The hiring process today is often caught between two important goals: giving candidates a great experience and making sure the company hires the right person. But here’s the reality—trying to fully satisfy both sides is a challenge that may never be fully resolved. In many ways, something’s got to give. It’s like the old saying, “you’ve got to crack some eggs to make an omelette.” The question becomes: which part of the process are we willing to compromise?

‍The candidate’s experience

From the candidate’s point of view, job applications can feel like a marathon. It’s a time-consuming and emotionally draining process, where hopes of landing a new role are met with rounds of assessments and interviews. Often, the frustration comes from feeling like they’re jumping through hoops without any guarantee of success. And when the process stretches out too long or feels overly repetitive, candidates can lose enthusiasm—not just for the job, but for the company.

The company’s perspective

On the flip side, companies have a tough job to do. They’re not just hiring anyone—they need to make sure the person they bring on board is the right fit. This means gathering as much information as possible through interviews, assessments, and background checks to make a confident decision. But thoroughness comes at a price: a longer, more involved process for candidates. While companies want to be efficient, cutting corners could lead to hiring mistakes that are far more costly in the long run.

Why the disconnect?

This disconnect happens because both sides have competing priorities. Candidates want the process to be quick, transparent, and respectful of their time. Meanwhile, companies need to be thorough to minimize risks. It’s not that either side is wrong—it’s just that these priorities don’t always line up neatly. In reality, it’s rare to have a process that’s both fast and rigorous without giving up something in between.

Can we please everyone?

Here’s the hard truth: it’s nearly impossible to please everyone. Even with all the innovations in recruitment, like allowing candidates to reuse assessment results or automating parts of the process, we can’t completely avoid the trade-offs. Companies can make the process quicker, but that might mean missing out on critical insights. They can make it more pleasant for candidates, but they risk hiring someone who isn’t the right fit. There’s no perfect balance because both sides are asking for things that naturally clash.

What needs to give?

To improve the process, it’s about identifying what you’re willing to compromise. For companies, it might mean streamlining assessments or relying on technology to speed things up, but knowing that some depth could be lost in candidate evaluation. For candidates, it’s understanding that a thorough process can take time and being patient with it, knowing that a fast process might not give them a fair shot to show their full potential.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the reality is that something has to give. While we can make hiring processes better, faster, or more pleasant, there will always be trade-offs. The goal isn’t perfection but finding a balance that works for both sides. By accepting that not every need can be fully met, we can create a process that is as fair and effective as possible, even if it’s not perfect.

What Do You Think?

Is there a way to strike the right balance between candidate experience and hiring accuracy, or does something always have to give? Let’s discuss!

‍