When No Candidate Feels Good Enough: How to Coach Hiring Managers with Unrealistic Expectations

Hiring is already hard enough without adding perfectionism into the mix. But every HR pro eventually runs into the manager who just can’t be satisfied. You know the drill: one candidate is too junior, another is too senior, the next is too expensive, and the one after that is “not quite right.” It doesn’t matter how strong the pipeline is. Every résumé gets picked apart until weeks turn into months, the role stays open, and the team starts feeling like they’re carrying the weight of two jobs.

When that happens, the real problem usually isn’t that there’s no qualified talent. It’s that the definition of “qualified” keeps shifting depending on who’s in front of the hiring manager. And that’s when HR has to step in, not just to keep the process moving, but to coach managers into making decisions that balance high standards with real-world hiring realities.

One of the toughest parts of coaching in this situation is breaking down the myth of the “perfect fit.” When managers cling to this idea, the hiring process almost always breaks down in the same ways.

• Vacancies drag on. The role sits open for months, workloads pile up, and eventually the team burns out. In some cases, good employees leave because they’re tired of waiting for relief that never comes.

• Great candidates walk away. While managers debate small gaps, strong applicants get disengaged and move on to other opportunities. Those people don’t usually come back around later.

Costs skyrocket. The longer a search drags, the more expensive it gets. Budget gets stretched, projects get delayed, and by the time a hire is finally made, the company has lost time, money, and momentum.

The tricky part is that most managers don’t even realize they’re falling into this trap. From their perspective, they’re just “being thorough.” But thorough can quickly cross over into impossible. And that’s where you can make the biggest impact as an HR partner: by helping them see that not all skills matter equally, and not all of them have to be present on day one.

A better way to frame the hiring conversation is through a skills-based lens. Instead of dissecting résumés line by line, guide the discussion toward competencies. Every role has three buckets of skills:

• Must-haves. These are the true non-negotiables; the skills or experiences someone needs to walk in with to have a fair shot at succeeding.

• Nice-to-haves. These add value but shouldn’t become dealbreakers. They’re the icing on the cake, not the cake itself.

• Trainables. These are the areas that can be built once someone is in the role, through onboarding, mentoring, or formal training.

Once a manager sees the difference, the conversation shifts. It’s no longer about chasing an impossible ideal. It’s about hiring someone who has the right foundation and can grow into the rest.

If you really want to drive the point home, connect those three buckets to the 30-60-90 day onboarding plan. Ask the hiring manager to think about the job in stages. In the first 30 days, what absolutely needs to be in place for the person to get traction? By 60 days, what could they realistically pick up with some context and support? And by 90 days, what’s reasonable to expect in terms of growth, adaptation, or mastery? When managers start mapping skills to timeframes, it becomes easier to let go of the idea that everything has to come pre-packaged.

Of course, frameworks only go so far. Some managers will still hold out, even when it’s clear the process has stalled. That’s when you shift from guiding to coaching. You might reframe the risk by asking: “Which is riskier? Bringing in someone who can learn 20% of the role in three months, or keeping the position vacant for another half a year?” You can also ground expectations in data by showing salary benchmarks and talent availability in the market. Numbers have a way of cutting through wishful thinking. Another angle is to quantify the opportunity cost - what it means for projects, team morale, and business goals when a seat stays empty.

And finally, you can build accountability into the process by setting a decision rule: if a candidate meets the must-have skills, the process moves forward. No more endless debates about “nice-to-haves.”

When the process feels stuck, a simple playbook helps you bring structure back into the conversation:

1. Define the three or four must-have skills or experiences that are truly non-negotiable.

2. Map the trainable skills to the first 30–60–90 days of onboarding.

3. Use market data to ground expectations in reality.

4. Set a decision rule so that once the must-haves are met, the hiring process continues.

5. Make the cost of delay visible by connecting it to missed deadlines, lower morale, or lost revenue.

The goal here isn’t just to get a role filled. It’s to help managers make better, faster talent decisions. That means letting go of the fantasy of a perfect candidate and focusing on the person who can thrive with the right support. The “perfect” candidate rarely exists, but the right one almost always does. And part of our job in HR is to help managers see that clearly enough to make a hire before the team, and the business, pays