Why good hiring decisions start before the first interview

The job advertisement goes live. The first applications come in. HR screens the CVs. The hiring department reviews them. Senior management gets involved when things become critical.

And that is often when the real discussion begins: Who exactly are we looking for? What is truly critical to success? Which requirements are essential – and which are simply wishful thinking?

For key positions, that is too late.

In a conversation with Laura Saloßnick from Signature, Sarah Böning, Founder and Managing Director of Talent Centric and former Head of Talent Acquisition at MHP (Porsche AG), describes a pattern familiar to many medium-sized companies: uncertainty in the market, uncertainty in business planning, and uncertainty in hiring decisions. Not because the people involved are doing a poor job, but because they often fail to align on a shared understanding of the role early enough.

The real question, therefore, is not: How can we attract applicants faster?

It is: Before conducting the first interview, have we truly understood what kind of person will succeed in this role?

Many companies see recruitment as a bottleneck when they receive either too few applications or too many unsuitable ones.

Both situations can be challenging. Some medium-sized companies struggle to attract sufficient interest. Others are overwhelmed with applications, yet still find that candidates are not the right fit. But the underlying problem often runs deeper: a lack of clarity about who the company is actually looking for.

Sarah Böning describes precisely this disconnect: Senior management, hiring departments, and HR each contribute their own perspectives. Everyone does their best within their area of responsibility. But that does not always result in a shared understanding of the ideal candidate.

Recruitment then quickly becomes a game of passing responsibility back and forth.

Senior management expects speed. The hiring department expects the right fit. HR expects a clear and reliable briefing. And candidates expect transparency.

Without this clarity, the recruitment process may be operationally underway, but it lacks strategic direction.

This is particularly risky when filling key positions. After all, these roles affect far more than workload distribution. They can determine a company's future competitiveness, leadership capabilities, organisational structure, and sometimes even its next stage of development.

Sarah Böning emphasises that filling critical roles requires an early decision about who needs to be involved.

Not every vacancy requires the same level of attention from senior management. But every genuinely critical position requires a shared understanding of why the role matters, what impact it should have, and how the selection process should be managed.

That may sound obvious. In practice, it often is not.

An example from the conversation illustrates this clearly: A company's managing director asks HR to recruit a Head of IT. The briefing is brief. HR publishes the job advertisement. Applications start coming in. Some candidates even appear suitable at first glance. But only then do senior management, the hiring department, and HR realise that crucial questions remain unanswered: What kind of IT leader will the company need over the next two to five years? Which responsibilities are truly critical to success? Which competencies are essential – and which would simply be nice to have?

Sarah Böning sums it up: "The thinking needs to happen beforehand."

The key point is that many recruitment escalations do not happen because the talent market is impossible. They happen because the right conversations were not held precisely enough at the outset.

A traditional job requirements profile often starts with a list.

Leadership experience. Industry knowledge. Strong communication skills. A hands-on mentality. Strategic thinking.

The problem is that while such lists may look professional, they often reveal very little about what the person actually needs to achieve.

Sarah Böning therefore takes a deliberately different approach. Rather than starting with a wish list, she first seeks to understand the business.

Which business unit is recruiting? What environment will the role operate in? What level of complexity will the person need to manage? What does the current organisational structure look like? And how is the organisation expected to develop over the coming years?

Only by understanding the current situation and the desired future state can companies determine which responsibilities, behaviours, and competencies are genuinely critical.

This is the difference between a job description and a robust job requirements analysis. "A wish list describes what you would like to have. A good job requirements analysis identifies what is likely to drive success."

For managing directors and HR leaders, this distinction is essential: Not every requirement carries equal weight. And not every buzzword is a meaningful selection criterion.

When everything is considered important, nothing is truly prioritised.

Few statements are heard more frequently in selection processes than: "I've been conducting interviews for 20 years. I can quickly tell whether someone is a good fit."

Sarah Böning does not dismiss this perspective. Quite the opposite: Understanding people, professional experience, and genuinely enjoying conversations are valuable qualities. No one needs to switch off their intuition. It would also be unrealistic to believe that this is possible.

