While the partnership began on a strong note, challenges emerged soon after.
Initially, the client’s
U.S.-based technical team handled candidate evaluations, and our shortlisted profiles consistently received approvals for further rounds. However, as the U.S. team’s bandwidth reduced, the client decided to
contract two local technical consultants to help conduct interviews and assessments.
That’s when the problems started.
Suddenly, our shortlisted candidates — previously receiving strong feedback — were
consistently being rejected, often with vague or inconsistent reasons. The rejection ratio jumped dramatically, causing delays in meeting critical hiring milestones and eroding recruiter morale.
Upon investigation, we uncovered deeper, systemic challenges:
- Misaligned incentives: The contracted evaluators were being paid per candidate reviewed, not for successful hires — creating a perverse incentive to prolong evaluation rather than close roles.
- Subjective evaluation criteria: Each consultant used different benchmarks, with no standardized framework for assessing skills or cultural fit.
- Communication breakdown: The consultants were operating in silos, with minimal collaboration with the client’s leadership or recruitment team.
- Eroding candidate experience: Delays and inconsistent feedback led to candidate dropouts, damaging the client’s early employer reputation.
