News

Many jobseekers are finding that recruitment has become a marathon rather than a sprint. Roles that carry any real responsibility or competitive salary often involve several stages of screening, from online tests and case studies to panel interviews and culture-fit meetings. Some of these steps focus on technical ability, others on personality and values, yet all need to be successfully navigated before an offer appears.

You might perform well at every stage, receive positive feedback, then discover that the organisation has decided not to proceed. From the outside it can look indecisive. In reality it reflects a deeper shift in how employers view permanent staff.

Why employers are so cautious

Many large organisations increasingly see full-time employees as a significant liability. The salary, benefits and long-term obligations are known and relatively fixed. The value that a new hire will add is uncertain and can be hard to measure in advance. If the appointment works out badly, managers may fear the consequences for their own reputation more than they value the potential upside of hiring a future star performer.

Mission statements often describe staff as “our greatest asset” or “part of the family”. In practice, many leaders would prefer lower fixed headcount and more flexible ways of getting work done. That reluctance often shows up as delays in replacing staff who leave and as lengthy, risk-averse selection processes for any new role.

The AI factor

The growing interest in artificial intelligence has added another layer to this thinking. Some businesses hope that AI will eventually reduce their reliance on people and cut labour costs. That confidence is sometimes misplaced. Practical experience has shown that generative AI can produce inaccurate or misleading output, including fabricated references to cases, data or laws. In many professional settings, especially legal and financial ones, these errors can be serious.

AI will continue to develop and will likely support more tasks over time. For now, replacing complex human roles outright remains a high-risk strategy. As a result, employers sit in an uncomfortable middle ground, wary of hiring more people, yet not fully able to hand over key functions to technology.

Internships and unpaid “auditions”

Another feature of this cautious mindset is the wider use of internships, trials and temporary contracts. These arrangements allow employers to see how someone performs in practice before committing to a permanent hire. From the organisation’s perspective this looks like sensible risk management.

Candidates often experience it differently. At its worst, this approach can become a way of extracting real work from people without providing security, progression or benefits. Even where the intention is more balanced, it still reflects the same conservative instinct. The employer keeps pushing the decision further into the future, seeking ever more evidence before committing.

Why “one more round” feels safe for managers

Inside the business, almost everyone involved in recruitment has an incentive to ask for an additional interview or assessment. If a hire fails very publicly, the people who championed that candidate fear criticism. A brilliant hire, on the other hand, may not deliver the same level of personal recognition.

There are three broad outcomes to any hiring decision. The person performs as expected, they exceed expectations, or they underperform. Underperformance is usually obvious and attracts attention. Outstanding performance may be welcomed, yet often feels less personally risky for decision-makers. In that environment, gathering more data feels safe. The pressure to avoid being associated with a “bad hire” fuels longer and more complex processes.

The hidden cost of endless interviews

Organisations often defend multi-stage hiring as a way to reduce risk. What they underestimate is the cost of the process itself, especially for strong candidates. Lengthy and opaque recruitment journeys can damage employer brand and put off exactly the people the business most wants to attract.

The most in-demand professionals usually have alternatives. If they encounter a drawn-out selection process with poor communication, they are more likely to disengage and accept an offer elsewhere. There is a real risk that the candidates who tolerate the process are not the ones an organisation would prefer to hire.

Research on assessment methods suggests that the first stages of screening provide most of the useful information. Each additional round tends to add less and less. At some point, further interviews contribute little insight and mainly serve to delay decisions and frustrate applicants.

What employers should weigh up

Hiring will always involve uncertainty. That is unavoidable. Yet so is the risk of alienating future employees before they even join. When a candidate’s first experience of a company is an extended series of tests and interviews, it can colour their view of the organisation for years. This affects engagement, loyalty and willingness to recommend the employer to others.

Forward-thinking businesses review their recruitment processes with the same discipline they apply to customer journeys. They ask where each stage adds real value, where it simply repeats earlier checks, and how the experience feels from the applicant’s point of view. Reducing unnecessary steps does not mean lowering standards. It can strengthen decision-making by focusing attention on the assessments that matter most.

Before adding an additional interview or test, hiring managers would be wise to consider whether it will genuinely improve the quality of the decision. If the answer is unclear, the more strategic move may be to streamline rather than extend the process.

Disclaimer: This article is based on publicly available information and is intended for general guidance only. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy at the time of publication, details may change and errors may occur. This content does not constitute financial, legal or professional advice. Readers should seek appropriate professional guidance before making decisions. Neither the publisher nor the authors accept liability for any loss arising from reliance on this material.