Obstacles in Candidate Selection Process

"Hi Mark, we received this CV 5 times this week." This scenario never fails to bemuse me. Let's set aside terms of business for a moment—whether retained, exclusive, or contingent—because this issue cuts across all recruitment models. Here’s the heart of the problem: We’re dealing with multiple factors that create this mess: 1️⃣ Candidate Behavior: Some candidates apply through multiple channels for the same role without disclosing their prior applications. Transparency matters here—if you’ve already applied, just say so! 2️⃣ Rogue Agencies: Certain agencies mass-send CVs with attached terms, often locking candidates out of the process entirely. Worse still, this can leave companies caught up in avoidable disputes and duplicate charges. Misrepresenting a candidate isn’t just unethical—it’s illegal. 3️⃣ Too Many Cooks: Engaging too many agencies for one role leads to chaotic processes where it’s all about "first past the post." Spoiler alert: this never ends well. 4️⃣ Stale Roles: When roles stay open for months, candidates get re-submitted over time, creating confusion. The same candidates think it’s a different job and apply again, perpetuating the cycle. 5️⃣ The "Magic Mystery": Here’s one that will blow your mind. I’ve seen agencies resend the same candidates’ CVs every 6 months as terms expire, then claim a fee when one of those candidates gets hired—without the candidate even knowing! Shockingly, some companies have lost in court over this tactic. 🚨 Duplication is the silent killer of recruitment efficiency. Finding the right candidate can take 30-60 days, only to discover duplication derails the process. So, what’s the fix? There is a solution, but it requires action from all parties: ✅ Candidates: Protect your CV. Always ask where your details are being sent and give explicit consent before representation. Work with recruiters who discuss roles in depth and are clear about where they’ll submit your profile. ✅ Companies/HR/Hiring Managers: Streamline your agency pool. Limit the number of agencies per role—2-3 specialized agencies should suffice. Have a “B-list” for backup - But if you insist on using multiple agencies - Get an ATS system to upload candidates too, which will alert the recruiter ASAP. There are few out there, some not that expensive. ✅ Agencies: Retained or exclusive search is often the way to go. Retained ensures focus, while exclusive keeps it simpler and less intense - but as long as the process is good, will yield a fair result. Both approaches reduce duplication headaches. But if you open a role up to another agency, ask yourself why. what is happening? Finally, choose wisely. Don’t default to “first past the post.” Insist on proof of representation—signed or emailed consent from the candidate. Quality recruitment is about partnership, not speed. Let’s stop duplication from undermining the process and elevate recruitment to the professional standard it deserves. What are your thoughts? 

TOP FRUSTRATIONS OF EXECUTIVE CANDIDATES Employers need leaders and senior execs - so why is the search process for these pros so slow and so full of obstacles? Here are the top complaints of executive-level candidates: According to 2026 hiring trends and career experts, key concerns include: 1. Prolonged Search Timelines and "Black Hole" Applications  Extended Unemployment: Executive searches are taking longer, with many top leaders spending 6–12 months or more securing a role. The "Black Hole": High-level candidates often feel their applications disappear into ATS (Applicant Tracking Systems) and AI-screening tools, never reaching a human. Silence as Response: Candidates frequently encounter long periods of silence, leading to anxiety and a loss of momentum, even after engaging in interviews. 2. Ageism and "Overqualified" Labeling Age Discrimination: Often beginning as early as 40, ageism hits hard at 50+, with older professionals overlooked for "high-energy" cultures or deemed too expensive. Hidden Age Bias: Recruiters may use "overqualified" as code for "too old" or "too expensive" to mask discriminatory hiring practices. Tech Stereotypes: Candidates feel perceived as tech-phobic or inflexible, despite often having more experience adapting to change than younger employees. 3. The Myth of the "High-Touch" Executive Search Disrespectful Process: Contrary to the belief that top-tier roles are high-touch, many executives report poor candidate experiences, including a lack of timely feedback or communication from recruiters. Discreet Hiring: Many top positions are filled internally or through private networking, leaving qualified external candidates fighting for a tiny public market. 4. Identity and Ego Challenges Loss of Identity: Senior leaders, accustomed to being "the boss," can lose their sense of self-worth when forced into a junior-like job-search role. Emotional Toll: The process is often described as overwhelming and emotionally draining, forcing senior professionals to ask for help when they are used to solving all problems themselves. 5. Misalignment of Value and "Role Stretching" Too Broad Scope: Job descriptions often read like they are looking for three different leaders in one, making it difficult to demonstrate you can meet all expectations. "Task vs. Leadership" Gap: Many executives fail because their resume reads like a list of tasks, not a narrative of strategic impact or leadership. 6. "Interim" and "Fractional" Uncertainty Unstable Employment: Many roles are shifting toward temporary, fractional, or consulting positions, which provides income but not the stability senior leaders often seek. 7. The "Outsider" Risk Internal Candidates: Companies often prefer to promote from within for high-level roles, leaving external senior leaders struggling to prove they are worth the risk. If you're stuck in this vortex, DM me and we'll brainstorm. (Let's get you out.)

