While it’s critical for companies to thoroughly assess potential hires, the length of the job interview process seems to be increasing. On LinkedIn, you’ll find numerous stories of candidates undergoing anything from nine to 12 rounds of interviews in their quest to secure a role – only for their application to be unsuccessful.
The time it takes for an organisation to make a new hire has reached an all-time high, as reported by human capital advisory firm The Josh Bersin Company and global talent solutions business AMS. Beyond unfavourable macro conditions beyond a firm’s direct control, much of the culpability for drawn-out, cumbersome interview processes falls on the companies themselves.
A prolonged process – say, one that stretches over two months from start to finish – doesn’t just cause psychological stress for candidates, but also has practical implications for firms. Vacant roles remain unfilled, which can be a drain on both time and resources. Candidates can become frustrated and withdraw their application, causing the company to lose out on a good hire.
A lack of internal alignment and entangled politics increase the complexity and slow things down. Leaner headcounts – especially in HR departments – due to recent layoffs could also mean that individuals without the proper knowledge of how to interview candidates are being asked to step up without sufficient preparation.
Inefficient stakeholder management could also be at play. Some firms require multiple individuals to meet and sign off on a hiring decision, which may be advantageous for reasons of equity and diversity. But this can prolong things if too many people with similar profiles are involved.
There is also immense cost and performance pressure to hire the right candidate – one that can execute the role, is an organisational fit and will remain in the firm for at least a year (or, ideally, longer). Hiring managers and HR executives could therefore feel the need to put a candidate through the wringer to ensure that they are making the right choice.
(more…)