An inefficient selection process not only delays bringing the right person on board; it also drives up costs, damages the candidate experience and weakens the company’s ability to attract good talent in the future. The issue is that many of these inefficiencies end up being normalised and go unnoticed in day-to-day operations. Spotting the signs in time allows you to adjust the process and prevent the impact from becoming structural.
1. Excessively long times between stages
When weeks go by between one interview and the next without a clear reason, or decisions keep being pushed back, the organisation projects a lack of coordination. In a competitive market, a slow process doesn’t just mean the candidate loses interest or accepts another offer: it also sends a very clear message about the company’s internal agility and its ability to make decisions.
2. Misalignment between the profile sought and what is assessed in interviews
Another obvious sign of inefficiency is when interviews don’t really focus on the key competencies required for the role. If each interviewer follows a different script, asks about irrelevant topics or relies more on personal impressions than on objective criteria, the process loses consistency. The result: a higher margin of error and hiring decisions based more on gut feeling than on evidence.
3. Lack of communication with the candidate
Long silences between stages, generic emails or a complete lack of feedback leave a poor impression, even on candidates who are not ultimately selected. An efficient process keeps people informed, even if it is only to say that there is no news yet, and it respects their time and interest. That communication is what makes the difference between “I don’t fit right now” and “I don’t want to go through a process with this company again”.
4. Too many rejections at the final stages
When most rejections happen in the final phase, it is usually a sign that the initial screening has not been sharp enough. A solid process rules out profiles that are not a good fit early on, not at the end. The quality of the first filters —role definition, CV screening, first interview— directly shapes the efficiency of the entire process.
5. Offers frequently turned down
If the candidates who make it to the end repeatedly turn down the offer, the problem is almost never with them. It normally lies in how the process has been managed: unrealistic expectations, a lack of clarity about the role, key information being left out, or a salary and benefits package that does not reflect the market. A high rate of refusals is, in reality, a sign of misalignment between the story told during the process and the actual offer on the table.
Final thoughts
Efficiency in recruitment is not about piling on more tools, tests or interviews. It comes from designing a process that is clear, coherent and well aligned with the organisation’s talent strategy. A robust selection approach reduces turnover, improves the candidate experience and strengthens the company’s image as an employer. Identifying these five indicators is a concrete first step towards reviewing the current model, correcting deviations and moving towards truly strategic hiring processes.
Sources
– Candidate Experience Benchmark 2025, Talent Board:
https://www.talentboard.org
– Best Practice Guidelines in Executive Recruitment, AESC 2025:
https://www.aesc.org
