Ask what a hiring requirement is trying to establish

A job requirement can survive long after the reason for it has been forgotten. It appears in a previous vacancy, gets copied into the next one and becomes part of what managers believe a suitable candidate looks like. In technology support, I have seen a degree used to stand for several different qualities at once: learning ability, maturity, communication and persistence. Those qualities may matter, but a hiring team should be able to explain why that particular requirement is a useful way to assess them for the work being offered.

The question arose at Praneri when managers reported difficulty filling selected workplace-support roles. The work involved diagnosing device problems, carrying out setup tasks and explaining next steps to customers. The initial screen excluded people without a graduate degree. I asked which part of the job that filter was intended to evidence. There was no shared answer. Some managers regarded it as a practical shortcut; others believed removing it would signal lower standards. We decided to examine the requirement for this defined group of vacancies rather than make a company-wide declaration about qualifications.

## Connect the assessment to actual decisions in the role

Before changing the screen, the team needed a clearer account of the work. A list of technologies was not enough. We asked what a colleague should notice when a device fails, how they should narrow the problem and how they should explain uncertainty to someone waiting for service. We also discussed when the colleague should seek help rather than continue. These questions gave us material for supervised practical tasks. They made the intended standard visible in a way that a familiar educational phrase had not, while still leaving room for judgement.

Practical assessment is not automatically fair or accurate. A poorly designed exercise can reward familiarity with a particular test, confidence in an interview or an assessor's personal style. We developed a scoring guide and reviewed sample responses together before seeing candidates. Assessors discussed what constituted relevant evidence and where they were making an inference. We also retained genuine requirements for particular roles, including credentials or other conditions where they applied. The exercise was about replacing an unexplained exclusion, not treating every qualification as unnecessary or every vacancy as interchangeable.

That preparation cost time and money. The company spent ₹18 lakh on design, assessor time and supervised evaluation for the pilot. Recruitment colleagues were right to ask whether the additional work was justified, because a wider applicant pool can make an already busy process slower. I did not answer with a claim that inclusion must inevitably pay for itself. We agreed to test whether candidates previously excluded could demonstrate the specified work, and to report what happened at each stage. The financial value would need a longer account than the initial hiring figures.

## Keep capability, selection and joining as separate outcomes

Ninety-six candidates who would have been excluded under the earlier screen entered the assessment. Fifty-four met its standard, thirty-eight received offers against available vacancies and thirty-one joined. Each number answers a different question. The first describes access to consideration; the second describes performance in an assessment; the third records a selection decision; the fourth records a completed start. Combining them into a broad statement about successful hires would make the pilot sound stronger while making its result less useful to the people deciding whether to continue it.

The candidates who passed without receiving an offer deserved a clear explanation. Capability does not create an unlimited number of vacancies, and another person may better fit the particular assignment. We needed to avoid presenting the assessment as a promise of employment. The same care applied to offers that were declined. A candidate can demonstrate the work and still choose another employer for reasons the assessment does not address. Those outcomes should inform the employment proposition, rather than be treated as flaws in the candidate or quietly omitted from the account.

The pilot demonstrated that the old screen had excluded some people able to meet the stated assessment standard. It did not prove that they would all perform well indefinitely, or that the exercise could predict every aspect of customer service. We asked managers to observe early assignments and identify specific strengths and gaps. The point was to improve the assessment from actual work, not to search retrospectively for evidence that our preferred approach had been correct. A changed hiring method should remain open to challenge after its supporters have announced it.

## Review the requirement without turning it into an identity argument

Discussions about qualifications can become a contest between people who value formal education and people who succeeded through another route. That is rarely a useful way to design a vacancy. The question concerns the work and the evidence needed to select responsibly. A degree may provide relevant preparation for one role and be a weak proxy in another. Practical experience may be persuasive but still need examination. I want hiring managers to explain the relationship, rather than defend a category because it resembles their own career or the people they have previously recruited.

There are also limits to what a single hiring pilot can say about opportunity. Applicants may face barriers before they see the vacancy or reach an assessment. Some may lack access to the equipment used in a test, or need a clearer account of the process. Those matters deserve attention, but they should be investigated specifically rather than folded into a claim that removing one filter has solved them. In our pilot, we changed a defined entry screen and examined the resulting candidates. A credible report preserves that boundary while identifying what should be studied next.

For directors, the useful oversight question is whether the company's hiring assumptions are being tested against its actual capability needs. That does not require the board to select assessment tasks or decide individual appointments. It requires management to explain why a persistent vacancy exists, which requirements are necessary and what evidence supports a proposed change. A claim that talent is unavailable may be accurate. It may also conceal a selection method that excludes relevant people. The board should be able to distinguish those possibilities before approving more spending on the same search.

I would continue this work by reviewing the first assignments and refining the assessment where it failed to notice something material. I would also communicate the stages more carefully to applicants, particularly the difference between meeting a standard and receiving an offer. The purpose is not to celebrate a larger pool for its own sake. It is to make the route into the job more closely connected to the job itself. When a requirement is retained, we should be able to defend it. When it is removed, we should replace it with evidence that deserves the confidence we place in it.