When Hiring Processes Break Their Own Standards

 

In today’s hiring landscape, we often talk about innovation, candidate experience, and organizational values. But there is one area that does not receive nearly enough attention:

Process integrity.

Recently, I participated in a multi-stage interview process for a role that included three clearly defined phases. Like many professionals, I approached each stage with intention, preparation, and respect for the organization’s time and expectations.

The process began well. Communication was clear, expectations were outlined, and I was invited to complete the next phase: an assessment component designed to evaluate how I think, plan, and approach real-world scenarios.

I completed the assessment thoroughly and submitted it as requested via Google Drive links.

From there, the process changed.

After some time, I received a final decision indicating that the organization had chosen to move forward with another candidate. The message referenced a “holistic review” of applicants and a highly competitive pool.

That, in itself, is not unusual. Strong candidates are not always selected, and hiring decisions often come down to a range of factors.

However, upon reviewing the activity on the submitted materials, I noticed that the assessment, an entire stage of the hiring process, had not been accessed at all.

In other words, I was not unsuccessful at that stage.

I was never actually evaluated in it.

Additionally, the communication around “moving forward with another candidate” raises a broader point about clarity and transparency, particularly in situations where organizations may be hiring for multiple individuals within the same role.

When multiple openings exist, framing decisions in singular terms can create confusion about how candidates are being evaluated and selected. It is not simply about wording, it is about ensuring that communication accurately reflects the realities of the hiring process.

This is not simply a matter of outcome. It is a matter of alignment between what is asked of candidates and what is actually executed within the process.

When organizations design multi-stage hiring processes, particularly those that include assessments, they are making an implicit commitment that the time, effort, and thought candidates invest will be reviewed with intention.

When that commitment is not met, it creates a quiet but meaningful disconnect.

For many experienced professionals, assessments are not just exercises. They represent:

• Strategic thinking
• Professional standards
• Respect for the process

They are often completed outside of working hours, with care taken to align responses with the organization’s mission, values, and operational needs.

When that work goes unreviewed, the issue is not simply inefficiency, it is misalignment.

As leaders, educators, and organizations, we frequently emphasize:

• Transparency
• Respect for people
• A strong candidate experience

But these principles are not defined by statements. They are defined by execution.

A hiring process is one of the clearest reflections of how an organization operates internally. It reveals how decisions are made, how communication is handled, and how people’s time and contributions are valued.

If a component of the process is not going to be reviewed, it should not be required.

If it is required, it should be taken seriously.

 

What Good Looks Like

Strong hiring processes do not need to be perfect, but they do need to be intentional.

At a minimum, that means:

• Reviewing all submitted candidate materials, especially required assessments
• Communicating clearly and consistently about timelines and expectations
• Using precise and transparent language that reflects the actual hiring context
• Respecting the time investment candidates make at each stage
• Aligning process design with actual execution

These are not complex ideas. But they are essential ones.

 

Final Thought

This experience is not unique, and that is precisely why it is worth discussing.

Because candidates notice, and more importantly, they remember.

Organizations that align their hiring processes with their stated values will not only attract stronger candidates, but they will also build stronger reputations over time.

And in a competitive talent landscape, that matters more than ever.

Dr Flavius A B Akerele III

The ETeam

Follow‑Up Post on Ghosting

 

Last week I wrote about the rise of what many professionals are calling “professional ghosting” in hiring, multiple interviews, presentations, executive panels… followed by silence.

The conversation that followed surfaced another issue that deserves attention. How does this trend affect experienced professionals later in their careers? Many seasoned leaders quietly acknowledge a dynamic that rarely gets discussed openly.

Not necessarily overt discrimination, but a series of assumptions that can subtly shape hiring decisions:

• Concerns about salary expectations or benefit costs
• Assumptions about adaptability to new technologies or systems
• The perception that a highly experienced hire might disrupt existing leadership dynamics
• The belief that someone with decades of experience may not stay long

None of these assumptions are typically stated directly, but they often exist in the background of search committee discussions.

Ironically, these same professionals frequently bring exactly what organizations claim to want:

• Deep operational and leadership experience
• Institutional perspective developed over decades
• Crisis management capability
• The ability to mentor and develop younger professionals
• Long‑term strategic thinking

At a time when organizations talk constantly about leadership pipelines, succession planning, and knowledge transfer, experienced professionals may represent one of the most underutilized assets in the talent market. Which raises an important question:

Are organizations truly leveraging the leadership capital of experienced professionals, or unintentionally filtering it out through modern hiring systems and assumptions? Have you noticed differences in how hiring processes treat mid‑career versus late‑career professionals?

I’m curious what others are seeing.

Dr Flavius Akerele III

The ETeam

The Rise of "Professional Ghosting" in Hiring

 

A growing number of professionals are reporting a similar experience:

• Multiple interview rounds 
• Executive panels 
• Strategic presentations 
• Weeks of silence 
• Or a generic rejection email after significant engagement 

At the finalist level, this is no longer an isolated occurrence. It is becoming a pattern.

The question is not whether hiring is competitive: it is.
The question is what hiring behavior reveals about organizational leadership.

What’s Driving This?

1. Overengineered Hiring Processes 
Search committees, layered approvals, compliance reviews, executive sign-offs. When too many stakeholders are involved, communication ownership becomes unclear.

2. Risk Aversion & Decision Paralysis 
Budget uncertainty, shifting priorities, internal candidate considerations. Silence often reflects internal hesitation more than intentional disregard.

