Eight pages of candidate profile. But can they do the job?

One person, plenty of adjectives

The candidate is a “resilient, results-driven leader with excellent communication skills and a strong stakeholder mindset”.

Lovely.

Can she also handle a difficult shift, challenge a client or guide a team through a staffing shortage?

There may be a clue on page seven. Just after “hands-on mentality” and before “entrepreneurial DNA”.

Welcome to the corner of recruitment consulting where a professional introduction apparently requires rendering a person linguistically unrecognisable.

And where some processes seem designed to achieve one thing above all: explain the fee.

Expensive is, first of all, a price

Good recruitment consulting can legitimately cost money. Difficult searches, strong networks, informed conversations and honest assessments have value.

But a high price does not prove that value.

For me, the problem starts when the provider's own cost structure becomes its argument for quality: dedicated researchers, high fixed salaries, multiple handovers and elaborate presentations.

That can make sense. It can also mean that a sizeable operation is busy producing relatively little additional insight.

As a client, I would like to know: am I paying for better access to suitable people and sound selection? Or financing a process that has confused its size with its necessity?

An organisational chart is not a successful hire.

Research is valuable. Busywork is not.

A difficult vacancy cannot always be solved with two search terms and a friendly message. Good researchers map markets, spot connections and find people who would otherwise remain out of reach.

That is a service with value.

It becomes less convincing when information is copied repeatedly, profiles are passed between departments and the same basic questions are asked again and again.

The candidate tells their career story three times. Internally, this is presumably called “multi-stage quality assurance”. To the candidate, it feels more like nobody took notes.

Modern recruitment should ask a simple question here: which step improves the decision, and which mainly exists because it always has?

The candidate report as a literary genre

I find six- to eight-page candidate reports particularly fascinating when a thorough reading answers surprisingly little.

Lots of adjectives. Few verifiable examples. A carefully polished CV, decorated with qualities that would probably suit the next candidate just as well.

An exaggerated example: “Outstanding change capability in dynamic corporate environments.”

Translation: the person changed employers twice. Why, with what outcome, and under what circumstances? That would have been the interesting information.

A good candidate report is allowed to be long. If every page adds insight.

It should explain what someone demonstrably can do, whether their motivation makes sense, which conditions fit and which questions remain open. That includes doubts and potential conflicts.

A report in which every candidate is an excellent fit may primarily document its author's interest in making a sale.

Personality tests with a patina

I am similarly sceptical of personality screening used because it is familiar and looks professional.

A method is not bad simply because it is old. But years in a presentation folder do not make it informative either.

Which specific question should it answer? How robust is the interpretation? What does the result have to do with the actual job?

If the response consists mainly of colour codes, personality labels and very confident explanations, I become sceptical.

The client needs someone who can do the work. Not a particularly harmonious colour gradient.

Personality beyond the CV means looking more closely

At SEARCH4, our approach is personality beyond the CV.

To me, that does not mean ignoring qualifications. Being likeable does not replace essential professional competence.

It means not reducing someone to job titles, employers and the quality of their application documents.

How does this person handle responsibility? What motivates them? How do they describe a mistake? Which working conditions do they need? And does that fit the company as it actually exists, including its problems?

That takes concrete situations and good follow-up questions.

“I am resilient” is a claim. A clear account of a difficult situation provides something to assess.

Incidentally, this applies to employers too. Wanting independent people while personally controlling every decision is not a matching problem. It is a contradiction.

Twenty invitations sent. Still personal.

In the time it takes me to send twenty people a link to our video AI interview, I cannot conduct twenty personal interviews.

My calendar has a surprisingly conservative attitude towards physics.

With video AI, several candidates can complete their first interview round independently. We do not need to coordinate twenty individual appointments and personally conduct every initial interview. That saves time and costs during shortlisting. At SEARCH4, we pass that benefit on to our clients.

Of course, we still need to engage with the answers afterwards. The saving comes from a more efficient process, not from paying less attention.

Then the predictable objection arrives: “But you lose the personal touch!”

Why, exactly?

The questions make an interview personal

We supply the questions to the AI. We decide what we want to learn about a person.

Alongside professional topics, questions might include: “Where would you like to travel next?” Or: “Which personal achievement are you particularly proud of — if you would like to share it?”

Answers can offer insights into interests, personal goals and experiences that do not fit on a CV. They are conversation starters, not covert suitability tests. Preferring Norway to Mallorca does not make anyone a better site manager.

Personality beyond the CV means giving people room to show something of themselves. A well-designed video AI interview can create that space too.

Anyone categorically denying these conversations any personal quality should at least have experienced one. An opinion rarely becomes better informed by relying entirely on hearsay.

Shit in, shit out. Consultants included.

Of course an AI interview can be superficial.

A human interview can manage that too. Without even buying a software licence.

“What are your strengths?” — “I am committed, a team player and solution-oriented.”

Wonderful. We have successfully translated the job advertisement back to ourselves.

When questions merely outline the desired answer, that is often exactly what we get. Professionals and executives are not foolish. They recognise the performance expected of them.

Structure itself is not the problem. Good structure makes interviews more comparable. The problem is interchangeable questions, predictable answers and an assessment that confuses self-presentation with substance.

Shit in, shit out applies equally to AI and a consultant in a tailored suit.

What matters is relevant questions, concrete examples and a critical review of the answers. What remains unclear? What sounds rehearsed? What should we explore in the next personal conversation?

Good shortlisting creates time for the conversations that matter

Our video AI interviewer handles an initial conversation round. That provides a basis for more focused personal interviews afterwards.

We want to spend our time where human assessment, follow-up questions and getting to know someone make the greatest difference.

Anyone who insists on personally handling every initial step is free to do so. They should simply be able to explain the additional benefit to the client.

“We have always done that personally” describes a process.

It has yet to make a convincing case for a high fee.

How employers should assess recruitment consultants

When choosing a recruitment partner, I would ask five questions:

• What exactly do we get for our fee? Services and responsibilities should be clearly described.
• How is suitability assessed? Meaningful examples help more than a collection of attractive adjectives.
• What critical information will we receive? Advice should also identify reasons against hiring someone.
• How do candidates experience the process? Repetition, waiting times and unclear communication are part of service quality.
• Where does technology actually improve the work? New software alone is not a better process.

That does not make the cheapest provider the best. Nor does it make the most expensive one the best.

A fee needs a service behind it. Not a defence speech.

I want recruitment consulting to explain its value through understandable results: access to suitable people, better decision-making information, clear communication and a process both candidates and employers can take seriously.

If that takes eight pages: fine.

If two precise pages and an informed conversation achieve more: equally fine.

In my view, the future of recruitment consulting depends on how well it brings people and work together. The thickness of the candidate folder is unlikely to be a core competency.

Looking for a recruitment partner who can explain the service without first gilding the fee? Let us talk about your next hire.