delivered in in-house roles
  • worked under real headcount, budget, and delivery pressure

 

We’ve sat in the seat where a bad hire becomes your problem — not just a placement.

 

That experience changes how we screen.

HOW WE HANDLE FEEDBACK (PRACTICALLY)

Feedback is Required to Keep the Search Viable

Good candidates don’t wait indefinitely.

 

To keep a search moving, we need:

  • clear feedback
  • timely signals
  • decisions, even when the answer is “no”

 

We manage this actively — with candidates and with stakeholders — so the role doesn’t lose credibility in the market.

WHEN THIS APPROACH WORKS (AND WHEN IT DOESN’T)

This Works When

  • the role is difficult, stalled, or sensitive
  • there’s little room for a wrong hire
  • fewer hires carry more weight
  • internal alignment matters

 

This Does Not Work When

  • speed is the only goal
  • volume is the metric
  • requirements change weekly
  • the role isn’t properly approved

 

That’s not a criticism — it’s a fit question.