Even though the pendulum swung back and employers regained leverage, exasperated managers are frequently asking us: why is hiring still so hard? And we’re not the only ones hearing this. SHRM research has found that 70% of organizations are having difficulties recruiting for full-time regular positions.
We get their frustration. There’s been a rise in layoffs but a decrease in workforce participation. Inflation is rebounding while at least 40% of professionals who hate their jobs, and might otherwise seek better-paying roles, are hunkering down for the security.
What is causing these hiring challenges? You can’t do much to address talent availability or economic uncertainty, but other factors can be addressed to make hiring easier.
Key Takeaways
- Hiring remains difficult even in an employer market — Economic uncertainty, lower workforce participation, and shifting candidate expectations are keeping talent scarce despite increased employer leverage.
- Process inefficiencies are the hidden culprit — Extended hiring timelines, overreliance on AI tools while misusing them, and ineffective interview techniques are slowing decisions and turning candidates away.
- Success comes from balance and partnership — Organizations that streamline processes, blend human insight with technology, and work with experienced staffing partners will outperform those relying on outdated hiring habits.
Extended Hiring Processes
It’s not a new belief that the hiring process is too long, but it’s apparently getting worse. A survey commissioned by Indeed found that 42% of employers and 57% of job seekers believed it takes longer to hire today than it did a year ago. When employers and consultants agree, it’s safe to say some key processes need fixing.
What’s causing the hiring delay? Indeed’s survey highlighted two factors that stood out to us:
- Too many candidates – 39% of employers are seeing more candidates than last year, which is slowing down their manual review of top contenders.
- Disagreement on compensation – There are going to be issues at the negotiation table when 55% of employers think candidates would accept a pay cut, but only 37% of job seekers say they would.
We would also add another factor: organizations are getting overcautious again. In a shaky market, leaders are afraid to make bad hires. So, we’re seeing them schedule multiple rounds of interviews for each candidate to protect themselves. This, in turn, slows the hiring process to a crawl.
There’s a multifaceted solution. For starters, don’t get caught in the paradox of choice. Just like it’s impossible to pick a movie on Netflix if you’re scrolling the entire collection, don’t try to review every candidate you receive. You’re not searching for the best of the best, just a professional who will excel in the role. Whether you pick the first three superstars you find or review a shortlist from trusted recruiters, you’ll save time and prevent needless candidate attrition.
When it comes to compensation, do extensive research on market rates for your region, the level of seniority, and the more niche skills you require. A lot can change even in six months, so refresh yourself. If you’re working with a talent solutions partner, they can help you determine when salary benchmarks are nonnegotiable and when they offer some wiggle room, especially around niche skillsets.
As far as the number of interviews goes, limit them to what’s truly necessary to make a confident decision. Three rounds are usually sufficient:
- An initial screening to confirm fit
- A deeper dive into skills and experience
- A final discussion with top executives (if necessary)
Interviews beyond that start to feel redundant to candidates, causing candidate falloff rates to spike.
Shortcomings of AI Assessment Tools
Unlike the last time we were in an employer market, companies have access to AI assessment tools. Even though these tools promise to accelerate hiring, most successfully by simplifying resume screening and candidate ranking, they can cause problems when used incorrectly.
One potential risk is that candidates often change their behavior when interacting with AI tools. Research across 12 studies found candidates tend to emphasize their analytical traits while underemphasizing soft skills like empathy, creativity, and intuition. So, AI tools can filter for technical fits, but humans (managers and recruiters) are necessary to gauge personality and culture fit.
What about gamified AI assessment tools that claim to evaluate soft skills? Though vendors allege these solutions can gauge a person’s innate qualities, AI games often have a lack of face validity, meaning their results don’t obviously correlate with the jobs or skills being measured. And when decision makers use AI games as the only factor to weed out candidates, which is not uncommon, they can overlook qualified professionals and needlessly prolong the hiring process.
If you’re using AI tools, make sure that you have processes to measure what AI can’t and that you keep a human in the loop to provide AI with oversight. That way, you can balance speed and effectiveness as you hire.
