The unicorn problem: Why expectations are unrealistic

Most senior briefs arrive with a long check list. AI literacy, digital transformation experience, ESG credentials, cyber awareness, commercial acumen, stakeholder management capability, DE&I leadership, growth mindset, regulatory navigation - the list of qualities a board or hiring manager wants their next senior appointment to bring keeps growing. And in isolation, every item on the list is understandable. These are all skills and experience that matter in a complex operating environment.

The problem is that the person who has depth across all of them, at the right level, available and willing to move, in the specific market you're recruiting in, can be rare. The search for ‘the unicorn’ is one of the most consistent ways that senior hiring processes stall, extend and ultimately fail to deliver.

Why the list keeps growing

Boards and hiring managers are not adding to briefs arbitrarily. The expectation that a single leader can hold all of it is a rational response to genuine pressure. When everything feels urgent and the cost of a wrong appointment is high, the instinct is to want someone who has navigated every dimension of that complexity before.

What this doesn't account for is the shallow talent pool on the other side of that brief. The number of candidates who have meaningful depth across AI adoption, commercial growth, sustainability, cyber risk and cultural leadership - at executive level, in the Australian market, available now - is very small.

The competition for candidates who come close to these briefs is also more intense than most organisations account for. These people are being approached regularly. They are not sitting uncontacted on a database waiting to be found. Reaching them requires a relationship, a specific and compelling reason to have the conversation, and a hiring process that respects their time and matches the standard they're used to.

What happens when the brief isn't reset

A brief that is too broad does two things that compound each other. It extends the timeline, because no shortlist of candidates will tick every box and every candidate who comes close gets measured against the idealised version rather than the available field. And it increases the risk of a poor appointment, because organisations that have been searching for too long often end up compromising in ways that aren't strategic - taking someone who looks closer to the brief on paper rather than someone who is right for the role in practice.

We see this regularly. A search begins with a comprehensive list of requirements, the first shortlist comes back and the client is disappointed that no one ticks every box, the search extends, and eventually a decision is made under pressure that the organisation later wishes it had made differently. The brief was the problem from the beginning - not the market, not the search.

What a realistic brief produces

The most valuable thing a good advisory partner does in this situation is push back before the search begins. Not to lower the standard, but to force prioritisation. Of all the things on this list, which are genuinely non-negotiable for this role at this stage of the business? Which can be developed once the right person is in the door? And which are on the list because they feel important rather than because they are critical to what the role needs to deliver?

When expectations are calibrated to the actual talent pool, search processes move faster, shortlists are stronger, and the decision-making on both sides is clearer. Candidates who are right for the role become visible instead of being screened out against criteria they can't meet. And the appointment that follows is one that was made with clarity rather than compromise.

The organisations making the strongest senior appointments right now are not the ones with the most comprehensive briefs. They are the ones that did the hard work of deciding what they need - and trusted their advisory partner to find it.