Hiring is not what it used to be. What was once a transactional process to fill vacancies has become a complex (and key) component of organisational strategy. The stakes are high, and so is the pressure to get it right.

But at some point, the search for the “perfect” candidate has taken a wrong turn. Cumbersome, incoherent, and excessively long interview cycles are no longer just inefficient; they are actively undermining business objectives.

It’s natural to want to be thorough. No one wants to rush a decision that could shape their team for years to come. But there’s a fine line between prudent due diligence and paralysis by analysis.

Laszlo Bock's book Work Rule suggests that after the fourth interview, the returns diminish sharply. According to the author, founder and Co-Director of the Berkeley Transformative CHRO Leadership Academy, four interviews are enough to predict whether or not a company should hire someone with 86 percent confidence. Every additional interviewer after the fourth added only 1 percent more predictive power.

Accuracy in hiring decisions doesn’t improve, but the risks multiply – longer time-to-hire, mounting internal resource costs, and increasing candidate dropout rates. At that point, you’re not refining your shortlist – you’re running on a treadmill.

As Daniel Callaghan, CEO of Veremark, puts it, overcomplicated processes are more than just inefficient – they're a warning sign to candidates. In today’s market, where talent often entertains multiple offers simultaneously, slow decisions mean lost opportunities.

The costs of over-interviewing

Every interview carries a price tag, not just in monetary terms, but in time, focus, and productivity. Each hour spent interviewing is an hour not spent on core business activities.

Now, multiply that by several rounds, multiple stakeholders, and a couple of candidates per role, and the true cost begins to snowball.

But there’s a subtler risk: fragmentation. Without a coordinated evaluation framework, interviews become repetitive, inconsistent, and – at worst – biased. Different interviewers using different yardsticks dilute clarity rather than add depth. In such cases, more interviews don’t bring better insight – they just muddy the waters.

And let’s not ignore the message this sends externally. According to Michelle Lownie, CEO of Eden Scott, “When candidates are presented with a lengthy interview process or a more concise one, it shouldn’t be a surprise when they opt to work with the most efficient and proactive company.”

In essence, slow hiring doesn’t just delay decisions – it erodes your employer brand.

Warning signs: Is your hiring process working against you?

If you’re wondering whether your process has crossed the line into excess, here are a few red flags to watch out for:

• High-potential candidates drop out midway or accept other offers
• Interviewers keep covering the same ground
• Decisions lag beyond the 30–45 day benchmark for mid-level roles
• Candidate feedback hints at fatigue, confusion, or disengagement

If any of these sound familiar, it’s time for a process reset.

Building a better hiring journey

Streamlining your hiring process doesn’t mean sacrificing quality; it means being strategic. Here’s how to tighten things up without letting standards slip:

• Give each interview a job to do: Every stage should have a distinct goal – be it assessing technical skills, culture fit, or leadership potential. Avoid duplication. Clarity in purpose leads to clarity in outcome.
• Think panels over marathons: Why drag a candidate through five separate meetings when a single, focused panel interview can yield richer insights? Not only does it save time, but it also demonstrates that your business values efficiency and respect for people’s schedules.
• Use data to inform decisions early: Tools like behavioural and cognitive assessments (e.g. from Hire Capacity) can offer early-stage insights that allow you to qualify candidates with greater precision, often reducing the need for multiple rounds.
• Train your interviewers: Equip your team with structured interview techniques. As Laszlo Bock, former SVP of People at Google, noted, “Structured interviews, which consistently ask candidates a set of predefined questions, significantly improve predictive validity.” Consistency isn’t just good practice. It’s good science.
• Set and stick to timelines: A delayed decision is a decision made for you by a faster-moving competitor. Define clear hiring timelines internally, communicate them to candidates, and honour them. Follow-through signals professionalism and respect.

Why the candidate experience matters more than ever

We live in an age where the candidate is also a consumer. A sluggish, disjointed process doesn't just frustrate – it reflects poorly on your company.

As Keri Higgins-Bigelow, CEO of livingHR, warns: “It sends a message that the company is ineffective at decision-making, has poor time management, lacks empathy, doesn’t have a humanised approach … and is generally bureaucratic with too many hoops to jump through.”

Top candidates interpret a bloated hiring process as a red flag. They want to work with companies that are decisive, respectful of their time, and streamlined in approach. If your process suggests otherwise, you risk losing them to someone who simply moves faster.

It’s tempting to believe that more interviews equal better hires. But as many hiring managers have learned the hard way, quantity doesn’t equate to quality.

Nick Allwood, Regional Director at Macmillan Davies, captures the cost: “We have seen long, drawn-out recruitment processes leading to preferred and most suitable candidates becoming disengaged or finding a role elsewhere, often leaving the hiring company having to go back to square one.”

And going back to square one is a costly move, both financially and reputationally.

Today, candidates report undergoing seven, eight, even nine interviews without a job offer at the end. Slate and CNBC have documented these experiences, underscoring how common it’s becoming, even for mid-level roles.

All this reflects a growing complexity in hiring, fuelled by the rise of remote work, evolving expectations around culture fit, and a more cautious approach in competitive sectors like tech and government.

Different industries follow different norms. Security, defence, and government agencies often have the longest timelines, with processes stretching up to six months.

Large tech firms, too, lean into exhaustive evaluation for cultural alignment and technical rigour. At Netflix, for example, even stellar technical performance won’t get you through the door if you don’t demonstrate strong cultural fit.

So, what’s the magic number?

While the sweet spot varies by role, seniority, and sector, a general benchmark is three to four interviews. Entry-level roles often need no more than two or three. Leadership roles may stretch to five, but should do so only with purpose, not out of habit.

Each stage should serve a distinct function:

• Initial screening: A short, often virtual conversation to confirm the basics
• Technical assessment: Objective evaluation of hard skills, typically early in the process
• Behavioural interview: Assess how a candidate works, leads, and solves problems
• Culture fit and team alignment: Often the final hurdle – critical, but best done efficiently

Smart, respectful, and effective candidate screening

Hiring isn’t about ticking boxes; it’s about choosing the right people to move your business forward. Streamlining your process isn’t just about speed. It’s about intent, clarity, and respect.

Every interview round should add value. Every decision should be timely. And every interaction should reinforce why your company is a great place to work.