Use the first candidate slate to test whether the recruiter and hiring manager share the same interpretation of the role. Give feedback against concrete requirements, identify where the brief was unclear, and agree on what changes before the next introductions.
Calibration should improve the search. It should not become an excuse to move the requirements after every candidate.
A real Refery calibration: interest was not assumed
In one engineering engagement, Refery drafted the initial brief from the founder conversation, then worked through the hiring team's own descriptions. The next step was a set of example profiles grouped by the work the team needed.
Each profile explained the possible fit. The set was explicitly for calibration: candidate interest was unconfirmed, and the client's selection did not itself contact anyone. Refery asked the team to say whom it would want to meet and why.
This separates two decisions that are easy to confuse: does the hiring team want to explore the profile, and does the candidate want to explore the company? A positive answer to the first does not answer the second.
Later recommendations added motivation, practical fit and remaining interview questions. Read the anonymized search story. It describes the engagement's process, not a claim that every example profile became an interview or hire.
Review candidates against the same brief
For each introduction, separate demonstrated fit, missing evidence, and a confirmed mismatch. A résumé that does not mention a skill is different from evidence that the candidate lacks it.
| Feedback category | Useful wording |
|---|---|
| Relevant evidence | Has owned the type of customer deployment described in the brief |
| Missing evidence | Need to understand their personal implementation responsibility |
| Requirement mismatch | The candidate wants a management mandate; this opening is hands-on |
| Brief problem | We did not explain the expected customer-facing work clearly |
Avoid vague feedback such as “not exciting” or “too junior” without naming the responsibility at issue.
Look for a shared pattern
If several candidates miss the same requirement, investigate whether the requirement is visible in the brief, whether the recruiter understood it, and whether the target search is likely to find it.
Do not conclude that the market lacks suitable people from one small slate. Early introductions provide evidence about the search approach, not a representative market study.
Hold a short calibration discussion
Choose one introduction that appears close and one that illustrates the main mismatch. Discuss them using the same criteria.
Use the Refery example above as a process pattern, not a profile to copy: give a reason for the possible fit, mark interest accurately, and ask the manager for a requirement-specific response. Adapt the evidence questions to your role.
The change is specific enough to act on.
Document what changed
Update the role brief with a date and a short change note. Distinguish a clarification from a new requirement.
If the company has materially changed the job, tell active candidates and recruiting partners. Do not silently reject people against criteria that were absent when they entered the process.
Agree on the next learning question
Ask the recruiter to explain what they will adjust and what evidence the next introductions should provide. Keep the focus on fit and useful information, not a submission quota.
For ongoing coordination, use the weekly recruiting update template. For assigning and managing several partners, see how to work with multiple recruiters.