The most important stage in the hiring process?

Managing a successful hiring process and maintaining a great ‘candidate experience’ throughout can be a very difficult task.

Unexpected delays, difficult selection decisions and changing expectations from job seekers can create problems at every turn, and whilst an experienced hiring manager should be able to exercise some degree of control over all these aspects, all the hard work can quickly be put at jeopardy right at the very end of the process if the preferred applicant is left in limbo for too long.

Getting sign-off to make a formal offer sometimes takes time and may involve several people who have very busy schedules, but where this is likely to be the case, make this known (to the candidate during final interview or via their recruiter afterwards) and if nothing else, avoid giving unrealistic timescales of when you’re hoping to make a decision.

Here’s what can happen when such a delay occurs:

On the day the applicant has been told a decision will be made: they’ll be on edge all day waiting for the phone to ring and ready to accept. Many will be tired from lack of sleep the night before. They’ll inevitably take a little longer to get their work done, whilst struggling to focus. Most will have their partner/friends/family texting them by lunchtime “Any news???”. By mid-afternoon the seed of doubt might have entered their mind but they’ll remind themselves the day isn’t over and there’s still a couple of hours to go. No need to panic. By 17:30 if there’s still no news they’ll be wondering if maybe someone else has been offered, maybe they shouldn’t have said this or that at interview, maybe they should have studied harder at university?

By the end of day 2, if there’s still no news or satisfactory explanation for the delay, self-preservation will have kicked in. They’ll be considering why it’s not the end of the world anyway – there were some downsides to the position after all and, with hindsight, the commute wasn’t ideal and perhaps things aren’t really so bad in their current position on balance.

By day 3, they’ll be resigned to the fact that they haven’t got the role and they’ll be glad of it. They’ll be annoyed to be left in limbo for so long, disengaged from the business and disappointed that they hadn’t got on with the interviewer as well as they’d believed, or else surely they’d at least have been given some feedback out of courtesy?

And then the offer comes through.

Good luck!

Counter Offers - they're back!

With job market conditions rapidly catching up with pre-recession levels of demand, we’ve seen a steady increase in the number of counter offers being used as a means to try to retain staff who’ve secured an offer elsewhere and tendered their notice.

As demand for staff rises, availability drops, and with employers focused on making the most of the economic recovery, retaining experienced staff is high on the agenda.

Good news for employees, not so good news for recruiters who, having invested a significant amount of time managing the process to this stage, can then experience last minute drop-outs from jobseekers who are persuaded to stay. A quick search online will throw up dozens of blogs and articles about counter offers, usually written by recruiters, quoting unsubstantiated statistics on the number of people who end up leaving their employer six to nine months after accepting an offer (usually between 80-95% - take your pick or, better still, read Mitch Sullivan's investigative blog on this subject). The overriding message being: don’t do it, take MY job!

There may well be a high proportion of individuals in this situation who do ultimately decide to move on after promises have been broken further down the line, but even so, unless there is a history from the individuals’ specific employer/line manager, I’m not sure this is relevant enough information to be basing important career decisions on.

For me, when a jobseeker decides to accept a counter offer, what this really tells me is that:

a) the other opportunity wasn’t good enough in the first place, or 

b) the candidate never really wanted to leave their employer, they just wanted better reward and commitment from them. Maybe they’ve discussed this with their manager and it’s fallen on deaf ears, or maybe they just feel this is the best way to force their hand?

I do however believe there is some truth in the often-stated claim that going through a counter offer process breaks a level of trust with an employer, especially if the employee had not raised any dissatisfaction previously. I also believe financial boosts alone are short term solutions that will often reoccur when the employees next salary review takes in to account the unplanned increase that’s already taken place.

From the employers perspective it’s also far from ideal. How will this affect the employees trust and buy-in to the business when it’s had to get to this stage? You can be sure at least one of their close colleagues will be aware of the situation and may now decide to go through a similar process themselves to increase their financial position.

In an ideal world, counter offers would never need to happen. Employers would regularly assess the ability, value and career aspirations of their staff and employees would have the confidence and opportunity to discuss any issues and frustrations openly. Jobseekers would only reach offer stage for positions they know they would be willing to leave their current employer for, and then, and only then, recruiters might then stop quoting those tired old statistics.

Reputation Management - Look After Your Temps!

