The Other Side of the Hiring Table: Hiring Can Be Better

I've experienced the frustration of being the applicant. Now I'm helping organizations make hiring decisions. Here's what I know needs to change.

First let me be clear...This blog isn't for everybody.

It's for the people who have the authority to influence how their organizations hire. The investors, hiring managers, executives, business owners, and decision-makers who can look at their current processes and ask themselves an honest question: Are we doing this because it's the best way to hire, or because it's the way we've always done it?

If you've been given a process you have no authority to change, I understand that your options may be limited. But if you have the ability to advocate for something better, this conversation is for you. Okay now let's begin.

I've been the applicant, too.

I know what it's like to apply for jobs, tailor your resume, write cover letters, research an organization, and put genuine effort and time into showing a potential employer what you can bring to the table.

After losing my job in 2022, I spent plenty of time navigating the job market. Even after launching my business in 2024, I continued applying for opportunities. I submitted 100's of applications, hell even now I have submitted LOI's and RFP's that were thoughtfully tailored to the job descriptions or proposal, with relevant real experience and tangible examples of my work.

And then came the rejections.

Sometimes they were generic bland messages about receiving a high volume of applications. Other times, I was told the organization had decided to move forward with candidates whose experience more closely aligned with its needs, and don't get me started on how many times I was ghosted!

I'm not saying every rejection needs to come with a detailed 4 page letter feedback of my application. I understand that organizations have constraints, but when someone has invested time and energy in your hiring process, especially when they've interviewed with you, probably multiple rounds, there is a difference between communicating a decision and sending a message that tells them absolutely nothing.

I once interviewed for a project management role at a pharmacy company. Do you know they actually sent me an email back weeks later saying they didn't even review my application or resume because they had received to many applications. WHO'S FAULT IS THAT?! Better yet, who thinks to send someone that?! I dodged a bullet because clearly your back-end systems are a mess. Could only imagine how it would of been working with them. And the way you treat people during that process tells them something about your organization.

Now, I'm on the other side.

Recently, I've helped clients navigate hiring and selection processes. I've reviewed applications, interviewed candidates, coordinated next steps, communicated decisions, and helped decision-makers evaluate their options.

I've also had to send rejection emails to people who were excellent candidates.

That's probably been the hardest part of the process. You can have several qualified people and only one position available. Someone can have valuable experience, interview well, and still not be the person selected.

My responsibility isn't to make every candidate happy with the outcome. I can't control how someone receives a decision, and that isn't my burden to carry.

My responsibility is to help run a thoughtful, tailored process for each of my clients that communicate decisions with care, honesty, and respect for each person that applies, while also making sure me and the decision makers do not burnout during the process. The hiring process is alot mentally and emotionally and sometimes physically, so I can see why some organizations just wanna send everyone the same old tired ass template BUT that isn't an excuse, you can do better. Question is do you want to?

A few things I did differently

Once I received the green light from my client's that I can do if differently... I ran like forest gump because SAY LESS!

I approached the work the way I approach operations: understand the goal, anticipate the bottlenecks, establish a process, and make it easier for people to do their jobs well.

Here are a few examples.

1. I established an application limit.

When it was time to post the position, I set the application form to accept the first 20 applicants and communicated that limit upfront. As soon as a potentially candidiate clicked on the link it was front and center. Couldn't miss it.

Why? Because accepting applications indefinitely without considering the team's capacity to review them can create an avoidable backlog. Imagine you put out a job application for a project manager on Linkedin or whatever platform and 75 people within the 1st week apply. Are you really reviewing 75 applications? Be honest or are you skimming because after application number ten your eyes are getting tired, you're over it and just wanna get this done? I'll wait...

If the initial group doesn't produce a suitable candidate, the organization can reopen the application window. The point isn't that every role must have an application cap. It's that the organization should deliberately plan for the volume it can reasonably review.

2. I acknowledged what stood out in an application.

When inviting candidates to the next stage, or having to tell them they did not advance to the next stage, I didn't just send a scheduling link or a generic email. I told them what stood out to me about their application and I tailored each one.

A candidate found your application, took the time to fill it out and explain their experience and qualifications, probably even sent a cover letter. I wanted each one to know I see you and I reviewed your application, thank you.

Acknowledging that effort was a simple way to communicate that their application had actually been reviewed by a real person. It didn't guarantee an interview with the CEO or a job offer. It simply made the communication more personal, meaningful and tailored.

