It’s about balancing the ad to appeal to both A) really talented/good fit people who may have other options but are more likely to apply if they see they check a ton of boxes, and B) the talented but less apparently a great fit applicants (which you may want to cater to if you’re not finding enough of the first type, and also because the best applicants don’t always look that way on paper). And of course demographic/diversity reasons push the balance somewhat more towards B.
We did end up going with a few “requirements” and a longer list of “good to haves”, and I think that worked well. Will do again in the future.
I think it’s good to have a balance.
It’s about balancing the ad to appeal to both A) really talented/good fit people who may have other options but are more likely to apply if they see they check a ton of boxes, and B) the talented but less apparently a great fit applicants (which you may want to cater to if you’re not finding enough of the first type, and also because the best applicants don’t always look that way on paper). And of course demographic/diversity reasons push the balance somewhat more towards B.
We did end up going with a few “requirements” and a longer list of “good to haves”, and I think that worked well. Will do again in the future.