Over recent years, I’ve had many conversations with hiring managers in which they’ve asked about the reputation their departments hold within the market as an employer. These questions will often come at a time when a firm is struggling to attract candidates for what should be a relatively straight forward vacancy to fill, and I’ve had a couple of these conversations just recently.

On both occasions the hiring managers were concerned that a negative message may have been filtering out to the market from temporary workers they’ve had working within their teams within the last year. This may or may not have been the case, but it highlights an extremely important consideration for managing your employer reputation: LOOK AFTER YOUR TEMPS!

Recent legislation (the Agency Worker Regulations) has ensured that temporary workers are assured of equal treatment to comparable permanent employees in terms of their pay, annual leave and access to employer facilities, but legislation can only go so far.

When it comes to how welcome they are made to feel, how much time is invested in getting to know them and to what extent they are made to feel part of a team, temporary workers will experience vastly different approaches from one employer to the next, and even between different departments within the same firm.

These temporary workers may only be with an employer for a matter of weeks, but during that time they will have formed an opinion on whether the department they’ve been working in is one they’d recommend or one they’d advise others to steer clear of. Naturally their views may not always be taken as gospel, but people talk, and ‘career temps’ will already know and come in to contact with a huge number of potential hires for your firm as they move from one assignment to the next.

So, if you use interim staff in your firm, consider how much time you invest in making them feel welcome, and consider how other team members will engage with them also – do they know why they’re joining? Might they feel threatened and unwilling to assist them as a result?

Treated well, a temporary worker can make a significant positive impact on your employer reputation.

The dangers of one stage interview processes

For recruiters, recruitment processes with just one stage of interviewing can be very appealing. Less time spent arranging interviews, and generally a quick process to manage with fewer decision makers for the applicant to please/upset. In most cases however, this is a false economy.

It may be convenient for an employer to reduce the time spent interviewing during busy periods or for urgent hiring requirements, and in some instances, such as when it’s for an interim assignment it’s also convenient and anticipated by the potential employee. But in other cases, these one stage processes often do not provide the opportunity for potential candidates to build up enough of a connection to the employer or hiring manager.

Recent recruitment industry surveys in the UK have shown that whilst demand for staff is on the increase, the availability of candidates is decreasing, which inevitably means that jobseekers who are actively interviewing will have more options to consider. Whilst on the one hand it’s important to move quickly in order to secure high calibre candidates, if the focus is all on speed of hire, the candidate engagement process will be compromised, which could lead to offers being rejected as candidates join competitor businesses.

For the instances when time is at a premium, adding in a 15 minute telephone interview to the recruitment process can make all the difference, even if only for the preferred applicant. It adds another layer of selection in to the process, giving the candidate confidence that they’re being selected on merit, not just availability, and crucially it allows them time to reflect on the opportunity after their first meeting, so they can follow up with any questions or raise any potential concerns they might have. The chances of them accepting any offer would undoubtedly increase and potentially save the employer having to go back to the drawing board.

Do you agree, or you do feel one interview should be sufficient to identify and attract the right candidate to your business? Please add your thoughts below. 

Managing salary expectations in the hiring process

In the increasingly competitive “war for talent” we are experiencing in the world of recruitment these days, you’d be forgiven for being a little surprised to hear that there are employers who will go through a lengthy application and interview process and then knowingly offer their preferred candidate a salary lower than the figure they’re looking for.

Certainly it comes as a surprise to the candidate, and not a nice one. We’ve experienced it on a couple of occasions recently despite making the individual’s salary expectations explicitly clear from the outset when making the initial introduction.

It’s understandable that the employer ultimately makes the decision on how much they feel each individual is “worth” in relation to an opportunity within their business, but if there is a difference between the salary expectation of the candidate and the employers’ valuation of their skills and experience, this really should be addressed as early as possible in the hiring process to save wasted time and to improve the chances of securing the desired individual.

If it’s not dealt with until the point of offer, the underlying message sent to the jobseeker is: “we think you’re good, but not as good as you think you are” and all the faith and buy-in that has been built up during the interview process is immediately put at risk. The jobseeker, believing they’d gone through this process with their minimum expectations established, may feel undervalued and misled. There’s a high chance they’ll decline the offer and walk away from the process with a very low impression of the firm employer brand.

Managed properly this can be avoided:

• If a candidate’s salary expectation is above the level the employer is prepared to go, they shouldn’t be entering the interview process, unless it’s made clear to them that they are asking for a salary above budget and would need to lower their expectation. They may choose to walk away, but better that happen  earlier rather than later in the process.

