gtmskills.com

Reference file

Hireability check

hireability-check.md

title: Hireability check description: Each flag, how to test it, how to grade severity and how to fix it, including the pay test, the unicorn combinations, and a worked case where the rewrite landed the hire.

Hireability check

Run after the intake, before the brief is approved. The question to answer: will the person this brief describes say yes to this pay, title, location and process?

Severity

  • Blocks the hire. As written, the brief will not be filled, or will be filled by the wrong person. Fix before sourcing.
  • Slows the search. Fillable, but the pool is thin or the process will leak candidates. Agree the trade-off in writing.
  • Note. Worth knowing. Carry it as a known risk.

How to raise a flag

Frame it as market information, never as criticism. Pick the one to three flags that matter and leave the small stuff. Give the trade-off. A warning on its own changes nothing.

  • "Candidates at this level are currently..."
  • "The profiles that match all three must-haves are..."
  • "If we need X, we give up Y. If Y is fixed, we widen the search to Z."

The flags

1. Pay versus market

Test the full package against {{PAY_BENCHMARK}}, and name the source of every figure.

  1. Get the whole package. Base, OTE, the base and variable split, and the quota behind it. "Competitive" is not a number.
  2. Ask what share of the current team hit quota over the last four quarters. If most miss, the OTE is fiction, and experienced sellers will work that out before they say yes. A quota several times the OTE is normal; check the multiple against your benchmark.
  3. When the pay is short, give three options. Raise the number, lower the spec, or trade cash for equity at a set and capped ratio. Saying nothing gets a search that stalls in week six.
  4. Put equity in money, with vesting. A small percentage sounds like nothing; a value with a vesting schedule can be compared with cash. For quota carriers, equity is an extra, never a replacement for base or commission.
  5. Treat drop-off as market data. Log the reason for every pull-out and declined offer. Three that cite pay are evidence to take back to the hiring manager.

Mix check: a seller's split far from what the segment pays is off market even when the total looks right. For first sellers, a heavier base or a guaranteed early commission keeps the candidates who can afford the risk.

{{PAY_BENCHMARK}} should cover base, OTE, split and quota multiple for each seat you hire, by segment and location, each figure with its source and the date it was checked. Recheck every year. A benchmark nobody can source is a guess, and a guess loses the argument with a sceptical founder.

2. The unicorn

Three or more must-haves that rarely sit in one person. The combinations that come up most in GTM briefs:

  1. A first sales hire who closes enterprise deals, writes the playbook and will later manage the team. Hire a seller who can sell without a playbook. The founder co-writes the playbook. Management comes later, or from someone else.
  2. Big-company pedigree plus a scrappy builder. Sellers from large vendors succeed with brand, demand and support a startup cannot give. Pick one, and screen for the motion, not the logo.
  3. Hunter, closer and farmer in one seat. Prospecting is always what gets dropped once pipeline exists. Agree in the brief when the role will split.
  4. A scale-stage VP before a repeatable motion. A leader five years ahead of the company waits for infrastructure that does not exist. Hire a hands-on head of sales or a senior seller first.
  5. A marketer equally strong in brand, product marketing and demand generation. Decide which job comes first. If sales needs pipeline next quarter, that is a demand hire.

Fix: rewrite to three must-haves and show the trade-off.

3. Seniority versus scope

A senior title with hands-on scope, or the reverse. Test: does the title match where 80% of the first ninety days goes? Fix: retitle, or move the scope.

4. Price point

The seller's past deal sizes against the company's average deal. A rough guide: within about twice the company's deal size, either way. Fix: add it to the profile line and screen for it.

5. Location and work model

The location or office rule against where the profile actually lives. Fix: widen the location, allow remote within a time zone, or accept a thinner pool and a longer search. Lock location, seniority floor and how tenure is treated in writing at intake; an unlocked location rule is among the most expensive defects a search can carry.

6. Process speed

Stages and feedback times against how long good candidates stay on the market. Fix: the feedback contract in process-contract.md.

7. The pitch

Can the hiring manager say in two sentences why someone good would leave a job they like for this one? Fix: pitch-builder.md. If it still cannot be said, the role may not be ready to brief.

When the flag is overruled

The hiring manager owns the role. If they hear a blocking flag and keep the brief, record it and set a tripwire rather than repeating the challenge:

  • The risk, in one line. "At this base, most candidates who meet all three must-haves will decline at offer."
  • The signal. What you will see if the risk is real: interested candidates, pull-out reasons, offer declines.
  • The date. Usually two to three weeks of active search.
  • The fallback brief. Agreed now: which must-have drops, or which pay figure moves.

When the date arrives, show the signal and switch, or keep going if the risk did not appear. Either way the decision rests on evidence, and nobody has to concede an argument.

From the field: the rewrite that landed the hire

A search for a technical outbound role was briefed around activity: a target of closed deals per quarter, deep experience in one specific tool, and a modest monthly pay band. Good candidates engaged, then stalled. Three weeks in, the hiring manager rewrote the brief. The target became ownership of a revenue number. The role moved from someone who runs sends to a commercial operator who picks their own tools. The tool requirement dropped to a nice-to-have, "owns a number" became a must-have, and pay moved to a base plus uncapped variable. Every candidate in the pool was re-scored against the new version. Some rose, some fell, and the hire was made from the re-scored list.

The rewrite was right. It was also three weeks late. Each of those changes was on the table at intake: an activity target instead of an outcome, a tool where a capability belonged, pay set below the profile. This check exists to make that rewrite on day one.