Managing Candidate Expectations

Your team’s success hinges on the talent you bring on board. But a slow hiring process can sabotage that success before it even begins. Here’s why dragging out the hiring process is a hidden risk: ⏳ Top Talent Drifts Away: The best candidates aren’t waiting around. 60% of job seekers lose interest if the process drags on. Quick decisions keep them engaged. 🛑 Brand Reputation Takes a Hit: A lengthy process reflects poorly on your company. Negative candidate experiences spread like wildfire, scaring off other top-tier talent. 💸 Costs Skyrocket: Every day a position stays open, your costs climb. Lost productivity and extended recruitment efforts drain your resources. 🔥 Team Burnout: Your current team bears the load when roles go unfilled. This can lead to burnout, decreased morale, and even turnover. 🚪 Opportunities Slip Away: Business moves fast. A delayed hire could mean missed opportunities that your competitors won’t hesitate to grab. Here’s how to avoid the pitfalls: 🎯 Streamline Your Process: Cut unnecessary steps and move quickly. The faster you act, the better your chances of securing top talent. 📅 Set Clear Timelines: Communicate expectations up front. Keeping candidates in the loop maintains their interest and commitment. 🛠 Empower Your Hiring Managers: Give them the authority to make decisions swiftly. Don’t let bureaucracy slow you down. 💡 Focus on Candidate Experience: Even a fast process can be a positive one. Make every interaction count. Did you know that 80% of top candidates are lost to slow hiring processes? That’s a risk you can’t afford to take. In my upcoming post, I’ll share actionable tips to speed up your hiring and secure the talent your team needs. 🚀 Don’t let the best slip away. Act fast, hire smarter!

“It is crucial for freshers aspiring to secure a place in today’s highly competitive talent market to understand that technical skills, while crucial, is only a part of the skillset required to thrive in our fast-evolving times,” says Shaji Mathew, Chief Human Resources Officer at Infosys. That said, how do LinkedIn’s Top Companies fare when it comes to attracting entry-level professionals? According to LinkedIn’s latest data, entry-level hires account for 45% of the workforce in India’s Top Companies, with more than 5,000 employees. And the figure is 37% at the Top Companies with fewer than 5,000 employees. In fact, among the large companies, the percentage of entry-level roles at Atlassian and Infosys stands at 47% and 35%, respectively. So, what makes these companies a sought-after destination for freshers? Clear career paths, ongoing skill development, growth opportunities, continuous education programmes, competitive pay, and a supportive work environment are some of the ways that Infosys attracts and retains young professionals, adds Mathew. The data also reveals that the average age of employees in both the large and midsize companies is 32. Bachelor’s emerged as the most common degree for 54% of employees at large companies, and for 41% at midsize firms. Among them, computer science emerged as the most common field of study, the data adds. Given this, what qualities do top companies look for in freshers? Employers are increasingly seeking applicants who bring curiosity, creativity, and initiative — soft skills that help professionals adapt and thrive with the rapid pace of AI and digital transformation, Mathew adds.  What skills are you looking to build to get hired for an entry-level role at a top company? Share your thoughts in the comments section. Check out the LinkedIn Top Companies in India with more than 5,000 employees here: https://lnkd.in/INTopCompanies25. And, check out the LinkedIn Top Companies in India with fewer than 5,000 employees here: https://lnkd.in/TC25MidsizeIN ✍️: Shivani Malik 📊: LinkedIn Economic Graph Research Institute 📷: Getty Images #LinkedInTopCompanies #FresherHiring #HiringAlert

