Kicking “Own Goals”: Mistakes Costing You Good Candidates

Recruitment is competitive, but not every loss is caused by the market.

Sometimes the best candidate was interested, the salary was acceptable, the role was attractive, the team was impressive, and the career opportunity was genuine.

Then the employer kicked an “own goal.” A simple error that cost them a candidate.

The process dragged. Feedback was slow. Interviews were spaced weeks apart. The hiring manager disappeared for days at a time. The candidate was told, “We are very interested,” then heard nothing further.

By the time the employer was ready to move, the candidate had moved on or had a better offer.

In this market, employers are not only competing on salary. They are competing on speed, clarity and decisiveness. While you are assessing the candidate, they are also assessing you and more than just the role itself. They are assessing your people, the culture, the certainty and the momentum behind the opportunity.

A slow process sends a message, even when silence was never intended to say anything at all.

The Long Process

A recruitment process should test suitability, not endurance.

Too many employers still believe that more stages lead to better decisions. A first interview, second interview, partner meeting, informal coffee, HR discussion, written exercise and “one more chat” may feel thorough internally. Still, externally, it can feel disorganised and unnecessarily drawn out, especially if not outlined in advance.

Good candidates expect proper due diligence but a timely process.

Candidates start asking themselves obvious questions: Do they really know what they want? Is there internal disagreement? Are they this slow with clients? Will decisions inside the organisation always take this long?

A drawn-out process rarely makes a candidate keener.

Indecision Is Expensive

Indecision is one of the most underestimated costs in recruitment.

There is a difference between prudent consideration and hesitation. Prudent consideration is structured, timely and purposeful. Hesitation is circular. It revisits the same issues, asks for more opinions, delays feedback and waits for a “perfect” candidate who may not exist.

The perfect candidate is often the good candidate you failed to move on when you had the chance.

In legal recruitment, this is particularly acute. Good candidates are usually already employed. They are not desperate; they are carefully risk-managing a move, especially in the “Big Stay”.

If the process lacks clarity or momentum, many will simply stay where they are or accept an offer from an employer that appears more decisive.

Gaps Between Interviews Kill Momentum

Momentum matters.

A strong first interview creates interest, a prompt second interview builds confidence, clear feedback reinforces trust, and a timely offer turns interest into action.

Long gaps between interviews interrupt that momentum and allow uncertainty to creep in.

The candidate returns to their existing role, speaks with other employers, reconsiders the inconvenience of moving, and starts questioning whether the opportunity is really as serious as first presented.

The solution is simple, but often overlooked: plan the process before going to market.

Before interviewing the first candidate, employers should already know who is involved, when interviewers are available, what the decision criteria are, what salary range is approved, and who has the authority to make the offer.

Recruitment should not begin with hope and a calendar invitation. It should begin with a plan.

Regular Feedback helps your Employer Brand

Candidates understand employers are busy. They do not expect instant decisions. They do, however, expect professionalism and regular feedback.

Waiting without communication is rarely interpreted kindly. It can make a candidate feel like a backup option and create the impression that the organisation is disorganised, indifferent or unable to make commercial decisions.

Even a brief update can preserve goodwill:

“We remain very interested. The partner is travelling this week, but we have locked in next Tuesday for the second interview.”

That is far better than silence.

Silence invites candidates to write their own story. Usually, it is not the story the employer would have chosen.

The False Logic: “We Will Be Less Busy If We Do Not Hire”

One of the great recruitment myths is that delaying a hire saves time. It rarely does.

If a team is already stretched, leaving the seat empty does not reduce the workload. It simply redistributes it. Existing staff carry more pressure, partners step into tasks they should not be doing, clients wait longer, and morale drops.

Sometimes the vacancy that was meant to be solved quietly becomes the reason another employee starts looking elsewhere.

A slow recruitment process creates the same problem. It consumes management time, weakens candidate interest and increases the likelihood of having to start again from scratch.

Speed Does Not Mean Recklessness

There is a legitimate concern that moving too quickly can lead to poor hiring decisions.

But speed and rigour are not opposites.

A strong recruitment process is both efficient and disciplined. It has clear criteria, structured interviews, prompt feedback, realistic salary parameters and defined decision-makers. It respects the candidate’s time while protecting the employer’s interests.

The issue is not whether to move quickly or carefully. The issue is whether the process is organised enough to do both.

An efficient recruitment process should usually include:

• A clear brief before the role goes to market
• Agreement on salary, flexibility and essential criteria
• Interviewers are identified and available
• Feedback within 24 to 48 hours
• Short gaps between interviews
• No unnecessary interview stages
• Reference checking and offer preparation are running in parallel, where appropriate.
• A decisive offer once the preferred candidate is identified without “lowballing”.

This is not radical. It is professional.

Stop Kicking Own Goals

Most recruitment losses are not dramatic. They are ordinary, preventable and frustrating.

The candidate was interested, but the process dragged. The employer liked the candidate, but delayed making a decision. Other opportunities came up, and you, at best, may have to increase your offer or, at worst, lose the candidate. There is a recruitment adage, “time kills all deals”.

These are own goals.

In a competitive market, employers cannot control every counteroffer, salary expectation or personal circumstance. What they can control is their process.

Prepared employers hire better. They communicate clearly, move with purpose and make decisions promptly. They understand that strong candidates have options and that a recruitment process reflects the organisation itself.

The best candidates are rarely on the market for long. If you want them, help yourself with a smoother process. In recruitment, as in sport, some losses are unavoidable. The own goals are the ones that hurt most.