• If the candidate is within budget range but they are pricing themselves out of the running by asking for a higher salary level than other comparable applicants in process, this should be addressed. They may not be aware they are asking for a salary level above market rate and may just need their expectations managed before reaching the end of the process.

These conversations can easily be held by recruiters who ultimately want to assist all parties in reaching a successful conclusion to the process. They should also be able to help in identifying early on if a difference in salary expectation is likely to be a deal-breaker or something that can be managed.

Yahoo and the flexible working debate...

Since publishing my last blog on flexible working, the topic has hit the headlines in a big way with debate raging amongst the business community on the pros & cons of working from home. I’d love to say it was my blog that triggered all this, but I suspect it may have had slightly more to do with the leaked internal memo from an HR representative at Yahoo, informing their staff that the business was putting an end to all “work from home arrangements”.  

The tone of the memo suggests that flexible working isn't working at Yahoo, and the move was to encourage greater collaboration between staff by working side by side – literally.

This bold move, driven by CEO, Marissa Mayer, has been widely criticised as being a backwards step, with accusations that Mayer is “out of touch” with the modern working demographic (not helped by reports that she paid to have a personal nursery built adjacent to her offices in order to be closer to her son).

There have subsequently been numerous blogs and articles quoting unnamed members of Yahoo staff who've said that people have indeed been abusing the system and that the move is a necessary change in culture to help weed out the slackers who are holding the business back.

(Photo by Chiot's Run)

So what will be the outcome of this change at Yahoo? There may well be an improvement in output from some of those who have slacked off when unsupervised, but are these really employees you’d want to retain in a business? If they’re just plain lazy, presumably they’ll now just take their foot off the gas at the first opportunity anyway; when their manager is away, for example. Or on lunch. Or in meetings. Are they really going to be monitored around the clock?

And what about those employees who are currently productive when working from home? Will they be even more productive in the workplace? Or will they just resent the change in circumstance and look elsewhere, to join a business that trusts them enough to allow them to retain their current working arrangements? That could signal a mass exodus of talent if so, and when hiring to replace these individuals, Yahoo is unlikely to appeal to those looking for a degree of flexibility on work/life balance.

To me, a blanket ban on working from home seems a step too far. Flexible working is a privilege that requires trust between employer and employee, but managed properly it can and will work for most businesses. It may mean getting everyone together for face to face meetings on a regular basis, and there may be limitations on the percentage of time individuals can spend away from the office, but there is usually a balance that can work for all parties. And if someone just can’t motivate themselves to work from home, they should be given the opportunity to work in the office or to find work elsewhere. Why let them spoil the system for everyone else?

Flexible working - why it should be embraced

As a business owner myself, I can fully understand why the term ‘flexible working’ doesn't sit all that comfortably when raised by a prospective employee during an interview process.

Do they just want more annual leave than our current benefits package allows? Or are they planning to work from home where they might have the TV on in the background or have a cat fighting for their attention by strolling across the keyboard? 

Whatever the immediate thoughts might be, for a lot of firms and managers, they’re often negative and focus on the lack of control over productivity levels. These are of course completely valid concerns and to be fully open to flexible working, a firm will need to carry out thorough reviews on any negative impact changes could bring and to also assess what levels of flexibility they can accommodate. Dismissing it out of hand however could be equally as negative in the long run. 

The Recruitment & Employment Confederation (REC) recently carried out a Flexible Working Commission, and came to the conclusion that, although the UK already has a far more flexible workforce than our European neighbours, there is still huge opportunity to be gained from further embracing flexible working options. 

The attraction and retention of top talent will be significantly enhanced if employees have more scope to influence their work/life balance without having to move jobs to secure it. The UK is facing an emerging talent crisis and, as the ‘war for talent’ intensifies, the opportunity is there for early adopters of flexible working to steal a march on their competition.

Employee productivity levels can also be positively improved. A large scale pilot scheme by telecoms giant O2 earlier this year reportedly concluded that by offering staff the opportunity to work from home they were able to significantly improve productivity. Staff were better rested from cutting out commuting time each day and were generally happier with more time to spend with their families or to pursue leisure activities.

A common misconception is that the requirement for flexible working is almost exclusively influenced by childcare logistics. Although this is and always has been a factor, the demand is being driven by the lifestyle choices of many different groups, and does not always involve a reduction in total hours worked.