I recently spoke with a candidate who pursued an opportunity on her own but ultimately withdrew her candidacy right before the final interview due to several red flags she noticed along the way. She was the firm’s top pick. She shared that this wasn’t the first time she made such a decision. If she consistently sees certain issues during the process, she would rather respect her time and step away than move forward. Red flags included: – Constant rescheduling of interviews with little notice – Interviewers showing up late or unprepared – Negative comments about current or former employees – Lack of transparency around compensation or advancement opportunities – A chaotic or disorganized process with no clear next steps – Disrespectful behavior toward staff during the candidate’s visit – Pressure to make quick decisions without enough information – Avoiding questions about workload, turnover, or firm culture – Focusing only on billable hours without mentioning professional development or work-life balance – Inconsistent messaging from different people about the role or culture – Unclear responsibilities and expectations – Dismissive or rushed communication The hiring process is a direct reflection of the firm. If respect and professionalism are not shown to candidates, why would it suddenly improve once they are on the team? At the end of the day, both firms and candidates are evaluating each other. The best matches happen when respect, transparency, and professionalism go both ways.

In IT recruiting, I’ve seen this more times than I can count. A hiring manager says: ❌ “The candidate rate is too high.” ❌ “We already have this profile from different vendor.” ❌ “No feedback. or Sudden New Update” ❌ “We’ll keep the resume for different role .” Many recruiters stop there. They see the rejection… and move on. But the real opportunity? It’s beneath the surface. Instead of negotiating blindly or just “checking back later,” change the approach: ✔ Ask what skill gaps the current team is struggling with ✔ Understand the business impact of the role staying open ✔ Identify what the current vendor isn’t delivering ✔ Reframe the conversation from rate to ROI (time-to-fill, quality, retention, project delay cost) Now let’s talk about the other side — candidate challenges. Because sometimes the issue isn’t budget. It’s market reality. In today’s IT hiring market: ❌ Niche tech stacks have a limited talent pool ❌ Strong candidates have 3–4 offers in hand ❌ Candidates reject onsite/hybrid roles ❌ Visa constraints shrink the available pool ❌ Long interview cycles cause offer drop-offs ❌ Unrealistic rate vs. skill expectations create mismatch If we don’t address these realities upfront, we waste weeks sourcing profiles that won’t convert. So instead of just “finding candidates,” shift the conversation: ✔ Calibrate must-have vs. good-to-have skills ✔ Align budget with market rates ✔ Shorten interview turnaround ✔ Sell the opportunity, not just screen resumes ✔ Position the role competitively against other offers Same goal: closing the position. Different approach: solving the hiring challenge on both sides. In IT recruiting, the real value isn’t in sending 10 resumes. It’s in aligning business expectations with market reality. Dig deeper. That’s where the real placements happen. 🚀 #ITRecruiting #TechRecruiter #TalentAcquisition #StaffingLife #HiringChallenges #RecruitmentStrategy

