Why hiring better starts with fixing what’s bad about a recruitment process first

Every business we speak to wants to improve the quality of their hires. They invest in new tools, refine job descriptions and introduce additional interview stages, all with the aim of securing stronger talent. On paper, that feels like the right approach, and in some cases it can help. However, in our experience, improving hiring outcomes doesn’t usually start with adding more. 
 

It starts with removing what isn’t working.

Across supply chain, procurement, logistics and sales, we regularly see hiring processes that are designed to be thorough, but in practice, they make it harder to identify and secure the right people. Before you can hire better, it’s worth stepping back and looking at what might be filtering strong candidates out before they’ve even been properly considered.

 

The problem most businesses don’t address

When hiring becomes difficult, the default assumption is often that the market is the issue. There aren’t enough candidates available, the right profiles are hard to find, or expectations have shifted beyond what the role can offer. While that can be true in certain areas, it’s not always true. 

In many cases, the challenge isn’t access to talent. It’s how that talent is being assessed and filtered. We often see viable, capable candidates ruled out early in the process, not because they can’t do the role, but because the process itself doesn’t allow them to be properly considered or compared fairly.

 

1. Over-specified roles that narrow the talent pool too much

One of the most common issues is how roles are defined at the very start of a process. Job descriptions often focus heavily on specific sector experience, systems knowledge or a fixed number of years in a similar role. While these can be useful indicators, they don’t always reflect what a role actually requires on a day-to-day basis or what success looks like over time. 

This becomes a particular challenge in sectors like supply chain and logistics, where transferable skills are often highly relevant. Candidates who have managed similar challenges, operated in comparable environments or delivered strong results can be overlooked simply because their background doesn’t match exactly. 

The result is a smaller, more restricted talent pool before the process has even properly begun, making hiring more difficult than it needs to be.

 

2. Filtering for the “ideal” profile

Another pattern we see is businesses holding out for a candidate who meets every requirement on paper. In reality, these profiles are rare, particularly in specialist areas such as procurement, planning or operational leadership. Strong candidates who meet most of the criteria with the ability to develop further are sometimes overlooked in favor of an ideal that may not exist in the current market. 

This can lead to extended hiring timelines, repeated shortlisting cycles and growing frustration on all sides. It also increases the risk of missing candidates who could perform well in the role with the right support and onboarding.

 

3. Unstructured interviews and subjective decisions

Interview processes are another area where strong candidates can be lost. 

When different stakeholders assess candidates in different ways, it becomes difficult to compare individuals objectively. Some interviews focus heavily on technical detail, others lean more towards personality or perceived “fit”, and decisions can end up being influenced by personal opinion rather than consistent evidence. 

We often see situations where candidates perform well in one stage, only to be rejected later based on a completely different set of expectations. Without a clear structure and shared criteria, a process becomes harder to manage and the risk of inconsistent decision-making increases.

 

4. Lack of internal alignment

Misalignment between stakeholders is another common issue that can quietly undermine hiring outcomes. 

Line managers, HR and senior leaders don’t always have the same perspective on what the role requires, what success looks like, or what type of profile would be most effective. These differences may seem small at the start, but often become more visible as a process progresses. 

This can lead to shifting expectations, conflicting feedback and delays in decision-making. In some cases, candidates who would have been considered suitable earlier in a process are later rejected because the brief has changed. This creates a less consistent experience for candidates and makes it harder for businesses to move forward with confidence.

 

5. Early screening that removes potential

Screening stages are often designed to manage application volume and improve efficiency, but they can also remove candidates too early. 

In many roles across our specialisms of supply chain, logistics and sales, performance is influenced as much by behaviors and approach as it is by direct experience. Candidates with strong problem-solving ability, communication skills and commercial awareness can be overlooked if the focus is too heavily placed on specific job titles or industry backgrounds. 

This is particularly relevant in a market where career paths are not always linear. Candidates may have built relevant skills in different environments, and a rigid screening approach can mean those individuals are never given the opportunity to demonstrate their capability.

 

Why adding more doesn’t solve it

When hiring challenges arise, the instinct is often to add more to the process. More interview stages, more assessments or more people involved in decision-making can feel like a way to increase rigor and improve outcomes. 

In our experience, this rarely addresses the root of the problem.

 

What better hiring looks like in practice

Businesses that consistently improve hiring outcomes tend to focus on removing these barriers first.

They define roles based on what success actually looks like, rather than relying purely on experience or background. They align stakeholders before going to market, ensuring that everyone involved is clear on what they are assessing and why. Interview processes are structured so that each stage has a clear purpose and contributes to a consistent overall assessment.

Screening is applied more carefully, with greater emphasis on capability, potential and relevance rather than rigid requirements. This allows businesses to consider a broader range of candidates while still maintaining high standards.

 

To close 

Hiring outcomes improve when the process works as it should. Clear criteria aligned stakeholders and a structure that supports better decisions all play a role. 

If you’re seeing delays, dropouts or inconsistent results, it’s usually a sign something needs to change. We can help you fix that and put a more effective hiring approach in place. Get in touch here.