The Need for Transparent Hiring Processes: A Firsthand Experience

Recruiting and hiring the right talent is a critical aspect of any organization’s growth. However, a poorly managed hiring process can damage the company’s reputation, discourage potential candidates, and frustrate recruitment partners. I recently had an experience with a well-known organization that highlighted how mismanagement in hiring can lead to a loss of trust from both candidates and recruiters.

Many of you might be facing similar challenges daily. While internal reasons might justify certain delays or changes in hiring strategy, a formal and structured way of updating and closing interview processes is always appreciated by candidates and hiring partners. Organizations need to improve their hiring systems to attract genuine talent and build trust in the industry.

The Scenario: How It All Started

The company approached me for resources with a specific skill set, claiming to have good number of positions to be filled across the country. Given their scale and reputation, my team and I took the requirement seriously and started working on it diligently.

1. Initial Candidate Sourcing: We launched job postings and campaigns, sourcing 25 profiles with relevant skills. These candidates had notice periods ranging from 30 to 90 days—some were already serving their notice, while others were ready to resign once they received an offer.
2. Profile Submission: We shared a detailed table with the hiring team, including candidate details such as names, contact numbers, degrees, current and expected CTC, and notice periods, along with resumes.
3. Interview Coordination Begins: The responsible HR initially provided interview slots for only a few candidates, and we scheduled technical rounds accordingly.

Alarming Feedback on the Company's Hiring Process

During the selection process, several candidates shared negative reviews about the company's hiring approach and specific HR personnel they had previously interacted with. While I initially did not place much weight on these concerns—since candidate experiences can vary—I realized through firsthand experience that these issues were valid and needed attention.

Unexpected Challenges: Phase 1

1. Delays and Uncertainty: After the first few interviews, there was a complete standstill. Despite repeated follow-ups, HR kept delaying the interview process while we held candidates in limbo.
2. Sudden Virtual Drive Announcement: Ten days later, HR informed us of a mandatory virtual hiring drive scheduled for a weekend. Although my team does not work weekends, I made emergency adjustments to accommodate them, canceling a colleague’s leave and ensuring coordination.
3. Lack of Panel Availability: On the day of the drive, my team was ready, but the interview panel wasn’t available. Candidates were kept waiting for 3-4 hours due to an outage at the company. Despite this, I ensured that candidates were updated and engaged to maintain their interest.
4. Selection of Candidates: Out of 15 candidates who were interviewed, 8 cleared the technical round and were asked to proceed to the next stage.

The Breakdown: Phase 2

1. Second-Round Delays: HR gave only a couple of slots per day, significantly delaying the completion of second-round interviews.
2. Feedback Gap: Despite our continuous follow-ups, no feedback was shared for another 10 days. HR kept on saying that its pending from Technical panel. I am not sure how much time does it take to share feedback but I knew something else is happening in the backend which they didn't want to share.
3. Location Constraints: When i pushed too much then company later informed us that 70% of positions were to be filled in Mumbai and only 30% are there in Hyderabad. Considering only 2 out of 8 qualified candidates were from Mumbai, i still pushed them for interview closure & I pushed them more to finish the interviews of candidates who were based out of Hyderabad/Telangana so that at least we can fill those 30% of the positions at least and those candidates who have shown too much interest, can be offered with the offer letter. But there was hardly any serious progress.
4. Face-to-Face Interviews Introduced: All of sudden, HR then mandated a face-to-face (F2F) interview round for the people who were selected & it was not told to us, else we could have only targeted local candidates who would have attended F2F interview. While I understood the need to verify candidates due to industry fraud, the approach lacked planning, however i was supportive about it because of current fraud trend within candidates profile. But it created trouble to people who were located in other cities & ultimately they had to drop their plan and denied us for F2F interview. I personally felt bad because they had spent too much time already on this process, and considering our team was interacting with these candidates, including me personally, it was a question on our credibility and reputation too.
5. Sudden Rejections: One of the candidates was rejected after three rounds and an F2F interview due to a salary mismatch—something that should have been clear from the beginning itself specially when candidates expectations were shared in advance. When I questioned HR about this, his frustration was evident, leading to a bit tense conversation among us but somehow it ended on better note & understanding.
6. Final Round Abandoned: To my surprise, after multiple follow-ups, suddenly the F2F round was canceled altogether, and HR claimed they were now working on offer letters of the few selected candidates. However, salary mismatches further stalled the process.
7. Loss of Trust: After two months, only one offer was rolled out. Candidates lost trust in us, stopped responding to our team, and shared negative feedback about the partner company based on their experience.

To us, our reputation and credibility always matter, along with all the parties wherever we get engaged to. Considering, i personally felt bad on this overall transaction, I just thought of sharing it openly.

Key Takeaways: Why Companies Must Improve Hiring Practices

1. Timely Updates: If an organization no longer intends to proceed with a candidate, they should communicate this formally instead of leaving them in uncertainty.
2. Respect Candidates’ Time: Candidates invest their time and effort in preparing for interviews. Keeping them waiting for hours or dropping them without clear communication harms a company’s reputation.
3. Clear Salary Discussions: Salary expectations should be reviewed before interviews. Rejecting a candidate after multiple rounds due to a mismatch reflects poor planning.
4. Process Structuring: A structured hiring process ensures transparency and builds trust with both candidates and recruitment partners.
5. Reputation Matters: Organizations must understand that hiring is not just about filling positions but also about maintaining credibility in the industry.

Conclusion

While cost remains a prime factor in hiring, human values and proper candidate treatment must never be overlooked. It is perfectly acceptable to reject candidates, but it must be done in a structured and respectful manner. Companies that fail to do so will struggle to attract and retain genuine talent in the long run.

My experience with this company was disappointing, but I hope sharing it helps both organizations and hiring partners reflect on the importance of maintaining a fair and transparent hiring process. Only through such improvements can companies truly establish themselves as desirable employers in the industry.

I don't intend to provoke these feelings, and I understand many of you may have encountered this in your hiring processes. However, this was my first experience, so I wanted to address the hiring team. I consistently emphasize the importance of recruiting authentic individuals, and it's crucial that all hiring companies respond genuinely, as it reflects on their reputation and, everyone associated with them. All parties must maintain equilibrium to ensure proper balance.