How Group Decision-Making Slows the Hiring Process

Strong candidates have options. Even now when markets are uncertain. Your six week, four round, three stakeholder hiring process just told them exactly where they sit on your priority list. To you it feels thorough. To them it's a signal. A signal that decisions move slowly here. That clarity is hard to come by. That if this is how the organisation behaves when it's trying to impress someone — what's it like on an average day? The candidates who tolerate a slow, disengaged process aren't always your strongest ones. The strongest ones have already made a quiet decision and moved on. What gets lost isn't just time. It's the quality of your final shortlist. By the time you reach the decision you think you're making — the real decision was made weeks earlier by the candidate you didn't move fast enough to keep. The one who told you they had secured something else but really had seen enough to know your environment wasn't right for them. The best candidates aren't intimidated by a rigorous process. They're turned off by a complicated one dressed up as rigorous. Relevance. Momentum. Quality engagement. That's what secures the best leaders in any market. Not the most rigorous process. The most respectful one. When did you last audit your hiring process from the candidate's perspective and not just your own?

If someone had told me last year that we’d rethink our hiring process, I wouldn’t have believed. We used to believe in “move fast, fill the gap” sort of an arrangement. Hire passionate people and you are good to go. But by Feb end, that approach had started to complicate. We needed two new team members and we went the usual way: 🔺 Shortlist  🔺 Assignment 🔺 Interview (2 Rounds) Get someone in before the month ends. This time, though, the cracks showed up early. One new hire came in with an impressive resume but struggled to adapt to our pace and client expectations. Another seemed promising, but after a week, it was clear there was a disconnect around ownership, waiting for instructions instead of taking charge. It forced us to stop and actually map out what we needed, beyond skills. We got the whole team involved in the hiring conversations. We built a short “culture fit” assignment, not just a skill test. We stopped relying on resumes and built a form with questions like 🟢 What do you do beyond work? 🟢 How do you describe your experience in the most creative manner? And you wouldn't believe that 90% of ‘passionate people’ dropped out at the entry. Did not fill the form. Hence, it became a mandate. We next created assignments and set clear expectations in each round. Half of the people dropped when they heard about what they’ll have to do. We looked for red flags at every step. And by the time we reached ‘the one’, we were left with that 1% group that wanted to make it work. High intent folks. Was it slower? Definitely. But now, three months in, the difference is clear: — The team works with less supervision — New people bring their own ideas — We’re not scrambling to fill the same role twice The biggest thing the first half of 2025 taught us? Hiring slow to find the right cultural fit meant we only have to do it once for one role. And building in honest feedback, right from day one, keeps the team sharper. If you’ve made a change this year that actually stuck, I’d love to hear about it. Torchlight #startup #talent #marketingagency

𝟰 𝗣𝘀𝘆𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗕𝗶𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗤𝘂𝗶𝗲𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗞𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗛𝗶𝗿𝗲𝘀 One of the hardest patterns to address in executive hiring? 👉When a department head or peer executive derails a top candidate, reasons are rarely rational and more psychological. 𝟭. 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝘂𝘀 𝗧𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 When a candidate is perceived (consciously or unconsciously) as more capable, strategic, or experienced than the hiring manager, it can trigger status anxiety. 📚 Fiske et al. (2002): Status threats activate defensive behavior even without overt competition. That “something doesn’t feel right” feedback? It’s often about fear of losing relevance or control. 𝟮. 𝗦𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗕𝗶𝗮𝘀 Professionals often benchmark others against themselves. Especially in roles adjacent to their own. “Are they more impressive than I was at that stage?” “Would I have gotten this role today?” The better the candidate, the harder the comparison — and the greater the discomfort. 📚 Festinger’s Social Comparison Theory (1954) explains why this can result in inflated scrutiny or discomfort with stronger candidates. 𝟯. 𝗖𝗼𝗴𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 When there’s a mismatch between the stated goal (“We want the best”) and the emotional response to a high-caliber candidate, decision-makers often rationalize the rejection. 📚 Classic signs: vague feedback, shifting criteria, or overreliance on “gut feel.” “They’re not a cultural fit.” “They wouldn’t be hands-on enough.” These are socially acceptable ways to justify an emotional decision. 𝟰. 𝗥𝗼𝗹𝗲 𝗜𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘆 & 𝗣𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗗𝘆𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗰𝘀 Some leaders see their role as the center of influence. Hiring a strong peer or direct report can feel like a loss of control. 📚 Ashforth & Mael (1989) describe how role identity can unconsciously shape resistance to change in leadership structures. These dynamics don’t always reflect bad intent — but they do have real consequences:   • Slower hiring cycles   • Missed opportunities   • Weakened leadership teams   • Quiet resentment among candidates The key is awareness: Not just of candidate capability, but of 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝘀𝘆𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗺. Strong advisory work doesn’t just match candidates. It helps organizations make decisions that align with their future, not just their comfort zone. Expert Search #ExecutiveSearch #LeadershipDevelopment #CognitiveBiases #OrganizationalPsychology #BiasInHiring #SuccessionPlanning #ExecutiveAdvisory

The most expensive hiring mistake companies make isn’t a bad hire. It’s delayed decisions. Here’s how it usually plays out in B2B teams: A role is approved. Interviews happen. Feedback drags. More rounds get added “just to be sure”. Meanwhile, the cost keeps rising: • Strong candidates accept other offers • Hiring managers stay stretched • Business priorities slow down All without anyone officially saying, “We’re stuck.” What actually fixes this (without adding tools or headcount): 1️⃣ Assign one clear decision owner Not five stakeholders with veto power. 2️⃣ Time-box feedback 24–48 hours max. No exceptions. 3️⃣ Align expectations before interviews start What does “good” actually look like for this role? Fast hiring isn’t reckless. It’s disciplined. And discipline is a leadership decision, not an HR one.