3. Automation Culture 
Applicant Tracking Systems streamline workflow, but they also standardize rejection messaging. At advanced stages, templated responses can unintentionally diminish professional engagement.

4. Volume of Qualified Talent 
Deep candidate pools for leadership roles create bandwidth challenges. However, volume should not eliminate professional closure.

Why It Matters

For advanced-stage candidates, the hiring process often includes:
• Meaningful preparation 
• Strategic thinking 
• Intellectual contribution 
• Reputational exposure 

When communication disappears late in the process, it signals something about:
• Internal coordination 
• Decision-making clarity 
• Communication norms 
• Leadership culture 

Hiring is not merely operational. It is a visible expression of organizational values.

A Leadership Opportunity

Organizations committed to strong talent pipelines might consider:
• Assigning a clear communication owner per search 
• Establishing decision-to-notification timelines 
• Providing brief but respectful closure for finalists 
• Viewing candidate experience as a leadership KPI 

Professionalism in hiring is not about optics. It is about consistency between stated values and lived practice.

In competitive markets, strong candidates evaluate organizations as much as organizations evaluate candidates.

The hiring process is often the first true test of culture.

What do you believe is the appropriate standard of communication for finalist candidates in today’s hiring environment?

Things to think about!

Dr Flavius A B Akerele III

The ETeam

Good Communication: A Lost Art?

 

With so many modes of communication available today, reaching out to someone has never been easier, or so it would seem. Text, email, WhatsApp, social media DMs… and yet, these very options often become excuses for not connecting at all. “You didn’t get my message? Oh, I sent it on WhatsApp.” Somewhere along the way, the simple phone call seems to have gone the way of the dinosaur.

Since the COVID shutdowns, I’ve felt that something essential has been lost in how we communicate, and perhaps more importantly, in how we relate to one another. The absence of physical presence and human touch may have contributed to a growing atmosphere of impatience and discourtesy. We’ve seen the effects play out vividly in service and retail industries, where employees were leaving jobs mid-shift after being verbally abused. And that’s before even touching on the state of political discourse.

So how do we fix this? How do we rebuild meaningful, respectful connections?

I don’t pretend to have the answer, but I do think it’s a conversation worth having. Real change may begin with something simple: acknowledging that the problem exists and choosing to be more intentional and mindful in how we communicate in our own lives.

Something to think about.

Dr Flavius Akerele III

The ETeam

#2026willbebetter

 

AI is just another tool

 

Every so often, the world becomes frantic about a “new” technology that is going “change everything” or replace entire industries.

Recently, I uploaded a professional photo to my LinkedIn profile, and when I say professional, I mean just that. I did use AI, but not to enhance my appearance or make me look younger, change my complexion, or alter who I am. I simply wanted a clean, polished headshot style that, not too long ago, we would have paid a photographer good money to produce. The reality is, I still had to use a real photo of myself, gray beard, and all. AI simply helped create the right background and presentation, and it cost me nothing.

It was interesting some of the comments I got when I posted it; most were positive, some were playful teasing, however, some bothered me a little because the first thing they said was “AI!” in a derogatory manner, and I was not even hiding the fact I used AI.

Why the vehemence? It is just a tool!

It reminds me when we started using calculators in school and teachers (me included) did not like that, but then they figured out that calculators do not solve everything you still had to learn the formulas. “Garbage in garbage out” we used to say because you still had to use your mind.

AI works the same way. It can enhance the work that you do, but cannot replace your creativity, your judgement, your passion, and your style. The real conversation should be about how we use the tool responsibly and effectively, not whether we use it at all. That debate is already over. It is here!

AI is just a tool, and we should not be afraid to use it, we should embrace it and make sure it gets used to make life better (not necessarily easier, because easy isn’t always better).

What are your thoughts on AI and the use of it in the workplace?

Dr Flavius Akerele III

The ETeam

One step away from disaster

 

The job market today is unstable in ways that are difficult to capture with statistics. Headline unemployment rates look reassuring, but they ignore two critical groups: those who have stopped looking after months or years of failed searches, and those who are highly qualified yet continually overlooked due to subjective, opaque hiring practices. The reality that people are living does not match the numbers we are being shown.

Many Americans are already living paycheck to paycheck, so it doesn’t take much to tip a stable life into crisis. Picture this scene, because versions of this story happen every day.

You and your spouse both work. The bills are paid, your children are in college, and although nothing is extravagant, life is steady. Then, without warning, one of you loses a job. Suddenly your two-income household becomes one-income overnight, and that one income isn’t enough to sustain where you live. Unemployment benefits help, but only briefly; they were designed as a temporary patch, not a real safety net.

Before you’ve recovered, a medical emergency hits. Now the spouse who still had a job can’t work either. The home you’ve rented for a decade is being sold, and you are given 60 days to move. Even if you scrape together the money for first month’s rent and a deposit, you can’t qualify without the “three-times-the-rent” income requirement. Your credit takes a hit from months of instability. And within six months, despite doing everything “right,” your family finds itself on the brink of homelessness: in the richest country in the world.

This is not hypothetical. This is the lived experience of thousands of working families. Too many people are one step away from disaster, and we rarely acknowledge how fragile the system really is.

So, the question becomes: How do we build a society where one setback doesn’t destroy an entire household? Until we answer that, millions will continue balancing on the edge with no margin for error.

Thoughts?

Dr Flavius Akerele III

The ETeam