As an executive recruiter, I've observed a common mistake professionals make when faced with salary pushback: immediately becoming defensive or flexible. Here's a more strategic approach 👇 When a recruiter challenges your salary expectations, avoid these common responses: • "I'm flexible on the number" • Lengthy justifications of your experience • Immediate concessions • Defensive reactions • Apologetic backtracking Instead, employ these strategic responses: • Redirect the discussion: "Could you share the allocated budget for this role?" • Explore total compensation: "Let's discuss the complete compensation package structure." • Reference market data: "Based on my research of similar roles in this market..." • Probe their perspective: "Help me understand how you arrived at your range." • Focus on value creation: "Let's discuss how my expertise can deliver value beyond the base salary." Remember: Salary discussions are business negotiations, not personal judgments. Your worth isn't determined by their budget constraints. The key is maintaining professional confidence while gathering information. Often, the first mention of salary concerns is the beginning of a negotiation, not the end. Check out my newsletter for more insights here: https://lnkd.in/ei_uQjju #executiverecruiter #eliterecruiter #jobmarket2025 #profoliosai #resume #jobstrategy #salarynegotiation

A Plant Manager with 18 years of experience, full P&L ownership, and a track record of improving OEE from 62% to 78% has applied to 40 roles, only to be told, “Not the right industry.” The issue at hand is clear: manufacturers claim they need leaders, yet they often screen for replicas. What they seek: - Same industry - Same product - Same ERP - Same customer mix What they overlook: - A GM who managed a $120M site and reduced scrap by 22% - An Ops Director who stabilized three shifts and decreased turnover by 18% - A plant-level Finance Director who improved margin by 400 basis points Different sectors, yet the same leadership levers. The real problem isn’t a shortage of talent; it’s pattern matching. Applicant tracking systems filter for keywords, teams prioritize familiarity, and managers favor comfort. As a result: - Roles remain open for over 90 days - Backlogs increase - Bench strength diminishes We label this a “talent gap.” Deloitte projects that 2.1 million manufacturing jobs will remain unfilled by 2030, not due to a lack of capable leaders, but because we filter out adjacent skills. It's time to stop hiring for sameness. Instead, we should evaluate: - Scale handled - Complexity managed - Decisions owned - Results delivered If your search has extended beyond 60 days, it’s not a resume issue; it’s an evaluation issue. Are we hiring for performance or for familiarity?

𝐎𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝? 𝐎𝐫 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐞𝐝? 💫 Have you ever been willing to consider a lesser role? I’m seeing senior candidates - people with great CVs, strong track records, proven delivery - applying for roles below their level. But employers often WON'T consider them! Why? Because they’re labelled a “flight risk.” “They’ll leave as soon as something better comes along.” There are loads of reasons why candidates might want to be more flexible: 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐬 ✅ 𝘉𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 They want exposure to a new sector, product, or market. ✅ 𝘗𝘪𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘳𝘴 Moving from agency to client-side (or vice versa). ✅ 𝘓𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 Keen to upskill under strong leadership or within a bigger brand. ✅ 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 Looking for a company with less volatility than a start-up/scale-up. ✅ 𝘚𝘵𝘦𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘴 Senior roles often come with layers of stakeholder wrangling. ✅ 𝘊𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 Some leaders genuinely miss the craft and want to be more hands-on again. 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐬 ✅ 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘬–𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 Title and money don’t mean much if you never see your family. ✅ 𝘏𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 & 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 Burnout or stress might push them to prioritise a calmer role. ✅ 𝘓𝘰𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 Wanting to work closer to home, or at a company with more flexibility. ✅ 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 Childcare, ageing parents, or other responsibilities. ✅ 𝘗𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵 They want to work in an industry that excites them, even if the pay is less. ✅ 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘴 Trading salary for a culture or mission that aligns with their principles. But let’s be honest - isn’t everyone a flight risk if you don’t treat them well, pay them fairly, or give them a reason to stay? Dismissing brilliant candidates out of fear means you miss out on skills, experience, and leadership that could make an immediate impact. In a market this tough, does that really make sense? Maybe it’s time to rethink the assumption that a candidate “overqualified” for a role can’t also be the right candidate. Because sometimes the best person for the job is the one you nearly didn’t interview.... Let's give people a chance! Forward Role Recruitment