So what challenges would flexible working bring for your business? There are plenty of businesses already embracing it and others that are actively looking at how they can make it work for them. Is your firm one of them or do you feel it’s not for you? Please share your comments below.

Managing salary expectations in the hiring process

In the increasingly competitive “war for talent” we are experiencing in the world of hiring these days, you’d be forgiven for being a little surprised to hear that there are employers who will go through a lengthy application and interview process and then knowingly offer their preferred candidate a salary lower than the figure they’re looking for.

Certainly it comes as a surprise to the candidate, and not a nice one, but it happens and we’ve experienced it on a couple of occasions recently despite making the individual’s salary expectations explicitly clear from the outset when making the initial introduction.

It’s understandable that the employer ultimately makes the decision on how much they feel each individual is “worth” in relation to an opportunity within their business, but if there is a difference between the salary expectation of the candidate and the employers’ valuation of their skills and experience, this really should be addressed as early as possible in the hiring process to save wasted time and to improve the chances of securing the desired individual.

 If it’s not dealt with until the point of offer, the underlying message sent to the jobseeker is: “we think you’re good, but not as good as you think you are” and all the faith and buy-in that has been built up during the interview process is immediately put at risk. The jobseeker, believing they’d gone through this process with their minimum expectations established, can feel undervalued and at worst, misled. There’s a high chance they’ll decline the offer and walk away from the process with a very low impression of the firm employer brand. 

Managed properly this can be avoided:

• ·         If a candidate’s salary expectation is above the level the employer is prepared to go, they shouldn’t be entering the interview process, unless it’s made clear to them that they are asking for a salary above budget and would need to lower their expectation. They may choose to walk away, but better that happen now than later in the process. 

• ·         If the candidate is within budget range but they are pricing themselves out of the running by asking for a higher salary level than other comparable applicants in process, this should be addressed as soon as this becomes clear. They may not be aware they are asking for a salary level above market rate and may just need their expectations managed before reaching the end of the process.

These conversations can easily be held by recruiters who ultimately want to assist all parties in reaching a successful conclusion to the process. They should also be able to help in identifying early on if a difference in salary expectation is likely to be a deal-breaker or something that can be managed.

The urgency compromise in Recruitment/Hiring

Having had over 10 years experience of working within recruitment, I can safely say that timing is everything when it comes to a firm successfully managing a hiring process.  Unfortunately I need to add that the majority of firms fail to recognise this and demand urgency when it’s not required and then expect patience when they should be acting quickly.

The outcome can greatly impact the calibre of candidates that are put forward for vacancies by recruiters, and can lead to employers missing out on talent they were hoping to secure.

On many occasions I have been instructed with a vacancy on a Wednesday or Thursday and have been told that the hiring manager is hoping to have CV’s through by the weekend. A shortlist has been sent to the hiring manager within this timescale, but then there has been no feedback on the CV’s until later the following week, or even longer in some cases.

This to me is wasted time. If the hiring manager is prepared to wait a week before reviewing CV’s and arranging interviews, they could have allowed the recruiter another week to spend time finding the best available candidates for their shortlist. Admittedly a good recruiter will already have an existing database of jobseekers and will be able to react quickly, but a good recruiter should also be able to go to the market to find new talent who may be even closer to the requirements of the role and produce a definitive shortlist at the end of this process.

A good proportion of the vacancies we have filled within my business have been with applicants who were not actively looking for their next move at the time. Having been approached and briefed about a suitable role however, they have considered the opportunity, met with us to discuss it in more detail and have gone ahead with an application. This process can rarely happen within 24-48 hours and rushing to receive CV’s will therefore rule out the largest potential candidate market available; those who aren’t actively looking (yet!).

There is also a high chance of missing out on candidates altogether when encouraging recruiters to send through only readily available applicants and then taking too long before reviewing CV’s. These candidates are likely to be very active in their job search and, even if they are still available a week or two down the line, they may not want to arrange further interviews if they’re already progressing to final stages elsewhere. This can put a supposedly “urgent” process back to the drawing board two to three weeks after it started.

The recruitment process rarely runs completely smoothly as there are too many variables affecting the outcome and causing delays. The whole process is generally a task that needs to be completed in addition to the hiring manager’s already busy workload. It’s therefore extremely important to put in place a realistic timetable for the recruitment process, and if you want to attract the best talent for your firm it may be worth allowing a little more time for a thorough search to be carried out before asking to review CV’s from a recruiter.

