One of the most common concerns clients bring to a briefing is the feeling that they should already know exactly who they're looking for. This is especially true when it's a new hire, a new function, or when they're entering the Defense Tech industry or joining a new company.

That's when a natural defense mechanism often kicks in: trying to compensate for uncertainty with an increasingly specific list of requirements. "Five years here, three years there, experience in this exact area is a must." As if the more boxes a candidate ticks, the lower the risk of making the wrong hire.

But in reality, the critical skill isn't knowing everything upfront. It's being able to distinguish what's critical from what's merely important.

For example, "The person absolutely must be able to do X, Y, and Z because without these skills they simply won't be able to perform the role" is one thing.
"It would be great if they also had experience with A, B, and C because those are relevant to our projects" is something entirely different. If they don't have that experience but learn quickly, it shouldn't automatically disqualify them.

When these two categories get merged into one long list of "must-haves," we lose what should actually guide the search: the reasoning behind each requirement. Why is this skill truly critical? What would happen if the person didn't have it?

That's why, during a briefing, we don't expect our clients to arrive with a ready-made answer to the question, "Who exactly do I need?" Instead, we expect a willingness to work together to understand what problem this hire is meant to solve. Once that's clear, it becomes much easier to separate what's genuinely critical from what's simply nice to have.

Not knowing all the details is a perfectly normal starting point.
What's far less helpful is hiding uncertainty behind a list of twenty requirements, each one presented as "mandatory."