7 Costly Mistakes to Avoid in Recruiting

We’ve all been there: a company recruiter shows interest in your job application. You get through one, two, maybe even three interview stages, and the recruiter goes dark. No calls with “next steps” or rejection, not even an automated email telling you they filled the position. When you follow up—crickets. 

It turns out that ghosting is not just a modern dating problem. Unfortunately, it’s also become somewhat of a norm in modern recruiting. A recent survey of about 1,200 employees by Greenhouse revealed that 67 percent of job seekers have been ghosted after an interview, never hearing from the employer again. 

Despite the increasing popularity of this rejection tactic, it’s counterintuitive to the end goal. After all, ghosting is one of the most costly mistakes that employers can make when it comes to recruiting, according to this week’s expert guest on America Back to Work, Michael Potvin. 

Potvin is an award-winning HR and talent management professional with HR leadership experience at some of the world’s largest and most successful companies, including Siemens, GM, and Deloitte. 

Find out why ghosting is one of the most expensive mistakes a recruiter can make and learn about other costly recruiting mistakes to avoid below. 

Ghosting Candidates 

Ghosting candidates destroys valuable, long-term relationships with qualified candidates who might be a great fit for another role when future headcount opens up. These candidates come pre-vetted; they’ve likely already passed through the early checkpoints of the hiring process, meaning they’d be a quicker hire in the future (compared to starting from scratch). 

Ghosting can discourage talented candidates from considering future opportunities with your company. Potential hires who have been ghosted are more likely to reject any future engagement, hindering your ability to attract top talent and grow your talent pool.

Additionally, ghosting affects your talent brand and reputation. Your talent brand is the highly social, totally public version of your employer brand that incorporates what talent thinks, feels, and shares about your company as a place to work. It lives largely on company review sites, social media, and IRL within your network since that’s where talent—past, present, and potential (candidates)—operates.

Ghosting can increase the number of negative reviews on Glassdoor or similar sites that share information about the interview process. It also makes candidates and employees less likely to recommend their talented friends apply to your organization, further impacting your talent pool. 

Relying Too Heavily on Job Boards 

On that note, did you know talent relationships (aka talent pools) are 34x more effective than job boards in finding quality hires? Or that, on average, 1 out of every 2.4 applicants is hired via this channel? 

While job boards cast a wide net, developing real, personal, positive relationships with candidates is a more efficient way to make quality hires in the long run. Ultimately, investing in talent relationships is a great way to reduce costs and save time on a job search. 

Failure to Look Within 

Internal recruitment is hiring someone from within your existing business structure to fill a vacant position for your company, which may include a transfer, a promotion, or moving temporary employees to full-time positions. 

For companies facing the ongoing labor shortage and tightening their recruiting budgets in light of economic uncertainty, internal recruitment is a cost-effective move. When hiring or promoting from within, there are little to no recruitment expenses, such as the cost of posting job ads, and you’re enhancing your workforce without increasing headcount. In fact, external hires cost 18% more than internal hires. 

Focusing on internal hiring helps hiring managers reduce the lengthy process of multiple interview rounds, salary negotiations, and onboarding. Plus, the learning curve is shortened since internal employees already know how the company works, have long-standing relationships with key employees, and don’t need to be onboarded to company systems or culture.  

Skipping Background Checks 

The average cost of a bad hiring decision is at least 30 percent of the individual’s first-year expected earnings, not to mention the negative effects that bad hires can have on productivity, morale, retention, and other key business metrics (costing the business more money). That might look like 60,000 in wasted dollars—or more for more senior employees. 

Background checks vary in price depending on the provider and the detail needed in the report. Generally speaking. However, most standard background checks cost between $30 and $50 per employee, a small price to pay during the recruiting process to prevent a costly hiring decision. 

Learn more about how background checks can help reduce risk during recruiting here. 

Unconscious Bias 

Diverse companies see 2.5 times higher cash flow per employee, higher revenues, increased employee engagement, and better retention numbers. That means companies without a fair, inclusive, and accessible recruiting process are missing out on top talent and all the rewards of hiring them. 

Unconscious bias in recruiting refers to forming opinions about candidates based on first impressions or irrelevant criteria. It can lead to less diverse teams and hinder business productivity. Awareness of these biases and conscious decision-making can help mitigate their impact and lead to more effective, more fruitful hiring processes.

Vague Job Ads 

When job ads are not targeted enough and lack clarity around key role requirements, application volumes skyrocket—and not in a good way. The talent pool sourced from vague job ads will be rife with unsuitable candidates, leaving hiring teams to sort through the noise and costing the business valuable time and money on the job search. 

Not Measuring the “Nos”

When candidates reject a job offer, it wastes the money and hours you’ve invested in the search. 

A low offer acceptance rate often points to a flaw in the recruitment process. The most common mistakes include: a lack of clarity or transparency on remuneration, misalignment between the expectation and reality of the role, a process that is longer than competitors, a poor or unengaging candidate experience, or a lack of communication along the journey. 

Consistently collecting and analyzing data around the hiring process, especially around negative outcomes, can help you rectify costly roadblocks to save time and money in the long run. High-performing organizations that track why candidates decline offers and then put mitigating strategies in place see offer acceptance rates of 99% year-on-year. The global industry benchmark is 95%. 

For more ways to prevent costly hiring mistakes and increase recruiting efficiency at your organization, check out this week’s episode of America Back to Work with Michael Potvin.