3. I asked questions instead of making assumptions.

When an application didn't clearly demonstrate a candidate's writing experience, I followed up rather than immediately rejecting them.

The candidate explained their experience, and I requested an additional writing sample to help clarify the fit. That additional information helped me make a more informed decision about whether to advance them.

Don't make a final decision when what you really need is one more piece of information.

Of course, follow-up opportunities should be based on consistent, job-related criteria. The point isn't to give certain candidates special treatment. It's to recognize when a reasonable question could clarify a qualification you're trying to assess.

4. I respected everyone's time.

I used a scheduling poll to make interview coordination easier, while allowing candidates to tell me if none of the available times worked for them. That helped account for different time zones without assuming a candidate's availability.

I also spaced interviews on my calendar and the client's calendar to protect time for other work and to give us room to reflect on each conversation and of course prevent burnout. A full calendar of back to back interviews isn't an efficient process. Interviewers need enough attention and energy to evaluate candidates thoughtfully.

5. I made the final decision easier.

As the process narrowed to two finalists, I noticed that my client kept returning to interview notes and revisiting what each person had said.

So I created a side-by-side comparison document with the interview questions, relevant responses, strengths, and concerns. Instead of requiring my client to piece together information across multiple documents, I brought the relevant details together in one place.

The document didn't make the decision for them. It helped them evaluate the candidates against the information available and make their decision more confidently.

6. I acknowledged an applicant who came in late.

I had forgot to close the form once we narrowed it down to two finalist and another application came through before I had finished shutting it down.

We were already in the final stages of interviewing. I wasn't going to restart the process or delay my client's decision, but I also wasn't going to pretend the application didn't exist. I reviewed the person's materials, acknowledged what I appreciated about their experience, explained where we were in the process, and apologized that we hadn't had an opportunity to speak. I couldn't offer them an interview, but I could offer them a response.

That's the difference between being unable to move someone forward and acting as though they never applied and ghosting them.

Hiring doesn't have to be unnecessarily difficult.

I promise y'all are making this harder than it needs to be! None of these examples required a massive new technology investment or a complicated organizational transformation.

They required planning, communication, structure, and a willingness to think about the people affected by the process. Could every organization implement every one of these practices? No. Some have formal deadlines, collective hiring requirements, confidentiality obligations, limited staffing, or policies that constrain what they can do.

But those constraints should prompt organizations to design the best process available to them.

Before your next hiring cycle ask yourself these questions:

• Have we established realistic expectations for application volume and review capacity?

• Do candidates know what to expect and when they can expect to hear from us?

• Are we using consistent, job-related criteria to evaluate applicants?

• Are we giving interviewers enough time and structure to make thoughtful assessments?

• Can our decision-makers easily compare the finalists against the role's requirements?

• Have we given the person managing the process the tools, time, and authority to do it well?

These aren't just candidate-experience questions. They're operational questions.

A disorganized hiring process can waste staff time, delay decisions, create inconsistent evaluations, and leave qualified people without clear communication. A well-designed process can help the organization and the candidates move through the experience with greater clarity.

If you have made it this far in the blog, thank you and please know, Accountability isn't criticism.

Accountability means looking at what you can influence and being willing to improve it.

If you manage hiring, that might mean advocating for more realistic timelines. It might mean building a rubric before applications arrive. It might mean replacing an unnecessarily vague communication with a more useful one. It might mean asking leadership for the resources needed to run the process responsibly. Start where you have authority. Be honest about where you don't. Then look for the next thing you can improve.

Ready to talk about better hiring?

Being on the other side of the hiring table has given me a new appreciation for the work involved in making hiring decisions. It's also reinforced my belief that a process can be structured, efficient, and human at the same time.

Through The Tailored PM, I help organizations bring structure to complex work, build practical systems, and move from ideas to execution. Hiring is another place where thoughtful operations can make a meaningful difference for both the organization and the candidate.

Over the coming weeks, I'll be sharing more lessons from these experiences through a series called 30 Days of Hiring Accountability on my Linkedin Page.

I'll be talking about the problems, the decisions behind them, and practical ways organizations can do better.

Hiring can be better. And the people responsible for the process have an opportunity to make it so.

Need help making your hiring process more organized, thoughtful, and effective?

Let's talk about what your organization is doing now and where the process could improve.

thetailoredpm.setmore.com

The Tailored PM Strategic Management [ Book now ]

Book your appointment with The Tailored PM Strategic Management

Let's build a better process.