After a layoff/buyout last August, I’ve been looking for new work. As many have discovered, it’s tough. It seems that even if you match requirements 90%, you receive the canned response, “while your skills and background are impressive, we have decided to proceed with other applicants who more closely fit our needs at this time.” Companies these days aren’t looking for a close match. They’re looking for a unicorn.

The quest for the elusive “unicorn” candidate — a flawless match for every job requirement — has become a hiring trap. While the intention to find top talent is understandable, this pursuit often backfires, sidelining skilled individuals and perpetuating systemic inequities. Here’s why chasing perfection harms companies and how they can adopt smarter, more inclusive practices.

The High Cost of Perfectionism

Unrealistic Expectations

The perfect candidate rarely exists. Hyper-specific job descriptions — demanding every skill, certification, and niche experience — overlook adaptable candidates who could excel with minimal training. In fast-evolving fields like tech, rigid criteria quickly become outdated, prioritizing credentials over curiosity or problem-solving ability.

• Missed Opportunities for Growth: By fixating on pre-packaged expertise, companies miss out on high-potential candidates who bring fresh perspectives, diverse backgrounds, or transferable skills. For example, a marketer with nonprofit experience might offer unique insights into community-driven campaigns, even if they lack “10 years in SaaS.”
• Prolonged Vacancies and Strained Teams: Endless searches for unicorns delay projects, overburden existing staff, and inflate costs. Meanwhile, competitors snap up talent by prioritizing potential over perfection.
• The Overqualified Paradox: Even when a “unicorn” is found, they may soon grow bored, demand higher pay, or leave for a better fit — costing the company far more than investing in a motivated, developing hire.

Systemic Biases Compound the Problem

The rejection of candidates based on age, background, or career path further narrows the talent pool:

Age Discrimination

• Problem: Assumptions that older workers will resist change or demand higher salaries lead to exclusion.
• Impact: Companies lose decades of mentorship, stability, and institutional knowledge. Age-diverse teams also drive innovation by blending fresh ideas with seasoned wisdom.

Bias Against Foreign Talent

• Problem: Visa complexities or language barriers are used to justify rejecting global candidates.
• Impact: Teams lose multilingual skills, cross-cultural insights, and access to niche expertise in international markets.

Stigma Around “Job Hoppers”

• Problem: Frequent role changes are misread as disloyalty, ignoring gig economy trends or circumstantial factors, such as layoffs, buyouts, or acquisitions.
• Impact: Overlooking adaptable candidates from diverse environments with broad experience and up-to-date skills.

The Homogeneity Trap

Combined, these biases create echo chambers. Team fit has become team homogeneity. They don’t seem to be looking for someone who can complement other team members’ talents but cookie-cutter workers. Teams lacking age, cultural, and experiential diversity struggle to innovate and solve complex problems.

Broader Consequences: Talent Shortages and Reputational Risks

Companies lament a skills shortage yet exclude good candidates for arbitrary reasons. The result is a self-inflicted talent gap. “ Soft” discrimination based on age, nationality, career history, and other factors also poses legal and ethical risks. Ensure you don’t inflict lawsuits and reputational damage on your company.

Remember, people talk — especially when they’ve moved on. Glassdoor and other site review can hurt your reputation and recruiting.

A Better Path Forward: Rethinking Hiring Practices

Hiring is broken, and it is up to you to fix it. Not only will you fill all those open job reqs, but you’ll have a better workforce and less turnover. Here are some things to do:

1. Redefine “Must-Have” vs. “Nice-to-Have”: Trim wish lists to core competencies. Can a coding language be learned on the job? Is “10 years in the industry” necessary, or would problem-solving skills suffice?
2. Value Potential and Adaptability: Prioritize curiosity, cultural fit, and growth mindset. For instance, a candidate who led cross-functional projects might thrive in a leadership role, even without a formal title.
3. Invest in Onboarding and Mentorship: Instead of demanding “ready-made” hires, bridge skill gaps through training. Google’s career certificates program, for example, successfully prepares non-traditional candidates for high-demand roles.
4. Standardize Interviews and Challenge Biases: Use structured interviews with scoring rubrics to reduce subjective judgments. Train hiring managers to recognize unconscious biases — like equating accents with communication deficits.
5. Embrace Transparency and Flexibility: Be honest about role expectations and growth opportunities. If a candidate seems “overqualified,” ask about their motivations rather than rejecting them outright. And ask yourself if “overqualified” is a code word for old.

Ditch the Unicorn, Embrace the Racehorse

The strongest teams aren’t built on mythical perfection but created by nurturing talent with drive, diversity, and dedication. Focus on potential, invest in development, and root out biases. Transform hiring from a bottleneck into a strategic advantage. After all, a racehorse with grit often outperforms a unicorn that doesn’t exist.

Final Tip: Audit your job postings today. Replace “10 years’ experience” with “proven ability to learn.” You might just find your next star employee.