But gut instinct alone is not a method.

What is needed is structure, clear assessment criteria, and comparability. Otherwise, experience can quickly turn into confidence without a sufficient factual basis.

Sarah Böning puts it pointedly: "Gut instinct alone isn't enough. Otherwise, we might as well roll the dice when making hiring decisions."

Unstructured interviews often feel effective. They are personal, flexible, and comfortable. But they carry the risk of placing too much weight on personal chemistry, first impressions, prestigious former employers, years of experience, or irrelevant details.

For medium-sized companies in particular, this can be costly.

A poor hiring decision does not just cost money. It costs time, trust, energy, and sometimes even a company's internal or external reputation. Especially in key positions, a wrong decision can trigger consequences that extend far beyond the individual role.

Sarah Böning identifies several criteria that are frequently given too much weight in practice.

Years of professional experience are one example. More years do not automatically mean more relevant experience. What matters is not simply how long someone has done something, but what that person has actually experienced, taken responsibility for, learned, and overcome.

Age is another problematic indicator. Too young, too old, too experienced, not experienced enough – such assumptions are not only legally sensitive in employment contexts but also weak indicators of professional suitability.

She takes a similarly critical view of personal hobbies, network connections, and prestigious employer names. Just because someone comes from a well-known company does not mean they will be effective in a different organisational context. And just because someone has been recommended through a personal network does not mean their suitability has been reliably assessed.

Particularly at senior levels, candidates are sometimes assessed less rigorously because their CV creates a strong impression of credibility.

But a CV is no substitute for an in-depth assessment of suitability.

The more valuable question is: Which experience is genuinely relevant to this particular role – and how can we assess it during the selection process?

Another important topic in the conversation is the use of AI in recruitment.

Sarah Böning sees significant potential. But not primarily where much of the current attention is focused: automated CV matching.

In her view, AI can be particularly valuable in three areas: job requirements analysis, job advertisements, and interview guides.

Because if the foundations are unclear, AI does not automatically improve the process. It may even amplify existing ambiguity. An imprecise requirements profile leads to an imprecise job advertisement, unclear assessment criteria, and ultimately evaluations that appear objective but may be fundamentally questionable.

When used effectively, however, AI can help structure ideas, prepare questions, refine requirements, and make interviews more comparable.

The actual decision, however, must remain a human responsibility.

Sarah Böning is clear on this point: Judgement and decision-making cannot simply be delegated to a machine. Particularly when someone may be leaving their current employment to accept a new role, personal connection, trust, and emotional commitment matter. "AI can support preparation, provide structure, and improve efficiency. But it cannot replace human responsibility for hiring decisions."

The conversation with Sarah Böning demonstrates that good hiring decisions do not begin in the interview. They begin with clarity long before it takes place.

Clarity about strategic direction. Clarity about the role. Clarity about genuine success criteria. Clarity about the selection process. Clarity about who needs to be involved and when.

This is precisely where external sparring partners can add value. Not as an additional layer of complexity, but as trusted counterparts who help organisations ask the right questions earlier, translate business needs into clear requirements, and make hiring decisions less dependent on chance.

Because medium-sized companies do not always need more recruitment activity. Sometimes, what they need first is greater clarity.

Sarah Böning is the Founder and Managing Director of Talent Centric. She works as a strategic hiring sparring partner for owner-managers of small and medium-sized companies across Germany, Austria, and Switzerland when critical positions need to be filled.

She brings more than 15 years of experience making recruitment decisions under significant pressure. As Head of Talent Acquisition at MHP (Porsche AG), she supported the company's growth from approximately 300 to 3,400 employees.

In her projects, she uses a structured recruitment roadmap that HR teams and hiring departments can put directly into practice. She also hosts the podcast "Noch schneller Mitarbeiter gewinnen, die bleiben" (Attract Employees Who Stay – Even Faster).

Learn more about Sarah Böning and Talent Centric: www.talentcentric.de