Sometimes we find ourselves in situations where the hiring manager says they love our candidate, the candidate wants the job, but then the hiring manager keeps asking to see a few more options "just to be thorough." Meanwhile, the candidate who everybody likes keeps interviewing, and now our deal is at risk. So what do we do? What do we do to move the needle forward?
We always have to present it in terms of what's in the best interest of the client. And what's in the best interest of the client is quickly making the hiring decision. We can educate the client. The delays made them feel unwanted. They start to question whether this company wants them. They wonder if this is what decision-making looks like at this organization, and if it is, do they really want to work there?
Here's what most hiring managers don't realize: every day they delay the candidate is getting wooed by someone else. Every extra interview loop is another opportunity for doubt to creep in. Every request to "see just a few more people" sends the message that this candidate isn't quite good enough. Even if you eventually make the offer, you've already damaged the relationship. The candidate who was excited two weeks ago is now lukewarm at best.
So, what do we say?
If you're not 100% sure, Mr. Hiring Manager, what I can do for you is continue to search so that we have a backup pipeline in case this isn't the right hire for you. But I'm not in a position where I can continue to supply you people on an unlimited basis simply for comparative purposes. It's not only a waste of their time, it's also a waste of your time, and it tarnishes my reputation.
Let's be clear about what's happening here. When you keep asking for more candidates even though you like the one in front of you, you're not being thorough; you're being indecisive. And indecision is expensive. It costs you the candidate. It costs you time. It costs you momentum. And in a competitive market, it costs you the hire altogether.
So why don't we dig in? What are the real issues? What were you hoping to see in this candidate that isn't there? What are we subconsciously looking for in a few other options that this person doesn't have? Let's name it. Because sometimes when we articulate what we think is missing, we realize it's either not that important or it's not realistic to find in combination with everything else we need.
See if you can dissect what's missing and what the hesitation really is. It could simply be that they've made bad hiring decisions in the past and they're having a little bit of a crisis of confidence. If that's the case, you have to build them up a little bit and help them feel more confident in their decision-making process.
You might say something like:
I understand the hesitation. Hiring is one of the most important decisions you make, and I know you want to get it right. But here's what I'm seeing: you've got a candidate who checks every major box, who's excited about the role, and who your team unanimously likes. What's the risk we're actually protecting against by waiting? Because the risk of losing this person is very real and very imminent.
Sometimes you need to give them permission to make the decision. Sometimes you need to reframe their perfectionism as paralysis. And sometimes you need to point out that waiting for someone who's 100% perfect means you'll never hire anyone at all.
You can also offer to extend a guarantee. That takes some of the perceived risk off the table.
If this doesn't work out in the first 90 days, we'll replace them at no charge. But let's not lose a great candidate because we're afraid to pull the trigger.
Here's the bottom line: our job as recruiters isn't just to find candidates. It's to facilitate good hiring decisions. And sometimes that means coaching our clients to actually make a decision. Because the best candidate in the world doesn't matter if you're too scared or too slow to hire them.
