Why chasing the perfect candidate could be costing you the right one.

Ten years of experience. Strategic thinking. Hands-on delivery. Exceptional stakeholder management. Five niche technical skills. Available immediately.

Oh, and the salary? Ideally below market.

Sound familiar?

Somewhere along the way, the search for the right candidate became a search for the perfect candidate. Someone who ticks every box, brings exactly the right experience, fits seamlessly into the team and can hit the ground running from day one.

In recruitment, we call them unicorn candidates. And while we'd all love to find one, there's a reason they're called unicorns.

Sometimes, the person you're searching for doesn't actually exist.

So, as part of our October HR Scaries, we're looking at one of recruitment's most familiar nightmares: the hiring brief that just keeps growing, the perfect candidate who never quite materialises, and the great people who get overlooked along the way.

How does a unicorn candidate search begin?

Usually, with perfectly reasonable intentions.

A business identifies a gap in its team. The hiring manager puts together a list of the skills and experience they'd ideally like. Other stakeholders get involved, each adding their own requirements.

Before long, the job description has become a wish list.

The successful candidate needs to be strategic but happy to handle the administration. They need experience leading teams but must also be comfortable working independently. They should bring fresh ideas while knowing the industry inside out.

And, of course, they'd ideally have done the exact same job somewhere else.

Individually, these requirements might make sense. Together, they can create a candidate profile that's incredibly difficult to find, particularly when salary expectations, location and availability are added to the equation.

The problem isn't having high standards. It's when everything becomes a non-negotiable.

The hidden cost of holding out for the perfect hire

When organisations become fixated on finding a candidate who meets every requirement, the recruitment process can drag on much longer than anticipated.

Strong candidates are interviewed but ruled out because they're missing one particular skill. Shortlists are revisited. Job advertisements are rewritten. The role remains vacant while the search continues.

Meanwhile, the work still needs to get done.

Existing employees absorb additional responsibilities, projects are delayed and managers spend more time covering gaps instead of focusing on their own priorities.

There's also the opportunity cost of passing over candidates who could have been brilliant in the role with a little development.

And here's the frustrating part: even if that perfect candidate eventually appears, there's no guarantee they'll accept the offer.

They might have competing opportunities, different salary expectations or simply decide the role isn't right for them.

The longer the wish list, the smaller the talent pool.

Are you hiring for what you need, or what you've always had?

One of the biggest traps in recruitment is assuming that the next person needs to look exactly like the last.

If a previous employee had a particular qualification, industry background or combination of skills, those attributes can quickly become the benchmark for their replacement.

But roles evolve. Teams change. Business priorities shift.

What made someone successful in a position three years ago might not be what the organisation needs most today.

This is particularly relevant in HR, where roles increasingly require professionals to balance commercial thinking, stakeholder relationships, technology, compliance and organisational change.

Rather than starting with a list of everything the previous person did, it can be more useful to ask:

• What does this role actually need to achieve over the next 12 months?

• Which capabilities are essential from day one?

• What could reasonably be learned on the job?

• Are we prioritising specific industry experience when transferable skills could be just as valuable?

• Does our salary range reflect the level of experience we're asking for?

Sometimes, revisiting those questions reveals that the ideal candidate looks quite different from the original brief.

The difference between must-haves and nice-to-haves

Not every requirement should be negotiable.

Some roles genuinely need specific qualifications, technical expertise or regulatory knowledge. An experienced Employee Relations specialist, for example, may need to demonstrate strong knowledge of Australian employment legislation and the ability to navigate complex workplace matters.

But does that same person also need five years of experience in your exact industry, familiarity with your preferred HRIS and an established network in your particular sector?

Maybe. But maybe not.

The key is understanding which requirements are critical to success and which are preferences.

A useful exercise is to divide your hiring criteria into three categories:

Non-negotiables: The qualifications, experience or capabilities someone genuinely needs to perform the role safely and effectively.

Developable skills: Capabilities a strong candidate could build with training, support or exposure.

Nice-to-haves: The additional experience that would be valuable, but shouldn't automatically rule someone out.

It sounds simple, but making these distinctions early can dramatically change the conversations you have with candidates.

Instead of asking, "Do they tick every box?", you start asking, "Can this person deliver what we actually need?"

Don't underestimate transferable skills

Some of the strongest hires aren't necessarily the ones with the most obvious CVs.

A candidate moving from one industry to another might bring fresh perspectives, different approaches to problem-solving and experience navigating challenges your organisation hasn't encountered before.

Someone stepping into their first leadership role might demonstrate stronger potential than a candidate who's held the title for years but hasn't continued to develop.

And an HR professional who hasn't worked with your exact systems might still have the analytical skills, curiosity and adaptability to pick them up quickly.

Of course, potential alone isn't enough for every position. Some roles require deep expertise and immediate capability.

But when organisations only consider candidates who have already done the exact job, in the exact industry, using the exact systems, they risk overlooking people who could bring something genuinely valuable.

Experience tells you what someone has done. Capability helps you understand what they could do next.

The best hiring decisions consider both.

What if your unicorn actually exists?

Let's say you've found them.

They have the experience, the technical skills, the industry knowledge and the personality fit. They're available at exactly the right time.

There's just one small problem.

Their salary expectations are $30,000 above your budget.

This is where the unicorn search can become particularly challenging.

If the market consistently tells you that candidates with your desired experience are expecting more than the role offers, it may be time to reconsider the brief.

That doesn't necessarily mean increasing the salary. Sometimes the budget is fixed, and that's a legitimate business constraint.

But something may need to give.

Could the responsibilities be narrowed? Could the role be structured differently? Could you hire someone with slightly less experience and invest in their development?

The important thing is recognising the trade-offs rather than continuing to search for a candidate who meets senior-level expectations at a more junior salary.

How to break the unicorn curse

The good news? You don't need to lower your standards to widen your talent pool.

You just need to be clear about what really matters.

Start by defining what success looks like in the role, rather than building a job description around an idealised candidate.

Involve key stakeholders early so you're not adding new requirements halfway through the recruitment process.

Be realistic about remuneration, flexible where appropriate on background and experience, and open to candidates who can demonstrate the right capabilities in a different context.

And importantly, listen to market feedback.

If you're consistently hearing that candidates with a particular skill set are difficult to find, or that your salary range isn't aligned with expectations, that's useful information.

It doesn't mean the recruitment process has failed. It means you have an opportunity to adjust your approach before spending another three months searching for someone who may never appear.

The perfect candidate might not be the best candidate

There's nothing wrong with knowing what you want in a new hire. A clear brief is one of the foundations of a successful recruitment process.

But there's a difference between being selective and being unrealistic.

The best candidate isn't always the person who ticks the most boxes. Sometimes it's the person with the right foundations, the curiosity to learn and the potential to grow alongside your organisation.

So, before you send your next hiring brief into the world, ask yourself one question:

Are we looking for the right person, or are we looking for a unicorn?

Because while unicorns might be magical, a great hire who actually exists is probably a better investment.

Struggling to find the right person for your team? At Samuels Donegan, we work with organisations to understand what they really need, benchmark expectations against the HR talent market and connect them with people who can make a genuine impact. Let's talk about your next hire.