I saw a high-growth Series B company lose their top 3 job candidates last month. All three passed every interview round. It took 3 weeks for them to get their offers. These were critical roles. But all 3 had already accepted jobs elsewhere by the time they heard back. The CEO was furious: "Why are we so slow?" 𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐞'𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐚: → Resume screening: 6 hours total. → Interview scheduling: 4 days. → Deliberation and alignment: 2 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬𝘴. The culprit wasn't their recruiting team. It was the hidden coordination tax no one talks about. Six stakeholders.  Different priorities.  Conflicting "gut feels."  No shared rubric. One founder was traveling.  Another "wanted to meet them again, first."  A third changed their mind mid-process. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐀𝐈 𝐡𝐲𝐩𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲: Everyone's building tools to screen candidates 10x faster. Parsing resumes.  Ranking skills.  Removing bias. Great. You just saved 6 hours. But you're still bleeding weeks in the decision loop. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐦𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠: AI's highest-value role in hiring isn't processing candidates. It's processing disagreement. What if after every interview, AI could: → Synthesize feedback against agreed criteria → Map exactly where your team disagrees and on what dimensions → Isolate the 2-3 actual trade-offs blocking consensus → Route to the decision-maker who can resolve that specific gap You might stop losing candidates to coordination lag. Not because you screened faster. Because you aligned faster. 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐀𝐈 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭. 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐚𝐦𝐞. The talent market moves in days now. Your decision process needs to match that speed. Where does momentum die in your hiring process?

There’s a leadership behaviour quietly damaging hiring outcomes right now. And most organisations don’t even realise they’re signalling it. Hiring processes have become more sophisticated over the past few years, with more stages, more scrutiny, and more stakeholders. On paper, it looks like rigour. In reality, it often looks like indecision. Here’s what high-performing candidates see when a process drags: • A business struggling to align • Leaders lacking conviction • A culture leaning toward risk avoidance • Execution that may be slower than advertised Top talent doesn’t get rejected in these processes. They opt out. Not loudly. Not emotionally. They choose environments that know how to make decisions. The companies consistently securing the strongest operators aren’t flawless, but they are decisive. They define what “great” looks like early. They empower leaders to call it. They communicate clearly. And when they see capability… they move. 👉 Hiring speed is no longer an operational metric. It’s becoming a visible substitute for organisational health. Because the market concludes either way: 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀. 𝗛𝗲𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘀 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸. A question worth raising at the exec table: 𝗜𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗵𝗶𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗳𝘆 𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁 — 𝗼𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻? The difference is where top performers decide to go. #𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 #𝗛𝗶𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆 #𝗕𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗘𝘅𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 #𝗧𝗮𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁 #𝗘𝘅𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽

I sat in on a meeting between a recruiter and a hiring manager. The recruiter was excited. “I’ve got someone who checks all the boxes- top skills, great experience. You’ll love them.” The hiring manager frowned. “They might be great, but this isn’t what we’re looking for.” Awkward silence. The recruiter pushed back. “But you said leadership skills and technical expertise. That’s exactly what they have.” The hiring manager sighed. “Sure, on paper, they’re great. But I need someone who’ll click with the team-and thrive in our culture.” That moment hit me hard- because the real losers in this misalignment weren’t in the room: → The candidates. → The team waiting for support. → The business feeling the ripple effects of a delayed hire. Here’s the problem: The hiring process isn’t broken because of a lack of candidates- it’s broken because of a lack of alignment. → Recruiters focus on job requirements. → Hiring managers focus on team fit. When they’re not aligned, here’s what happens: → Great candidates slip through the cracks. → Teams feel the strain of empty roles. → Business growth slows down. But when they work together? → Faster timelines. → Better hires. → A stronger, happier team. Here’s how to fix it: ↘ Recruiters: Don’t just take the job description. Ask, “What does success look like six months in?” ↘ Hiring Managers: Stop treating recruiters like order-takers. Share your vision. Describe what “fit” really means. Before any role goes live, schedule a 15-minute alignment call: → Set expectations. → Swap priorities. → Nail down deal-breakers. This isn’t just about filling roles. It’s about building teams that thrive- and shaping businesses that grow.

