Lately, I’ve been hearing the phrase “we’re looking for the ideal candidate” quite often. Of course, that’s understandable and logical — everyone wants the best and most suitable employees to work for their organization. The list of requirements from companies and hiring managers is usually very precise: clearly defined education and certifications, specific years of experience, high proficiency in multiple languages, the “right” values, and other essential professional and personal competencies. However, more and more often I find myself asking — how often are we, as employers, managers, and colleagues, truly ready to be just as “ideal” as we expect our candidates to be?
This question isn’t just philosophical — it’s also highly practical. An employer’s approach during the recruitment process and throughout the employment relationship largely determines whether the “ideal” candidate will accept the job offer at all, and how long he or she will stay with the company. Working in executive search, meeting with a variety of candidates, and providing consulting, I’ve seen both sides — and I can say that each has its own valid perspective.
Right now, the job market is particularly challenging. In Latvia, unemployment is low, employment rates are rising, salaries are increasing, and the way people work continues to evolve. Employers are paying more attention to employee well-being, while the economic and geopolitical situation is making candidates more cautious about changing jobs.
In this complex environment, it’s often worth recognizing that sometimes the company itself may not be “ideal” enough to attract and retain that perfect candidate. What does this mean in practice? Candidates — especially those with strong profiles and valuable experience — have a wide range of options when choosing an employer. The recruitment process, the direct manager, and the overall quality of the work environment are becoming increasingly important factors, not just the salary as some employers still tend to believe.
The five most common “idealism” paradoxes I’ve encountered:
1.The ideal candidate vs. the imperfect job description:
Employers often expect a flawless CV and perfectly prepared documents from candidates, yet the company itself publishes a vague job advertisement or description — one that makes it impossible to clearly understand what the actual responsibilities and goals will be. My advice to employers: create a clear, specific job description and a visually appealing job posting. At the same time, avoid evaluating candidates solely based on their CVs. In practice, there are many cases where candidates intentionally leave out certain details, preferring to share them during the interview.
2.High expectations for the candidate vs. low process discipline within the company:
Candidates are often expected to demonstrate precision, meet deadlines, take responsibility, and maintain discipline. However, in practice, it’s often the employer who fails to follow these same principles — interview schedules change at the last minute, feedback is delayed for weeks, or job offers and contracts contain inaccuracies. Such practices directly affect a candidate’s interest and trust in the company, as the recruitment process forms the very first impression of the organization’s culture and working style.
3.Demand for an expert vs. opportunities for development:
Organizations often want to hire a “star” rather than a “rising star,” yet they are not always ready to offer compensation that matches such a high level of experience. If hiring a top-level professional with corresponding financial expectations is not possible, a more valuable long-term strategy is to choose a candidate with strong potential and high motivation. It’s no coincidence that OECD data shows skills and competencies develop most effectively through on-the-job experience.
4.Flexibility as a requirement for the candidate vs. lack of flexibility from the employer:
Candidates are often expected to be adaptable, handle a variety of tasks efficiently, organize their work well, and demonstrate flexibility and mobility. Yet, employers themselves do not always show the same openness — for example, by refusing to allow even one day of remote work per week. According to data from the Central Statistical Bureau, flexibility and remote work options have already become a market standard. Therefore, it’s worth seeking a compromise — building an open and constructive dialogue and explaining why certain rules exist on both sides. This approach helps both parties understand each other better and find a balance between needs and possibilities.
5.High motivation vs. undefined goals:
Employers often expect candidates to demonstrate strong motivation and enthusiasm, yet there is frequently a lack of clarity about what exactly the employee will be doing and what short- and long-term KPIs are expected. When goals are unclear, motivation naturally decreases. That’s why it’s the manager’s responsibility to clearly define direction, communicate the purpose of the work, and connect each individual’s contribution to the team’s or organization’s overall objectives. Motivation doesn’t come from slogans — it grows from clarity, trust, and a sense of meaningful purpose.
The job market is currently changing on both sides — employers and candidates alike are learning to adapt to new realities. The more we approach each other as partners rather than opposing sides, the easier it will be to find a balance between expectations, possibilities, and human factors.
