Feature
White Paper
The Future of Leadership Development: AI-Driven Manager Enablement
All the AI-infused hiring software in the world won't fix recruiting's current problem, because the problem isn't the tools. It's the process itself. Managers are demanding too many interviews. They not only want candidates to jump through hoops — they're adding more hoops for them to jump through.
"It seems like every company wants 3-6 interviews, personality assessments, skills assessments, culture interviews, leadership interviews and sometimes even projects or presentations. By the time you get through the process, you've invested hours and hours into a role with no guarantee of an offer," one jobseeker wrote on Reddit.
What the Numbers Show
There's data to back up that frustration. Ashby, which tracked hiring data across more than 31 million applications and 95,000 jobs, found that applications per hire have roughly tripled since 2021. Interviews per hire have climbed too: technical roles have gone from an average of 11 interviews per hire in 2021 to 17.6 today, a 52% jump. Industry data also shows a stark gap between company sizes: large enterprises now run 65 to 75 interviews per hire, compared to just nine to 11 at small and mid-size companies. Multi-round processes that used to be two to three interviews now regularly stretch to five or more.
Candidates feel it. Time-to-hire has grown to about 42 days in 2026, up from 29-33 days a few years ago, and senior or specialized roles regularly exceed 60 days. That's not a passive wait, either. It's prep calls, testing, take-home projects and time off work, on top of the actual job search. A quarter of candidates bail out at the interview stage entirely.
Companies are aware of the problem. Thirty-nine percent admit candidates face too many interview rounds, and 52% admit their own process is too long.
The instinct to blame "more AI tools" is understandable, but that's not the problem. Sourcing and screening tools speed up getting candidates into the process. They don't help what happens once people are stuck inside it.
Drowning in Applications and Terrified to Make a Bad Hire
Job application overload is real. AI has made it incredibly easy for jobseekers to apply, causing applications per posting to grow exponentially. A recruiter who needs two or three weeks to screen 400 resumes has already blown the timeline before the interview process officially starts.
Because many managers don't want to risk picking the wrong candidate in this tight economy, decisions by committee have become the norm. That translates to meetings and agreements between stakeholders, cross-functional peers and leadership. AI can help coordinate five or six calendars to schedule one panel interview, but attendees still have to actually accept the invites, and a meeting with key people missing often just gets pushed again.
Fear of a bad hire, in this economy with its tight budget constraints, pushes managers toward administrative paralysis. They insist on one more round just to be sure they're making the right choice. Even if it costs losing the best candidate to a faster-moving competitor.
There's an additional problem: managers like to "see what's out there," even when it leaves candidates waiting longer to find out where they stand. "Managers love having so many good candidates to choose from," Stacy Parker, managing director and co-founder of Blu Ivy Group, told Reworked.
"Two-thirds of hiring managers say AI is complicating the hiring process," Jessica Johnson, vice president of the administrative and customer support practice at Robert Half, told Reworked. Robert Half's own research backs that up: 67% of HR leaders say their time-to-hire has gone up because they're spending more time validating credentials and adding extra rounds just to filter out AI-inflated resumes.
Everyone Is Burning Out With No End in Sight
Bad hiring experiences don't just frustrate people. They show up in other measurable ways. Jobseekers report heightened anxiety and learned hopelessness from ghosting and long silences; that kind of uncertainty makes them wonder if they did something wrong. Repeated rejection without feedback hurts self-esteem. Long, opaque processes correlate with sleep disruption, lost motivation and burnout severe enough that candidates describe it as "demoralizing" or "crushing." Rejection itself isn't just a metaphor for pain. Research from Naomi Eisenberger at UCLA has found that social rejection activates some of the same neural pathways as physical pain.
Candidates aren't the only ones who feel this. Recruiters and hiring managers who run multiple candidates through interview rounds, for weeks and even months on end, are burning out too. Leaner talent teams are running more interview rounds than ever, with no relief in headcount. Something or someone will break.
Bad Hiring Processes Hurt Your Bottom Line
Candidates don't stay quiet when a process goes badly. They share. Employers need to be mindful that reviews on sites like Glassdoor and Comparably come pre-structured into pros, cons and advice to management, because that's literally how the platforms are built. A short, pointed post about disrespectful scheduling or a condescending interviewer on LinkedIn can be easily found and shared. While members rarely name the company outright, it's usually not hard to figure it out.
One bad review rarely hurts a brand on its own. But a pattern of them, especially around the same complaint, becomes searchable evidence that surfaces right when a strong candidate is deciding whether to pursue an opportunity. Employers can spend big budgets on branding campaigns, then watch candidates walk away anyway because the promise underneath the branding doesn't hold up.
Research from CareerArc found that 60% of candidates report having had a poor hiring experience, and 64% say it makes them less likely to buy from that company going forward. Though it's an older example, Virgin Media learned this in 2014: their head of resourcing found that 18% of the people they rejected for jobs were also paying subscribers, and roughly 7,500 of them cancelled within a month of getting turned down. While not every expert we spoke to believes that this example is relevant today, it's hard to ignore the lesson.
The Payoffs of a Good Candidate Experience
Handled well, rejections can build advocates, according to Grossman. Thoughtful rejections, feedback for finalists and timely follow-ups can turn a "no" into someone who still refers people, still applies again later and still speaks well of the company.
The business case has real numbers behind it. Brandon Hall Group research found that organizations prioritizing candidate experience see a 70% increase in the likelihood of hiring a top-quality candidate. Survale found that satisfied candidates are 52% more likely to refer other people, while candidates at companies that win Survale's CandE benchmark award are 26% more likely to apply again for a different role at the same company.
What's the Fix?
"There's no one-size-fits-all when it comes to repairing the candidate experience," Grossman said. Some companies need fewer rounds of interviews. Some need faster scheduling. Some just need someone to send a real rejection email instead of silence. But the diagnosis tends to be the same wherever it shows up: treat candidates like customers.
Engaged, But Not Convinced: What's Eroding Beneath Your Strongest Engagement Numbers
Watch Now
Retention Is a Communication Problem: New Data from 6,000+ Employees
Watch Now
"Companies are able to say, it's our market, we're going to play by our rules," said Matt Charney, a talent acquisition analyst. With more candidates than openings, there's less pressure to clean up the process. The risk is that the candidates with the most options — the ones companies want — are exactly the ones who won't sit through it. Those left in the pool aren't necessarily a company's first picks.
For the fix itself, Charney offered advice that was a bit tongue-in-cheek: "Send a coupon with the rejection (to the contenders who didn't get the job.)" The advice underneath the joke isn't bad. Rejection can be delivered in a way that's humane and keeps the door open instead of slamming it shut.
Editor's Note: It's not your imagination. The hiring process is getting harder and worse.
- The Candidate Might Not Be Who You Think — AI fraud in job applications is now an established risk. The question now is how you'll prepare.
- 6-Month Recruiting Processes Shouldn't Be the Norm — Employers are getting a bad rep for their recruiting process, and job-seekers are calling them out publicly. Here’s how to avoid the backlash.
- AI Is Making the Hiring Crisis Worse — Using AI as a cure-all creates a doom loop: candidates and hiring managers game each other with AI, and hiring stays broken.