Why does hiring still take so long?

A recent report is highlighting how the length and complexity of hiring processes are weighing heavily on organizations and HR teams.

For one, 46% of Canadian managers say an inefficient hiring process is a big obstacle. And three in 10 (30%) say numerous procedures slow down the hiring process, while 26% point to unrealistic expectations about finding ideal candidates.

There’s also pressure coming from the candidates: 32% of candidates say they will lose interest in a role if they don’t receive a status update from an employer after two weeks of interviewing while 22% will wait one week, finds the Robert Half survey.

However, it takes an average of five weeks to staff an open position.

“One of the big challenges that many companies are facing is the complexity of the market as a whole, through different economic down cycles,” says Mike Shekhtman, senior regional director at Robert Half in Vancouver.

“When you're looking at some of the data points, you expect, ‘Well, companies shouldn't have the difficulty in hiring, it should be pretty easy, there's a plethora of candidates are available.’ And yet we're seeing that 90% of managers are saying it's difficult to find that skilled talent.”

In looking at the reasons for the delays, along with the risks, experts speaking to Canadian HR Reporter also provided tips for HR on how to shorten the process and improve hiring overall.

Downsides to delays: high turnover, reputational damage

The Robert Half study indicates that long recruitment processes lead to:

• High turnover due to heavy workloads (44%)
• High recruitment costs (42%)
• Losing candidates to competitors (40%)
• Delayed or cancelled projects (39%)

Hiring timelines can create a significant strain not only on the recruiting team but on current employees shouldering extra work, says Shekhtman — along with boosting the potential for overtime costs.

“You're looking at a decrease in team morale with the existing employees, and we've seen that all over, where it leads to that burnout and frustration and ultimately a decline in productivity.  So, there's just a lot of a lot of ripple-down effect of not making sure that you have an efficient hiring process in place.”

The impact of extended hiring on an organization’s brand can also be considerable.

“We know that a lengthy process just leads to different negative reviews,” says Shekhtman, so to mitigate this risk, consistent communication with candidates is crucial.

“It’s okay to have a prolonged process in some circumstances, in some roles... but as long as you’re very effective in your communication and setting clear expectations of the candidates that are applying and are in that process and are transparent as possible, that will certainly mitigate that risk of any damage to your brand.”

Why the delay? Inefficient processes

Nearly one-third (30%) of hiring managers identified the sheer number of procedures as a primary factor that slows down hiring, found Robert Half.

In addition to clarifying expectations early on, involving all relevant stakeholders in the hiring process can help smooth the timeline, says Shekhtman.

“It’s [about] making sure that everybody is on the same page as well in terms of the interview process, so doing everything companies can in terms of consolidating the interview process, bringing in and including all the stakeholders [to be] part of that process, and making sure also that all the approvals and budgets and compensation ranges have been really approved before you’re actually going through it.”

The biggest factor that leads to the longest delays is having the authorization to hire and then the budget is held up, says Peter Cappelli, George W. Taylor professor of management, director - Center for Human Resources at the Wharton School, and professor of education at the University of Pennsylvania.

“We may have even offered the job and had it accepted but the new hire cannot start until, say, the next quarter when the budget for the position will be released,” he says. “It appears to save money to stretch out hiring decisions because we measure the dollars saved in payroll but not the work that was not done by keeping the position open.”

One of the problems is under-investing in hiring, says Cappelli.

“We cut back on recruiters to save money and then push more tasks onto busy line managers. Line manager time is more expensive than typical recruiters, so do the reverse and free up line managers by pushing more hiring tasks onto professionals.”

Why the delay? Lack of clearly defined roles

Hiring teams feel added pressure to make the right decisions, particularly as some organizations have reduced headcounts in response to economic concerns, according to Shekhtman. This contributes to a narrower candidate pool and limited flexibility when hiring.

“Coming out of the pandemic, a lot of companies maybe even over-hired, in some circumstances. Now, there [has been] a little bit of a pullback, and you only have one or two hires that is available to you, or even just replacement hires versus investment hiring... the pool of candidates you're going after became narrower.”

Unrealistic expectations about finding the perfect candidate are also a big issue. And that can come down to effective job descriptions, he says.

“Ensuring that they have a sharp job description, that kind of loosened up because, over time and throughout the process, priorities change for organization. We know how fluid things have been for companies, so not having crystallized what people or companies are looking for really has become a hurdle for some organizations.”

 Job descriptions may evolve, causing managers to change priorities for candidates, says Shekhtman.

“All of a sudden, two weeks into the process, we’re actually looking for somebody more experienced,” he says, as an example, which can frustrate candidates and stall hiring decisions.