If you’ve ever been surprised when a strong candidate bows out midway through your hiring process, you’re not alone. At NRG, we see this happen all the time! Here are some common reasons top candidates drop out mid-process, & how to avoid them: 🔹 Long process. There’s a long gap between when the job is posted & when the candidate actually speaks with a hiring manager. Momentum slows. ➡ Solution: Move quickly, or set clear expectations about the process & timeline upfront. I like sending an auto email to all applicants that breaks down the timeline/process. 🔹 “Extra” work. A thoughtful exercise is one thing. But when candidates are asked to produce a fishy amount of work (especially unpaid), it’s a red flag. ➡ Solution: Only send short, relevant exercises that reflect what they’d do on the job. Consider compensating candidates for their time, too. 🔹 Equity disconnects. Imagine being interviewed exclusively by white staffers, then grilled about your commitment to equity. Candidates notice when the conversation doesn’t match the org’s reality. ➡ Solution: Diversify your interview panel. Train your staff to speak about equity authentically & consistently. 🔹 Better offers. A peer recruits them. A competing employer moves faster. Or another opportunity simply pays more. ➡ Solution: Stay in touch & keep candidates warm. If you can’t compete on salary, emphasize your org’s unique value (culture, impact, leadership potential, etc.) 🔹 Flexibility. Remote work, flex schedules, a 4-day work week. Candidates are prioritizing healthier work environments & will leave if they find a better option elsewhere. ➡ Solution: In the short term, be transparent about what flexibility your org can offer. In the long term, explore where your org can adapt. Small shifts can make a big difference. 🔹 Candidate experience. Every interviewer asks the exact same question. Spars or inconsistent communication. The candidate feels like just another resume in the pile. ➡ Solution: Create a hiring plan, including a rubric on key competencies, thoughtful interview questions, consistent follow-up, & personalized communication. 🔹 Instability. Leadership is shifting or leaving mid-search, & candidates sense risk. Even if the role is appealing, candidates worry about unclear direction or an uncertain leadership transition. ➡ Solution: Be transparent about what’s changing, who’s steering the ship, & how stability will be maintained. Acknowledging uncertainty builds trust. 🔹 Reputation. Bad Glassdoor reviews (yes, candidates read them. Even the New Yorker talked about it - http://bit.ly/4nZcuWU.) A reputation problem = a retention/recruitment problem. ➡ Solution: Start with meaningful exit interviews to learn what’s really going on. Then act on the feedback & highlight progress. The takeaway: Losing great candidates isn’t inevitable, it’s often preventable! QQ: What’s the most surprising reason you’ve seen a strong candidate drop out mid-process?

A Critical Evaluation of a Speculative Solution Creation Exercise. 🔵 The Unpaid Challenge: One of the most common and damaging issues with a design challenges is when they're unpaid. When we ask candidates to invest 6–10+ hours of their personal time producing speculative solutions, we are essentially asking them for free labor. Not everyone can afford to give away that much time, unpaid challenges reinforce privilege: they advantage those with fewer financial or family constraints, while unintentionally excluding working parents, caregivers, and those already balancing multiple roles. This is shortsighted. If we want to hire diverse, well-rounded designers who represent the communities our products serve, we cannot structure our process around uncompensated effort. 🔵 The Speed Test Fallacy: Fast ≠ Good A frequent issue is the bias toward speed. Candidates race to produce polished work in a short window to impress a hiring panel. The result is often hi-fidelity assumptions rather than carefully reasoned design. This fosters a dangerous dynamic: we start rewarding presentation shine and clever hacks rather than thoughtful inquiry, stakeholder alignment, or systemic thinking. That means we end up hiring designers who look fast and clever under pressure rather than the ones who excel at navigating ambiguity, asking the right questions, and collaborating across functions. It is the design equivalent of hiring a surgeon because they stitched something up quickly, without checking whether they addressed the underlying diagnosis. 🔵 The Quality Trap: Why Rushed Work Misleads Evaluators When work is rushed, we often confuse polish with competence. Candidates who happen to be adept at rapid prototyping or visual design may look stronger than those who are methodical researchers or strategists, yet in practice, both skill sets are critical. By removing time for discovery and reflection, the challenge becomes a test of production stamina, not design judgment. So hiring managers risk missing out on the very candidates who could strengthen their teams: deep thinkers, the empathetic interviewers, the ones who ask, What problem are we solving and why, instead of just designing a solution. 🔵 A Better Model: From Output to Process The most effective design exercises are contextual, transparent, and respectful. Strong alternatives include: 🔶 Portfolio Deep Dives: Walk candidates through past work, then ask how they would adapt their approach to your domain. 🔶Case Conversations: Provide real (sanitized) artifacts and constraints. Ask candidates what questions they would ask, how they would frame the problem, and what discovery paths they would pursue. 🔶Collaborative Workshops: Run a 45–60 minute facilitated working session with the hiring team so you see how candidates collaborate, not just what they produce alone. 🔶Paid Take-Homes: If a practical exercise is needed, scope it tightly (2–3 hours max) and pay candidates for their time. #Hiring