If you've enjoyed this blog, please do share any comments/views/experiences you've had in relation to this topic below. 

The interview cancellation dilemma:

It’s a dilemma I’m sure many hiring managers and human resources professionals have faced; they’ve just interviewed the perfect candidate for a vacancy and are keen to offer, but they already have further interviews scheduled. Should they risk losing the perfect candidate by waiting until all interviews have been conducted, or should they just make an offer and either cancel the other interviews or conduct them out of courtesy, even though they have no chance of securing the role?

On some occasions the decision will be guided by the perfect candidate’s availability. If they’re already under offer elsewhere, they may not be prepared to wait until the end of the interview process, especially if they’re spread over a lengthy period. Then it becomes a case of whether the employer is prepared to risk letting them go elsewhere whilst they meet the remaining applicants.

I've recently had this scenario unfold for one of my clients, and due to business demands and risk of losing their preferred candidate they decided to offer the role to him before completing the scheduled round of interviews and called wishing to cancel the final remaining interview.

The candidate whose interview was cancelled was understandably disappointed. He’d already invested time preparing for it and was eager to meet with the client to prove his suitability to the role. Fortunately in this instance, he was understanding of the situation and hadn’t pinned all his hopes on the interview.

Personally however, I don’t feel the situation was handled well and the client ran the risk of damaging their employer brand by having a job applicant come away from the process feeling aggrieved. This particular candidate happened to be the understanding type, but that’s not always going to be the case, and it’s well documented that people like to share negative experiences more than the positive.

If the client needed to make a quick decision on this hire, the sensible option would be to bunch all the interviews together over the course of a day or two. In the real world this is easier said than done, but if a candidate can only commit to interviewing a few days after the others it should be made clear to them from the outset that there is a chance the interview will be cancelled if an appropriate candidate is identified beforehand. Then there can be no surprises and the dilemma of whether to cancel or honour the interview is already decided.

Are you missing out on talent as a result of the recession?

The recession has affected recruitment in many different ways. It has also had a huge impact on the career decisions made by individuals over the last few years, and if you don’t take this in to consideration when reviewing job applications, you could be missing out on genuine talent.

We’ve noted a few occasions recently where high calibre applicants have been overlooked for reasons that say more about market conditions lately than the individuals themselves, and this is where opportunities are missed.

With widespread redundancies, recruitment freezes and budget constraints on hiring over the last few years, it has been a very difficult period for many who’ve been directly affected by cut backs.  Even for those who’ve remained safe in their employment, it’s not been a particularly opportune time to make significant career advancements.

Those unfortunate enough to be made redundant during this period have generally not had the luxury to patiently pick and choose their next move, as they have been up against a lot of competition for very few vacancies. Meanwhile bills still have to be paid. The result is that some career decisions and moves have been made which in a better economic climate might not have happened.

There has also been notable trend over this period for employers to hire staff on fixed term contracts rather than making permanent appointments. Those already on long term temporary or rolling contract agreements have had little chance of becoming permanent, and many have been let go as a first measure of cutbacks. Maintaining career stability has simply not been possible for those in this circumstance.

We’re therefore now reaching a point where these factors need to be taken in to serious consideration when reviewing job applications. Some factors which may have raised concerns back in 2007 may now be more understandable today. Moves that might not have made sense pre-recession, should now be viewed in a different light, and individuals who may appear to have a patchy or “jumpy” CV over the last few years, aren’t necessarily unreliable or flighty – they may have just had to secure interim positions quickly due to financial commitments and a shortage of permanent opportunities available.

Are these factors taken in to consideration when you’re reviewing job applications? Or have you been affected personally by the recession and feel your career prospects have taken a knock as a result? Please add any relevant comments below.

CV's can't talk back - so why not discuss any question marks with the consultants who sent them?

When using recruiters, if you are prepared to instruct them to assist with a role and represent your firm to market, you should have faith in their ability to find suitable talent and to identify the closest match to your requirements, regardless of whether on a retained or contingency basis.

I’m not suggesting that recruiters never get it wrong (and why continue to use those who often do?), but the best hiring managers and HR Coordinators will take time to seek advice from them on why you should meet with those they’ve recommended, and to challenge any concerns they might have when reviewing a CV.