How I Chose 3 Interns From 150+ Applicants (And Why Most Didn’t Make the Cut) PS! If you're an early career entrant or fresh out of school seeking your first opportunity, read this! Recently, I set out to hire two interns for the Growth and Marketing Team at YouVerify. The response? Over 150 eager applicants. But in selecting the final 2, I had to pass over more than 147 others. Many were talented, but the difference lay in the details. So What Set the Selected Candidates Apart? Here are a few thoughts that you may find helpful. 1) Beware the “Expert” Trap. Far too many applicants called themselves “experts.” For entry-level roles, I’m looking for learners, not seasoned veterans. If your profile says “expert,” you are overqualified (and misunderstood the offer). 2) Don’t Oversell Experience. Some had several years in other organizations, applying for roles designed for beginners. If your real experience far exceeds the requirements, chances are you’re not going to be selected for an intern program - Unless you're transitioning, in which case, you have to be VERY clear about. 3) Relevance Matters. Profiles loaded with unrelated buzzwords miss the mark. If your summary reads “Product Manager,” “Geologist,” or “Accountant” for a Marketing Associate role, it shows you haven’t tailored your story to the job requirement, or perhaps you do not understand the role at all. Always adapt your summary to the job you want. 4) Show Your Journey. Even without direct experience, indicate that you’re transitioning and hungry to learn. Express your passion for the field so the recruiter sees your intent. Then, show any experience you have that may be useful for this new role you're applying for. 5) Prepare for Interviews. Brilliance alone doesn’t get you hired. Come ready, camera on, well-dressed, in a professional environment. Your preparation is a window into your future work ethic. Also, put some effort into learning about the company you're applying to - It's nonnegotiable! 6) Be Honest Always. An applicant lied about using AI help during the interview and lied again when asked directly. Trust is non-negotiable. A single lie can cost you everything. 7) Put your best foot forward! Notice how I set out to hire 2 but rejected 147? That's because I ended up hiring 3. One candidate was distinctively better during he process, and although I had already closed out on my selections, I found myself asking, "What else can this person bring to the team?" - That curiosity led to my decision, and so far I have not been disappointed. Lessons for Young Professionals. If you’re chasing your first big career opportunity, remember: The basics set you apart. Show humility, preparation, and integrity, and you’ll stand out in any crowd. Have more experience? Please share in the comments, let's learn together! #GrowwithHakeem

One of the biggest challenges in the insurance recruitment market right now isn’t a lack of transformation, investment, or available talent. It’s decisiveness and speed. In a competitive market, hesitation is expensive and while a bad hire carries risk, losing a great one through delay is often more damaging. If you want to avoid missing out on top talent, consider this: ✍🏻Your hiring process reflects your organisation. Indecisiveness, drawn-out timelines, and unnecessary stages signal slow decision-making. Candidates assume that if change feels hard during recruitment, it will be harder once inside. ✍🏻Be crystal clear on the brief. Define the hire properly upfront and test it through your network, benchmarking, and market insight so you’re aligned with reality. A vague requirement leads to stalled decisions later. ✍🏻Streamline with intent. Can stages be combined? Can diaries be opened up to compress timelines? It’s the quality of conversations, and not the quantity that drives great hiring decisions. ✍🏻 Run recruitment like a project. Clear ownership, defined milestones, measurable outcomes, agreed timeframes, and momentum should never be accidental. ✍🏻 Trust your judgement on permanent hires. Capability to deliver is fundamental but permanent hiring is a value exchange and a long-term journey. Ask yourself: where could this person be in 6–12 months and where will we be if we don’t hire them? ✍🏻 Close with urgency. Offers, approvals, background checks, contracts.. these should move with precision and pace.. an administrative drag can lose talent. I stand by the analogy: “time kills deals” The best candidates are in demand and they won’t wait.

