If you are a hiring manager, be honest with yourself for a second: how many of your open sales roles list "self-starter" and "highly motivated" in the first paragraph? Now ask, has that phrase ever once predicted who actually performed?
What the language in real postings is actually screening for
Going back through postings from Ideals, Sumsub, DataSnipper, and Instructure, the substantive requirements were never adjectives. They were verifiable actions: "1-2 years in a full 360 closing role," "experience with CRM and sales engagement tools," "fluency in English (B2 minimum) and Spanish."
Four things worth checking for, in order
- Language fluency, with proof. A certified score (EF SET, for example) beats a self-rating every time.
- CRM ownership, not CRM usage. Ask what they built, not what they logged into.
- Process language. Do they talk in AS-IS/TO-BE terms, or in vague "streamlined operations" language?
- A specific before-and-after. One real number, one real system, beats five bullet points of adjectives.
LinkedIn's Global Talent Trends work has been pointing the same direction for a few years now: skills-based hiring signals outperform tenure-based signals for predicting on-the-job success, especially in commercial roles where the work changes fast.
A direct question for whoever is reading this
If you are hiring: does your current interview process actually surface a specific example, or does it let "team player" and "results-driven" slide through unchallenged? If you are the candidate: could you answer the "what did you build" question right now, in under two minutes, with a real detail in it?