The best talent won’t necessarily have the best looking CV, so relying on the document alone is ignoring the experience and judgement of a recruiter who will have rejected countless of other applicants they’ve met in person, ahead of the shortlist they have ultimately sent through. If your faith in a recruiter’s recommendations results in interviewing irrelevant candidates, you will at least have identified that this is a recruiter you shouldn’t be working with in future.

The problem may be that too many recruiters have been instructed or that those who have are sending far too many CV’s, so some ruthless filtering has to be applied to narrow down the shortlist, but that’s a blog for another day.

I’ve recently been asked by a new client to assist with filling a vacancy that has already been on the market for a close to two months. My first thought has to be to consider whether this is going to be a wise investment of my time? If it’s taken so long already and nobody has been found, is there actually anybody out there who can do this job, or is the client being unrealistic in their expectations?

Having completed my due diligence with the HR Coordinator on the position, it was clearly a good opportunity, paying market rate salary and with reasonable expectations on the experience required. I asked why it had proved to be so difficult to fill, and was told the line manager had rejected CV’s due them lacking relevant industry experience, or for having too unstable a career history.

Perfect, I thought! I know an excellent candidate who has 6 years legal sector experience with the same firm who would love this job and would be able to hit the ground running. Unfortunately however, his CV was also rejected at introduction stage by the line manager. There was no discussion about the candidate before the rejection, and no opportunity to talk through the reasons why with the line manager whose decision wasn’t challenged by the HR Coordinator, just a straight ‘no’ based on the CV alone.

If I wanted to, I could pose several questions about an individual’s experience, ambitions and drive from reviewing a CV, but unfortunately paper doesn’t talk and without meeting or speaking to that individual those questions remain unanswered. I can make assumptions of course, but is this really a good way to judge someone’s worth? I think not. Had a recruiter who’d met the individual sent their CV to me, the very least I would do is speak to them to find out a little more.

It transpires that nearly every CV submitted had been rejected at introduction stage for a whole host of different reasons by the line manager who had no direct contact with recruiters and didn’t wish to hear explanations/responses to his concerns.

The consequence: a vacancy which takes months to fill despite high calibre talent being available and a series of recruiters feeling their time and effort has been wasted and would be better spent in future focussing on competitor businesses.

The recruitment process, and how it reflects on your business....

It seems a lifetime ago now, but back in the glory years before the recession, there was a lengthy period when the legal accounts sector was considered to be very much a “candidate driven” jobs market. An above average jobseeker would have their pick of the jobs, and employers would have to act fast to secure them.

This turned on its head during 2008-2010 as the number of vacancies on the market dwindled and those employers who were hiring had the luxury of taking their time to scour the market safe in the knowledge that they didn’t have much competition for candidates. Whereas it used to take on average 3-4 weeks from issuing a job description to sending out an offer letter, during and post recession the average has risen to anywhere between 4-8 weeks.

The jobs market today is very different from the lows of 2009/10 however. Admittedly it hasn’t recovered to anywhere near 2007 levels and looks unlikely to do so for at least a couple of years (and that’s probably being optimistic), but there is now enough movement out there for jobseekers to have some choice and to be put off if they’re left hanging in the balance for too long.

We’ve experienced first-hand a number of processes lately where we’ve been instructed to recruit for a vacancy and have duly submitted CV’s, but the trail has then gone cold for as long as 2-3 weeks before interviews have been requested. Of course, there can be a number of causes behind this, especially during the summer months and at the end of the year during the holiday seasons. However, regardless of the reason for the delay, it does send out a negative message to the applicant. Either that they are not really considered desirable to the firm, or that the firm is disorganised.

Similar delays have even happened following interviews, sending an even stronger message to the candidate that they are not considered desirable enough to get them back in straight away. Of course, sometimes this is because the client is indeed hoping to find someone they consider a closer match to the role, but this hasn’t always been the case, and increasingly these employers are losing out on high calibre applicants who have either gone elsewhere during a delay or have pulled out of the process feeling that they are clearly not a “must see” for the next stage of interview.

If your firm has kept applicants hanging in the balance for extended periods lately; whether it be due to a line manager procrastinating over the review of CV’s, interviewers going on holiday, or simply having started the hiring process a couple of weeks too early, the end result is a negative image of the firm being sent to all those applicants who have been submitted (and who they talk to), and possibly losing out on the best talent available.