Recently, one of my candidates was interviewing for a Vice President position. The search was exclusive, so all the candidates were referred by our firm. For the record, I am very careful to share everything I know with candidates to avoid ambiguity. Ambiguity can lead to suspicion and, very clearly, suspicion can lead to withholding information, dishonesty, or, dare I say it, ghosting. So yes, recruiters have to be completely transparent. But the hiring teams recruiters serve, need to be just as transparent.
During the interview process for the role mentioned above, I shared with my remaining candidates that two people made the final cut. No, I did not have to share this, but why not share everything with candidates? Why is there a decision on what you should tell a candidate? If everyone was completely transparent, all the time, no such decision would be necessary. Everyone would know everything about the search.
At the end of the first candidate’s final interview, he asked when a decision would be made. The response was, “We have several more candidates to interview so it could take a couple of weeks.” While this is an inoffensive and standard answer to a common question about hiring timelines, the fact is, that is not what I told the candidate. Now there was ambiguity. Was the company being more transparent than the recruiter or was the recruiter being more transparent? And, more importantly, why weren’t we on the same page.
The candidate asked me which answer was true. Were there several more candidates being interviewed over the course of a couple of weeks or was there one more candidate? Suddenly, I was in a bad position. If I was being 100% transparent, that meant the company was not being totally transparent. Or, if the company was being 100% transparent, why was I giving a different answer? I know this is a small thing. I get it. However, the discrepancy added an unnecessary lack of transparency to the process. The candidate started questioning whether the company was being completely honest with him, not just about the timeline, but about the compensation range. In the end, presented with two different offers, the candidate rejected my client’s offer.
In today’s competitive talent market, embracing transparency is no longer a “nice-to-have” – it’s a fundamental necessity for attracting, engaging, and ultimately securing the best candidates. A lack of transparency raises red flags, suggesting a potentially disorganized or even untrustworthy organization.
The High Cost of Opacity
A secretive recruitment process carries significant costs including but not limited to a loss of top talent, a damaged employer brand, and an erosion of trust.
Companies should embrace transparency with detailed, accurate job descriptions, a clearly outlined recruitment process, easy to understand benefits packages, and timely and constructive feedback.
The Path Forward: Embracing Transparency
In conclusion, in an era defined by information and candidate empowerment, transparency in recruitment is not just a best practice – it’s a strategic imperative. By shining a light on their hiring processes, companies can attract higher quality candidates, enhance their employer brand, build trust, and ultimately create stronger, more engaged teams. The time for opaque practices is over; the future of recruitment belongs to those who embrace transparency.
Are you having difficulty finding talented employees to fill your open positions? With 25 years of experience, a 4.8 Google rating, an average experience level of 22 years, our own Thought Leadership Team, and an A+ rating from the BBB, you will quickly see why we’ve built so many permanent, long-term client relationships. Visit our website at www.execsallied.com/employers or Email us at info@execsallied.com. We are here to help!