Are your role requirements excluding Disabled Individuals? Here are four of my personal icks when it comes to role requirements. **Must be able to work in a fast-paced environment** Not everyone navigates and interacts with the world in the same way. Some of us might take a little longer to complete tasks because of barriers that you probably aren't even aware exist. Adjustments/ accommodations might help us overcome some barriers, but this statement doesn't consider this and instead creates a barrier from the offset. **Must have strong verbal communication skills** This statement may exclude candidates who are Deaf, Neurodivergent, Autistic, or have Speech Disabilities. This does not mean these individuals cannot communicate. It just means they may excel at communicating through other means like sign language, written communication, or the aid of assistive technologies, etc… **Must hold a Degree** Education is a privilege. Many Disabled individuals have struggled to receive an equitable education. Meaning we have not had the same opportunities. We might have struggled with barriers resulting in us leaving education. By enforcing this requirement, you are potentially excluding a chunk of Disabled candidates. **"Must hold a driver's license"** This one is my biggest pet peeve. If a person is applying for a role such as Bus Driver, Taxi Driver, Race Car Driver, etc., then ask for a license. But if it is an office-based role, etc., then this shouldn't even be a requirement. If travel is required, an adjustment/ accommodation should be made for alternative travel arrangements. But again, unless I'm applying to be a race car driver, please stop excluding Disabled folks who are unable to legally drive. What are your personal icks when it comes to exclusionary job descriptions? Image Description: A dark background with outlines of stick figures representing non Disabled folks. Scattered across are solid blue and orange stick figures representing visible and non-visible Disabilities. A white text box reads, "Whether it's intentional or unintentional your job description might be creating barriers that exclude Disabled candidates. Meaning it might be ableist.” #TuesdayThoughts #DiversityAndInclusion #DisabilityInclusion #Ableism

Have you ever received an almost instant rejection after applying for a role you were clearly qualified for? Chances are, no human ever reviewed your application. That’s the Applicant Tracking System (ATS) at work, screening résumés based on filters recruiters set. And despite what many believe, it’s not about stuffing your résumé with every keyword in the job description. Most filters are high-level: ✔️ Specific job titles or close equivalents ✔️ Minimum years of experience ✔️ Essential technical or professional credentials (CPA, SQL, certifications, etc.) ✔️ Candidate location Which means if you’re: ➡️ Pivoting into a new function, industry, or title ➡️ Slightly outside the years of experience range ➡️ Relocating to a new city or country …you may be screened out automatically, even if you’re more than capable of doing the job. Of course, résumé adjustments can help, but here’s the real challenge: 1️⃣ You’ll never know the exact filters set for a particular role. 2️⃣ You’re competing against professionals who never applied. They were headhunted or referred. That’s why the smartest move isn’t only to “beat the system.” It’s to step outside of it. As a professional, your influence and network are far more valuable than an uploaded PDF. You position yourself as the candidate of choice when you: ✅ Build meaningful connections with hiring decision-makers ✅ Establish a visible professional brand on LinkedIn Because the truth is, top opportunities are rarely won in the application portal. They’re secured through visibility, reputation, and relationships.