Fixing the delay: Cutting qualifications

Employers should think about bending the demand curve for candidates, not just moving the supply curve, says John Boudreau, professor emeritus of management and organization, at the USC Marshall School of Business in Santa Fe, citing research he’s done.

“Very often, the mindset is ‘We have this position, it has all of these qualifications and requirements, and we must find people that meet all of them.’ Now that's the demand side,” he says.

Instead, employers should reconsider those qualifications, and whether they are getting in the way.

“What if we were to remove the 10% of the qualifications that are most difficult to find out there and then reset that as our job requirement? How many more candidates would that allow us to hire?” says Boudreau. “Often, when companies do this exercise, they find that many of the requirements have just been historically added to the job… not really thinking about its impact on our recruitment process.”

By removing some of the qualifications, employers might just need to train or upskill people once hired, or look to automation or AI as alternatives, to fill the role without finding the perfect candidate, he says.

And the fact that there are more candidates available shouldn't cause an organization to wait and look at everyone, says Boudreau.

“If what we're finding is not quite 100% , then how much investment should we make in trying to push for that last, let's say, 10 or 20%?” he says.

“That kind of mindset can really contribute to a delay in the process and maybe wishful thinking, that... we have all these qualifications, and there may be only one magical person out there who can meet them.”

Fixing the delay: Fewer interviews

The other big factor is fear of making a bad hiring decision, or one that will be criticized, says Cappelli, so employers feel the need to have many people interviewing applicants before making a decision. 

“This is less about finding the best candidate and more about co-opting more people into being accountable for the decision,” he says, adding there should also be fewer interviews.

“Unless we have trained the interviewers on what to do and they have spent time preparing, they do no good. [Interviews] certainly slow down the hiring process because scheduling them drags it out.”

Many employers seem to think they need to conduct five interviews, to add predictability to the process — but that’s unlikely, according to Boudreau.

“Interviews can be one of the most time-consuming and difficult-to-manage parts of the process, because of all the scheduling and that kind of thing. So, I think it's worth organization stepping back and asking, ‘What is it that we're trying to accomplish with multiple interviews?’”

In addition, HR should look at the processes to make sure the right order is being followed, he says.

“You don't want to be doing the expensive, deep things too early, when you might be able to do very inexpensive and less involving things to winnow down… the applicant pool.”

For example, don’t carry out interviews before the basic eligibility issues are settled, says Boudreau.

“Most organizations get that right. But I'm always surprised how often I might see an organization where, if you just thought about efficiency, they may have misordered the process just because of tradition or something like that.”

Fixing the delay: Improving tech tools

While technology can help accelerate hiring processes, over-reliance on automation poses risks. These systems can inadvertently exclude candidates with strong soft skills if algorithms prioritize certain technical qualifications, for example.

“Technology, when used appropriately, can be a wonderful tool and can drive efficiency. But also, on the flip side, you have to be very careful where you’re not cutting out potential, really strong candidates,” says Shekhtman.

It's important for HR and recruiters to challenge the technology that is being used, and remove any biases or obstacles to identifying strong candidates.

“There’s ways to test the technology to ensure you’re not falling into some of those pitfalls, and you’re mitigating some of that risk that comes with it,” he explains. “You want to be able to be in a position where it enhances your HR and talent acquisition teams versus replacing them.”

The technology that's available for hiring is fairly impressive and sophisticated, such as automated responses to applicants, says Boudreau. But some recruitment functions “have some inertia based on the way they’ve done things in the past,” he says, so it can take time for new tools to be tested, approved and trusted.

“But I do think that we can see, on the horizon of technology, a lot of things that will make the process quicker and probably be at least more responsive and more satisfying to applicants.”

Fixing the delay: Tracking hiring metrics

To address hiring inefficiencies, many organizations are trying to better monitor the effectiveness of their processes, says Shekhtman.

“Organizations are taking a deeper dive and leveraging analytics, HR tools to measure the success of their talent acquisition teams.”

The more organizations can be proactive and invest in this space to allow them to understand their success, the more they can improve, he says.

“Unless you have some sort of baseline [or] starting point, you're not going to be in a position to really continue to improve and develop.”

Any measure of quality is better than none, but few companies do so because they are focused on cutting costs, says Cappelli.

“If you make the goal reducing cost per hire or time to fill, which most [employers] do, and then fail to measure quality of hire, you end up with worse hires,” he says. “Just ask: ‘Would you have hired this person if you could do it over?’”

Measuring your hiring speed is simple to do, says Cappelli, but as with most measures, it is more valuable to watch for changes in them — “Is it getting worse or better?” — than to worry about the absolute number.