Writing a role brief we can actually source against
The five fields that decide whether a shortlist arrives in nine days or twenty-five.
ost delayed searches were decided before any sourcing happened. The brief went out, it looked complete, and it could not be acted on — because a brief that reads well to the person who wrote it can still be missing the handful of things a recruiter needs in order to choose between two candidates at eleven o'clock at night.
These are the five fields we will not start without, and what each of them is doing.
One: the first-quarter outcome
Not responsibilities. One paragraph on what will be true in ninety days that is not true now.
"Our ingestion pipeline is one person deep and that person is leaving in March; in ninety days someone else can run it, has documented the failure modes, and has moved the two worst jobs onto the new scheduler." That tells a recruiter what to look for, tells a candidate why the job exists, and — the part people underestimate — tends to reveal that the role you advertised is not the role you need.
Write this first. Several of the other fields answer themselves once it exists.
Two: three non-negotiables
Every brief arrives with a list of eleven essential skills. Almost none of them are essential.
Pick three, at most four, where a candidate without them cannot do the first-quarter outcome. Everything else moves to preferences. This is not about lowering the bar; it is arithmetic. Each additional hard filter multiplies against the others, and a list of eleven describes a population small enough that you are no longer hiring, you are waiting.
A useful test on each one: if a strong candidate lacked this, could they have it in six weeks? If yes, it is a preference.
Three: the band, fully loaded
A number, in pesos, with statutory contributions, the 13th month and any night differential already inside it.
A brief with no band is a brief that cannot be sourced against, because the first question any serious candidate asks is the one we would have to decline to answer. A brief with an unrealistic band is worse, because it fails later and more expensively.
If you do not know the band, say that and we will benchmark it before sourcing starts — that is a two-day exercise, not a reason to delay.
Four: the overlap you actually need
Hours, not a region. "Four hours with London" is a brief. "Must align with UK business hours" is nine hours and a night differential, which is a different role at a different price.
Ask what genuinely needs to be live. In most engineering roles it is a stand-up, some pairing and the occasional decision — four hours covers it comfortably. Where the honest answer is a full US Pacific day, that is fine too, but it needs to be in the brief and in the offer.
Five: who decides
A name. Not a committee, not "the team".
This is the field most often left blank and the one that costs the most days. We have watched strong shortlists sit for two weeks because nobody was sure whether the decision belonged to the engineering manager or the department head, and watched both candidates accept other offers while that was resolved.
Alongside the name, two numbers: how quickly feedback comes back after an interview, and when the slots are. Agree those at intake and the rest of the process is almost mechanical.
What a thin brief actually costs
Not a worse shortlist — a slower one, and the difference compounds.
With the five fields, the first shortlist is an assessment of three people you can act on. Without them, the first shortlist is a question: is this the kind of person you meant? That round trip costs roughly a week, by which point the strongest candidate on the list is usually in final stages somewhere else.
The brief is ninety minutes of your time. It is the highest-leverage ninety minutes in the entire engagement.