"Hire slow, fire fast." This advice has cost companies more top talent than any bad job posting. Here's the myth: take your time hiring. Be careful. Do seven rounds of interviews. Make them present. Have them meet the whole team. Deliberate for three weeks. Here's the reality: while you're being "thoughtful," your best candidate accepted an offer from the company that moved in five days. I've watched this happen more times than I can count. A company finds a great candidate. Everyone agrees they're strong. Then the process kicks in: → "Let's do one more round just to be safe." → "Can they come back to meet the VP? She was traveling last week." → "Let's sleep on it over the weekend." → "We want to see one more candidate for comparison." Monday morning, the candidate emails: "Thank you, but I've accepted another offer." Shock. Disappointment. "They must not have been that interested." Wrong. They were very interested. In a company that respected its time. Here's what I actually believe: Hire with conviction. Fire with data. If you've done your homework, clear job definition, structured interviews, and reference checks, you should be able to make a decision in 2 weeks, not 2 months. The "slow" in "hire slow" was supposed to mean "be thorough." It's been bastardized to mean "be indecisive." And "fire fast" is equally dangerous without context. Fire fast with documentation, due process, and a genuine attempt at coaching first. Otherwise, you're just reactive. The real advice: Hire with speed and conviction. Develop with patience and honesty. Separate with respect and data. But that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker. #Hiring #Leadership #Talent #TruthWins

🎙️Groupthink When Hiring Is hiring broken—or just badly designed? In this episode of All Things Product, Petra Wille and Teresa Torres unpack what’s really going wrong in modern hiring processes. From AI-fueled application overload to endless interview loops and “casual” team lunches that derail months of work, they explore how groupthink, bias, and poorly defined criteria are quietly sabotaging good hiring decisions. They discuss why involving too many people with veto power often leads to no decision at all, how “culture fit” becomes a proxy for bias, and what product teams can learn from product discovery when designing hiring processes. Plus, they share practical advice for candidates navigating today’s brutal job market—and resources to help you avoid going it alone. Whether you’re a product leader hiring your next PM or a product practitioner stuck in interview limbo, this episode offers clarity, empathy, and concrete ways forward. Show Notes What’s happening in the hiring market 🧊 Layoffs and hiring freezes are making the job market especially tough 🤖 Companies are overwhelmed by hundreds of applications, often amplified by AI tools 🌀 Hiring funnels are getting longer, with more interviews and more stakeholders involved When “one last step” kills the offer 🍽️ Candidates pass every formal interview—only to be rejected after a casual team lunch 🧑🤝🧑 Teams often aren’t briefed on what they’re supposed to evaluate 🗣️ Groupthink kicks in when one negative comment cascades into a no-hire decision Groupthink ≠ good hiring decisions 🚫 Letting everyone veto a candidate almost guarantees no one gets hired 🎯 Focus-group-style interviews create bias, not signal 🧬 “Culture fit” often masks stereotypes and personal preferences A better way to design hiring 🧭 Define who you’re hiring before writing the job description 📏 Set clear success metrics for the role 🔖 Assign each interviewer specific criteria to evaluate 🧪 Treat hiring like product discovery: intentional, structured, and evidence-based Chemistry checks done right ✅ It’s okay to assess collaboration—but only if you define what that actually means 🙅♀️ Introversion, debate style, or lunch-table behavior are not performance indicators 🌈 Diverse teams outperform homogenous ones—even if not everyone “vibes” Advice for candidates 🫶 If a process feels broken, it’s often not about you ❓ You can ask how you’re being evaluated to gauge process maturity 🧩 Many companies simply haven’t figured hiring out yet Links to Apple Podcasts, and YouTube: 📺Youtube: https://buff.ly/Ef8UgfA 🍎Apple Podcast: https://buff.ly/0XxHL1R Give it a listen and share your thoughts in the comments below.💬👇

If it takes 7 people and 10 interviews to agree on a hire, you don’t have a talent problem, you have a decision making problem. Hiring teams keep asking the same question: “Why can’t we land top talent right now?” It’s probably not what you want to hear. You’re not losing on comp. You’re not losing to a better logo. You’re losing in the interview. Because here’s what candidates experience : Round 1: “We’re moving fast.” Round 3: “We’re still aligning.” Round 5: “Let’s add one more conversation.” Round 7: “Do a mock discovery and pitch us on our own product.” Final round: we’re circling the troops, have been busy, in SKO, closing deals... Then leadership wonders why the candidate “lost interest.” They didn’t lose interest. They lost confidence. Top reps read signals fast : • Slow process = slow decisions • Vague answers = internal chaos • Endless interviews = fear of making the wrong call So when they see red tape, lots of hoops and no clear owner, The signal is loud and clear. And they move on. Behind the scenes, here’s what reps are really thinking - “If it takes this long to hire me… what’s going to happen when I have a $500K deal and the CRO and CFO disagree on pricing?” Or when legal slows it down, finance wants margin and no one wants to make the call. Or when the CEO and CRO can’t agree on territory or comp. Those questions answers themselves. What candidates see in an interview,  Is exactly what they expect when they join. Too many cooks. No clear direction. No clear decision-maker. The best candidates don’t need convincing. They need clarity.  • Who decides?  • What does success look like in 6 months?  • What problem are they being hired to solve now? If your team can’t answer cleanly and clearly, top reps notice, and will choose to go in another direction. Interviews don’t hide dysfunction. They broadcast it.