I am starting to hear it daily from candidates we are trying to help. Candidates, especially those with disabilities, are becoming disillusioned. See, the thing is, it is ridiculously short-sighted. I know what companies are thinking at the moment: there are a lot of candidates out of work, big numbers. We have the pick of masses. Just because you have a big number to pick from doesn't mean you can afford to drop your standards and think you can have a slap-dash recruitment process. It will come back to bite you. Do you know why? It's because the tides will turn again. It always does in recruitment. At some point, there will not be as many candidates to hire, and it's these times that people will remember. Candidates talk, and news travels fast. They remember the bad experience way more than the good experience. For candidates with disabilities, these experiences can be even more impactful. An inclusive and accessible recruitment process is not just about fairness; it's about respect and common courtesy. Here are some steps to make the process more inclusive: 1. Accessible Job Descriptions: Ensure job descriptions are available in accessible formats, including screen reader-compatible text and large print versions. 2. Inclusive Communication: Use clear, simple language and provide multiple ways for candidates to reach out or ask questions. 3. Flexible Interview Formats: Offer alternatives such as virtual interviews, written responses, or extended time for assessments. 4. Physical Accessibility: Ensure interview locations are accessible, including ramps, elevators, and accessible restrooms. 5. Assistive Technologies: Provide necessary assistive technologies for candidates during interviews and assessments. 6. Training for Hiring Teams: Educate hiring teams on disability awareness and inclusive practices. 7. Feedback Mechanism: Establish a feedback mechanism where candidates can share their experiences and suggest improvements. So let’s clean up our act and start putting candidate experience first. Prioritizing accessibility and inclusivity can lead to a richer, more diverse workforce and a stronger organizational reputation. A respectful, inclusive process is common courtesy. Cheers ID: "A social media post by Puneet Singh Singhal with the handle @puneetsiinghal. The post reads, 'Excluding talent due to inaccessible hiring practices is short-sighted and costly. #DisabilityPrideMonth'" #DisabilityPrideMonth #SDGs #AXSChat #Accessibility #Equity #Hiring #HR #Leadership #WeAreBillionStrong

“I'm passing on this candidate. They’re just… not a great communicator.” I’ve heard this before. Many times. A candidate crushes the technical test… then completely fumbles the behaviorual interview. Why? Because they underestimated the one skill set that can make or break your career in tech: Soft skills. Here’s the reality: - 92% of hiring managers say soft skills are as important (if not MORE important) than hard skills. - Many managers would rather train a technically weaker candidate with great soft skills than hire a genius who can’t communicate. - Collaboration issues between IT and business teams actively slow projects down. In other words, if you can’t communicate, listen, and work well with others, you’re a liability, no matter how great your code is. So, how do you prove your soft skills in the hiring process? 1. Active listening > Rambling Let the interviewer finish. Then, paraphrase their question before answering. It shows clarity and engagement. 2. Keep answers concise Tech folks love going deep and going technical. But hiring managers/interviewers love clear, structured thinking. Use the STAR or CAR method 3. Show you’re a team player When discussing past projects, highlight HOW you worked with people, not just what you built. And if you really want to avoid career roadblocks? Keep these truths in mind: • Your skills get you in the door, but your attitude determines how long you stay. • People don’t just remember what you say. They remember how you make them feel. • Being right isn’t as valuable as being easy to work with. • A great idea means nothing if you can’t communicate it clearly. • No one promotes the person who drains the energy out of every meeting. • You can be the smartest in the room, but if no one likes working with you, it won’t matter. • Emotional intelligence often beats technical brilliance. •Trust is built through consistency, not grand gestures. • People follow leaders who listen, not just those who talk the loudest. • Humility opens more doors than arrogance ever will. • Be biased toward action. Remember this: Soft skills build careers and make you the obvious choice. They create trust, open doors, and make you someone people actually WANT to work with. But a lack of soft skills? That’s the fastest way to stall your career—no matter how talented you are. So if you’re serious about growth? Start with soft skills. Start with how you communicate. Start with how you empathize. Start with how you handle stress. That’s what sets apart great candidates from forgettable ones.