Long hiring processes don’t signal rigor; they signal drift.
In campus recreation and higher education, we often stretch professional staff searches far beyond what the role requires and then act surprised when strong candidates lose interest, disengage or accept other offers. A longer process doesn’t automatically produce a better decision. More often, it creates friction that weakens the search.
Every additional step in a hiring process should improve decision quality. Leaders add rounds, meetings, presentations and tasks because that’s how the institution has always done it or because more process feels safer than less.
But a bloated search rarely produces more insight. It usually produces delay, fatigue and a false sense of thoroughness. In many cases, the damage appears before the final round: strong candidates begin to question whether the organization can make decisions, communicate clearly or move with purpose.
This is especially true for entry-level positions. We routinely ask candidates for jobs with limited pay and limited decision-making authority to navigate a search process built as if we were hiring a vice president.
Multiple rounds, long gaps between conversations and loosely defined next steps do not elevate the process. They tell candidates that the institution is comfortable spending their time without being clear about its own priorities.
The better approach isn’t rushed hiring but disciplined hiring. Leaders should decide in advance what information they actually need in order to make a sound decision, then design a process that gets them that information efficiently.
If two interviews will answer the core questions, don’t schedule four. If a committee can evaluate the role effectively with a clear rubric and shared expectations, don’t create extra stages to compensate for weak alignment earlier in the search.
To be fair, not every institution gives hiring managers full control over speed, process or transparency. HR requirements, committee structures and approval timelines can limit how expedient a search can be. But even within those constraints, leaders can reduce uncertainty. A candidate may tolerate a long process more readily if the communication is clear, the expectations are realistic, and the next step is not left vague.
Senior leaders should stop equating length with quality, but they should also recognize that a better process isn’t only about speed. It’s also about clarity. If your institution can’t move quickly, communicate that honestly. For example, when inviting candidates to a first-round virtual interview, tell them interviews will be conducted through a specific date and that those advancing to the next stage will be contacted by a second date.
A strong search isn’t just the one with the fewest steps. It’s the one that helps candidates understand the process they’re entering and respects their time while they move through it.
