Map adjacent candidate pools by asking where people solve comparable problems under comparable constraints. Expanding a search should preserve the essential work while questioning assumptions about industry, title, or employer.
This is especially useful when a narrow target list keeps producing people who have the right labels but the wrong responsibilities.
Translate the role into problems
Replace “must come from our category” with a description of the work: integrating unreliable external systems, selling to a committee, operating latency-sensitive services, or explaining a complex product to a new buyer.
Then identify the context that genuinely matters. Regulatory exposure, physical hardware, buyer behavior, and operational consequences can make two superficially similar jobs quite different.
Build an adjacency map
| Target problem | Adjacent setting | Transferable evidence | Gap to test |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unreliable external integrations | Other products connecting heterogeneous systems | Recovery design and dependency handling | Familiarity with this integration environment |
| Complex buyer alignment | Different products with multi-stakeholder decisions | Discovery and internal consensus work | Understanding of the new buyer’s workflow |
| Resource-constrained delivery | Smaller teams in another category | Prioritization and hands-on execution | Relevant technical or domain depth |
These are illustrative search directions, not claims that any background guarantees fit.
Distinguish a gap from a disqualifier
For each adjacent pool, decide which knowledge can reasonably be learned after joining and which must be demonstrated before entry. Ask who will support the learning and whether the role has time for it.
A startup cannot describe everything as trainable while offering no support. Conversely, requiring a familiar tool when the underlying skill transfers can shrink the search unnecessarily.
Test the map with real evidence
Review a small set of profiles from each proposed pool. Ask whether their actual work supports the hypothesis. Do not broaden outreach indefinitely based only on plausible job titles.
When the evidence is weak, revise the map: perhaps the comparable problem lives in a different function, or the apparent similarity hides a different level of ownership.
Share the revised reasoning with recruiters so they can make informed judgments without sending every unusual profile for permission.
Use essential versus trainable requirements to set the boundary and transferable industry experience to assess candidates. Discuss a difficult search with Refery.