Find out what the person wants from their next move, then describe the parts of the role that genuinely deliver it. Use specifics rather than adjectives: the actual problem, the team, the scope, the trajectory. Name the difficult parts too. Honest selling produces acceptances that stick and filters out people who would leave within a year.
What they are looking for and why they are open to moving, asked early and revisited later. The answers differ far more than generic pitches assume: scope, learning, a specific technology, a manager worth working for, stability, flexibility, a title that supports the next step, or simply better pay. A pitch about growth and impact aimed at someone who wants predictability and reasonable hours lands badly. Take notes in your [applicant tracking system](/ats) and share them with the interviewers who follow you, so the whole loop reinforces the same points instead of each person improvising. This is also useful assessment data, because what someone wants tells you whether the role will hold them. Ask again at the final stage, because what people want often sharpens as a process goes on.
Specifics they can verify. The concrete problem they would own in their first quarter. Who they would work with and what those people have done. What the team is genuinely good at and where it struggles. How decisions get made. What the last person in a similar role went on to do. Adjectives like fast-paced, mission-driven and collaborative appear in every advert and are discounted entirely. Detail also signals that you have thought about the role, which is itself reassuring. Then let a future peer answer questions without a manager in the room, because that conversation carries a credibility no company pitch reaches, and it costs you thirty minutes. Keep the claims checkable, since anything a candidate can verify later is worth more than anything they cannot.
Yes, and specifically. Every role has parts people dislike: legacy systems, a demanding stakeholder, an unclear process, travel, a stage of company chaos. Candidates discover these in week two anyway. Naming them yourself does three things. It makes everything else you said more believable. It lets the candidate self-select, which is a good outcome for both sides. And it gives you a chance to explain what is being done about it. The version to avoid is over-correcting into a list of complaints. Say what is hard, say what you are doing about it, and be clear about which parts you have accepted for now. People who join with an accurate picture also complain less in their first quarter, which their manager notices.
Separate the two explicitly inside the conversation. Assess first, sell second, and say so at the start: the first part is questions from us, the second is yours. Blending them produces interviewers who pitch to a candidate they have not yet evaluated, which makes an eventual rejection awkward and can inflate ratings. Never imply an outcome you cannot deliver. Ending a screening call with words that sound like a promise, then sending a rejection, damages your reputation more than a clean no. Keep the selling honest and keep the scorecard independent of how much you liked the conversation, which is exactly what [structured interviewing](/interview-questions) is for. Agree who does which part before the loop starts, so no single round tries to do both at once.
Get a personalized walkthrough of Pitch N Hire on your own roles and workflow. No slides, no obligation.
Prefer to talk? Book a demo · View pricing
Free 1-user plan · No credit card · Talk to a real hiring expert
See your true cost-per-hire and how much Pitch N Hire could save you — our free Recruitment ROI Calculator gives you the numbers in under a minute. No signup required.
Open the free ROI calculatorPrefer a tailored walkthrough on your real roles? Drop your work email:
★ Free 1-user plan · No spam · Talk to a real hiring expert