While leading TA at Going, we implemented a search-based cohort hiring model, and it became one of the most impactful shifts in how recruiting operated. We’d open a role with a defined application window, move candidates through the process on a shared timeline, and make decisions with structure and clarity. It wasn’t rigid. We stayed flexible. Sometimes the right candidate wasn’t in that first cohort, or timing didn’t work out. When that happened, we’d reset and run the search again. But even with that, it was still far more effective than managing candidates in five different stages with no shared context or end in sight. Here’s what this approach unlocked: ✅ Aligned timelines and expectations Everyone knew what was happening and when. It gave hiring teams space to plan, focus, and reduce context switching — which led to faster, sharper decisions and a more cohesive process. ✅ Faster, more confident decisions Evaluating candidates side by side helped patterns emerge more clearly. Strong alignment stood out. Misalignment did too. ✅ Less recency bias When everyone moves through at the same pace, decisions become more objective. You’re not relying on memory from weeks ago. ✅ More consistent feedback When interviews happen in a tight window, feedback loops actually work. Interviewers stay engaged and hiring managers don’t lose context. ✅ Better candidate experience Candidates had clear expectations and timely communication. No wondering where they stood or what came next. ✅ Cleaner, more actionable data Because the process was consistent, the data meant something. We could identify drop-off points, optimize pass-through rates, and actually learn from the search. And the results spoke for themselves: 📉 We reduced time to fill by 41% ✅ We saw a 100% offer acceptance rate. ⭐ And a 5/5 QoH rating within the new hire's first 90 days. Was it perfect? No. It takes planning. It takes alignment. And yes, sometimes you’ll need to rerun a search. But in a fast-moving org, the clarity, speed, and quality this model gave us made it more than worth it. Hiring doesn’t need to feel reactive. With the right structure in place, it becomes focused, fair, and far more effective. Have you tried something similar? Would love to hear how it worked for you. 👇

"Entry-level UX job" Requires 3-5 years of experience... You've sent 83 applications this month. Spent hours customizing each portfolio case study. Studied the company's product. Wrote the perfect cover letter. Watched tutorials at 2 am. Nothing. While LinkedIn screams, "We're hiring." 𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲'𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁'𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴: You're not failing. The system is. Companies gutted their training budgets, fired their junior designers, then turned around and posted "entry-level" roles requiring 5 years of experience. They want someone who already knows their design system, understands stakeholder politics, and can ship features on day one, all for $65K. It's not a job posting. It's a fantasy. The economics: ↳ Average cost per hire is ~$4,700 (SHRM) ↳ 31% of new hires quit within their first 6 months ↳ Full productivity doesn't hit until month 6-12 They wait six months for a "perfect" candidate rather than investing three months in you. Then they wonder why they can't fill roles. 𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲'𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝗯𝗼𝗱𝘆 𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂: That 3-5 year requirement? It's a wishlist, not realistic. The designers breaking through aren't asking for permission. They're doing 4 things: 𝟭. 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗳 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗹𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 ↳ Unsolicited redesigns of real products ↳ Case studies showing business impact (even if hypothetical) ↳ Side projects demonstrating process, not just pixels 𝟮. 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲 ↳ Stop saying "improved user experience." ↳ Start saying "increased conversion by 23%." ↳ Frame everything as revenue impact or cost savings 𝟯. 𝗧𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗷𝗼𝗯 𝗯𝗼𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀 ↳ Reach out to design leaders directly ↳ Offer to do a paid trial project ↳ Show you understand THEIR specific challenges 𝟰. 𝗧𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗷𝗼𝗯 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝗮 𝗨𝗫 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺 ↳ Research the company's pain points ↳ Create a custom presentation showing how you'd solve them ↳ Make yourself the obvious, de-risked choice I've seen designers with 6 months of self-study land roles over candidates with degrees because they demonstrated business value instead of credentials. The gate's locked. Stop staring at it. Build a ladder. --- PS: What's your take? How are you jumping the gate? Follow me, John Balboa. I swear I'm friendly and I won't detach your components.

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?