Insufficient Interviewing Techniques
Interviews are meant to reveal who candidates truly are. When done right, you should have a sense of their skills, motivations, and potential fit within your organization. Yet too often, interviews fail to serve that purpose and lightly confirm resumes and online profiles.
The reasons can vary. According to a study of 23,000 interview transcripts conducted by BrightHire in conjunction with Harvard Business School’s Managing the Future of Work project, there are some frequent shortcomings.
One common mistake is that interviewers often fail to dig deep, even after five rounds:
- 55% of interviews meaningfully assessed hard skills
- 66% meaningfully assessed experience requirements.
Repetitiousness is another issue. BrightHire and Harvard found that 72% of well-covered skills were covered again in subsequent interviews, each skill revisited an average of 1.2 additional times. Numerous interviewers are essentially, though unintentionally, signaling that candidates’ time is not valuable, which can also lead to attrition.
Our own experience shows that behavioral and situational questions also get underutilized. Instead, many interviewers rely heavily on conversational or hypothetical prompts that fail to uncover actual performance.
To solve this, ensure that those involved in the early stages of hiring are experienced at uncovering details and extracting information from candidates. That way, you can have confidence that those reaching later stages of the hiring process don’t need the same level of early scrutiny. Whether that’s a skilled first-round interviewer or a recruiter who knows how to gauge technical talent and culture fit, their actions will save time and effort down the road.
Fraudulent Candidates
A relatively fresh yet particularly frustrating challenge has been the rise of fake candidates. Their motivations run the gamut:
- Gaining access to systems and databases to steal data or money
- Faking their way into a paycheck until their phony credentials are discovered
- Obtaining an offer to use as leverage for a raise
With deepfake technology and video interviewing practices, malicious candidates have been able to plausibly pretend to be other people or that they have a greater depth of experience than they actually do.
These candidates can at times be difficult to screen in the moment, requiring ongoing relationships to differentiate real, hard-working experts from those just pretending. That said, keep an eye out for these signs to avoid getting fleeced:
- Look for exaggerated experience (e.g., impossible timelines or inflated years) and overly precise alignment with the advertised role.
- Check for sparse networks, inconsistent photos, or duplicate profiles on social media.
- Verify the person in front of you is the candidate (watch for off-camera help or deep-fake traits).
- Conduct verification checks to reduce the risk of fake candidates slipping through.
Inflexibility in Offers
As we mentioned earlier, just because the market isn’t booming doesn’t mean you can afford to ignore what candidates want. Many employers assume that with more talent available, they hold all the cards, but that mindset can quickly backfire.
Professionals today are still prioritizing flexibility, career development, and meaningful work. Top candidates often disengage or accept competing opportunities when employers won’t budget on compensation, hybrid work, or growth potential.
Even in an employer market, success comes from meeting talent halfway. Whether that involves conducting your own market research or relying on the knowledge of experienced recruiters, it’s essential to enter these conversations armed with precise and persuasive salary data.
Working with an Experienced Staffing Partner
The reality is that hiring isn’t suddenly easy just because the market favors employers. Talent expectations have evolved, technology has added both efficiencies and complications, and the margin for error in the hiring process has never been smaller. That’s why having a knowledgeable partner makes such a difference.
At w3r Consulting, we help companies navigate these complexities with precision and speed. Our recruiters combine data-driven market insights with decades of hands-on experience to quickly identify qualified candidates without sacrificing quality or culture fit. Even in an employer market, the organizations that win are those that recognize hiring as a partnership, not just a process.
Are you looking for help to overcome hiring challenges? w3r Consulting can find experienced candidates who can enhance your business in a tough market.
Let’s find top talent together
Related Articles
Why AI Won’t Replace Your Need for Skilled Staffing and Recruiting Partners
Are Fake Job Candidates Bypassing Your Company’s Filters? Here’s How Our Recruiters Spot Them
Your Guide to Make the Decision Between Hiring In-House Talent or Work with a Solutions Partner