Kiren mentions hearing a striking statistic at a recent recruitment conference in London: applications per hire across EMEA have nearly doubled in just five years. That reflects something she and many other talent teams are already experiencing first-hand. Candidates can now use AI to apply to more roles more quickly. For recruiters, that creates a difficult equation: far more applications coming in, without necessarily having more people available to manage them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWhen you’re dealing with big numbers and you’re also trying to hire faster and more efficiently, some of that personal touch is at risk of getting lost.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n “When you’re dealing with big numbers and trying to hire faster and more efficiently, some of that personal touch is at risk of getting lost.”\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\nThe challenge is that hiring may be one process among many for a recruiter, but for the individual candidate it is a very different experience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cCandidates might be applying to a select few roles, whereas on the other side we’re speaking to many, many candidates. For them, it\u2019s a very personal experience.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Maintaining that personal connection does not necessarily require grand gestures. Often it comes down to remembering the candidate\u2019s story, understanding what matters to them and making sure the next person they speak to has enough context to continue the relationship rather than starting again from scratch.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For Kiren, efficiency itself is not the problem. The risk comes when candidates begin to feel like just another application moving through a system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
The candidate you reject today could be your future hire<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Candidate experience matters even when the answer is no. In fact, Kiren is reluctant to use the word rejection at all. Sometimes there may be three or four strong candidates at the end of a process, all of whom could realistically succeed in the role. But there is still only one position available.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cSometimes it’s simply a misalignment. You can have several really great candidates, but at the end of the day you have to pick somebody.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That makes the way the relationship ends particularly important.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Kiren has seen this play out several times herself. She has gone back to candidates who were previously unsuccessful because the role, scope or salary had not quite aligned at the time. In more than one case, reopening that conversation later has resulted in a hire. The opportunity only existed because the first conversation had ended well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIf somebody has performed really well, we try to keep that connection. We know roles might become available again, or we might hire again for that particular team.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There is a wider benefit too. A candidate who is not right for one vacancy may suit another team. They may return later. They may recommend someone else. Kiren also has recruiters in her network who occasionally ask whether she has recently spoken with anyone who could suit one of their opportunities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A hiring process therefore does not always end when a vacancy is filled. Every strong candidate can remain part of a much wider talent network.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n “We really believe in keeping the door open because this could be a future hire.”\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Good candidate communication starts with actually communicating<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.clevry.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/Clevry_perspectives_on_talent_humanising_hiring_at_scale-1024x535.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n