Beyond the Adjective: Why PE Talent Doesn't Buy "Exceptional"

Most executive job descriptions are written for the wrong audience. They are crafted to satisfy internal stakeholders, to signal ambition, or to mirror the language of the last search brief someone kept on file. What they rarely do is speak to the candidate they are trying to attract.

The problem is adjectives. Words like innovative, passionate, and transformational have been so consistently overused in senior hiring that high-calibre candidates have learned to read past them. They function as noise. According to copywriting expert Mitch Sullivan, this kind of language acts as filler that obscures rather than communicates, and the best candidates, the ones with options and the confidence to be selective, are the most practised at ignoring it.

In private equity, this matters more than anywhere else. The executive talent pool capable of driving a 3x or 5x return is not large. These are people with a track record of operating in constrained environments, delivering under pressure, and building something of durable value. They are not browsing job descriptions hoping to feel inspired. They are looking for specific problems they are uniquely qualified to solve. If your executive brief cannot articulate what that problem is, the best candidates will disengage before they reach the second paragraph.

The fix is not stylistic. It is structural. Replacing adjectives with evidence means being precise about the commercial context, the operational challenge, and the decision-making authority the role carries. A brief that tells a candidate they will need to "effectively manage a complex workload" tells them very little and implies a great deal of bureaucratic constraint. A brief that tells them they will own a defined set of decisions, with the autonomy to determine what needs attention and when, signals something meaningfully different. It signals trust. And trust, for operators of this calibre, is a more compelling draw than any adjective.

This is not a communications exercise. It reflects how the sponsor thinks about the role. Vague briefs produce vague shortlists, and vague shortlists produce cautious hires. Sponsors who invest the time to define the specific challenge, the specific mandate, and the specific conditions for success attract a different quality of candidate. The executive brief is often the first signal a candidate receives about how a firm operates. In a competitive market for senior talent, that signal carries weight.