Candidate Engagement Practices

You can’t do community engagement on a deadline. I came across a contract offer recently. It was a community engagement ‘task and finish’ project over 2 months. But community work doesn’t work like that. If you want genuine engagement then you need trust and trust isn’t a task on a Gantt chart. People don’t open up when the timeline says so, they open up when they feel safe. Genuine relationships don’t form during engagement events. They grow in conversations after the meeting has ended, during those ‘water cooler’ moments, at the school gates chats, on the walk back to the car. If your timeline has a fixed slot for “community engagement,” ask different questions: Who already has trust here and are they in the room? Where do people naturally gather and are we showing up there? Are we listening to meet a deadline or to understand what’s really going on? Community engagement isn’t the soft bit before delivery, it is THE work. It’s slow, human, and sometimes uncomfortable. But when people start to trust the process, everything else moves further and faster than any deadline could force. #CommunityDevelopment #CoDesign #Participation #PublicServices #Trust #PlaceMaking #CommunityPower

There’s a big trust collapse in hiring. And companies don’t realise they’re causing it. Candidates aren’t frustrated because the market is “tough”. They’re frustrated as the experience feels careless. What used to feel like a professional exchange now feels one sided, closed off, and disposable. - Applications ignored. - Silence after interviews. - Poor feedback, if any. - Decisions made weeks late, if at all. - Processes that drag on with too many stages. Candidates have stopped assuming good intent. They’ve stopped believing effort will be matched with effort. Once that belief sets in, none of the usual fixes will work. Not EVP. Not branding. Not referral bonuses. I’m not talking about tools here. This is behaviour. I’ve reviewed a large volume of candidate feedback over time, across roles, industries, and geographies. The pattern is consistent. Candidates haven’t become “lazy” or “entitled”. They’ve become cautious. When companies repeatedly fail to close loops, respect time, or communicate clearly. Candidates stop trusting. And trust, once lost, doesn’t reset with a new campaign. It resets through discipline. - Clear timelines. - Honest communication. - Decisions that respect people’s time, even when the answer is no. Candidate experience isn’t a branding exercise. It’s an operational one. So when trust collapses at the front door, everything downstream gets harder. - Attraction weakens. - Conversion drops. - Reputation deteriorates. Most hiring problems blamed on “the market” are actually self inflicted. If candidates don’t trust the process, they won’t trust the company behind it.

The Rejection Email That Changed My (and the candidate’s) Career I just helped a candidate secure a job offer after he'd been rejected by the same company just three months earlier. How? The candidate did something most job seekers never consider. When he received the initial rejection, instead of quietly moving on, he sent a thoughtful response thanking the hiring manager for the opportunity and asking for one specific piece of feedback. That email sparked a conversation which eventually led to him being considered for a different role. This story highlights something I've observed repeatedly in my years as a headhunter: your response to rejection can be as important as your application. Here's what successful candidates do differently: 1. They view rejections as pauses, not stops. The hiring world is fluid—budgets change, requirements shift, and new positions open up. Maintaining positive connections keeps you in the loop. 2. They ask for targeted feedback. Don't request general improvement areas. Ask: "Could you share one skill I could develop that would make me a stronger candidate for similar roles?" This is specific and actionable. 3. They show growth between applications. If you reapply, highlight what you've learned or improved since your last application. This demonstrates commitment and adaptability. 4. They stay visible professionally. Comment thoughtfully on the hiring manager's LinkedIn posts or share relevant industry articles. This keeps you on their radar without being pushy. 5. They treat recruiters as long-term connections. A good recruiter remembers candidates who communicate professionally, even when things don't work out. We often come back to people who left positive impressions. I've seen too many qualified candidates vanish after a rejection, missing future opportunities. The job search isn't just about finding vacancies—it's about building relationships that last beyond a single application. #JobSearch #CareerAdvice #Recruitment

By now, you already know: the best roles are rarely filled through job boards. They’re filled through relationships. Over the years, I’ve refined a method I call the “Strategic Access Framework.” Here’s how it works: 1️⃣ Identify the right people inside your target company Don’t just think about recruiters. Instead, ask: Who has insights about the team, culture, and challenges I want to be part of? These are the leaders and decision-makers worth building a connection with. 2️⃣ Initiate a conversation to learn, not to pitch Set up meetings with genuine curiosity. Ask about the company’s direction, leadership priorities, and what success looks like in their roles. When you focus on learning, you naturally leave a stronger impression. 3️⃣ Position yourself for a referral Referrals don’t happen by accident. They come from thoughtful conversations. By asking the right questions and sharing relevant experiences, you’ll naturally open the door for them to connect you to the right opportunity. 4️⃣ Nurture the relationship long-term A single meeting isn’t the end. It’s the beginning. Stay in touch, share insights, and keep the dialogue going. That way, when opportunities arise (and they will), your name is already top of mind. I’ve seen professionals land interviews and offers within weeks by applying this approach. The key is to stop relying on online applications and start investing in the relationships that drive hiring decisions.

Reintroducing Humanity into the Hiring Process: 7 Key Principles 1- Avoid Ghosting – Every applicant deserves a response. Silence erodes trust and respect. 2- Communicate Transparently – Set clear expectations about the recruitment process, including timelines and next steps. 3- Maintain Warmth in Communication – Engage personally with candidates rather than relying solely on automated systems. Recruitment is about people, not just processes. 4- Value Candidates' Time – Only proceed with interviews if there is a genuine interest in the candidate. Don’t waste their time if they're not a serious contender. 5- Streamline Interview Rounds – Avoid unnecessary, prolonged interview rounds. Respect the candidate's time by making the process efficient and purposeful. 6- Be Willing to Take a Chance – Recognize that experience isn’t everything. Many skills can be taught on the job. Everyone deserves a chance to prove themselves, just as we all once needed a break to begin our careers. 7- Look Beyond the Resume – Candidates are more than just their qualifications. Invest the effort to understand their full story, not just what's on paper. Every job application represents a person who is navigating the often stressful and challenging journey of job searching. It is vital to remember that, at any time, any of us could be on the other side of the process. By treating candidates with the dignity, respect, and empathy they deserve, we not only improve the hiring experience but also cultivate relationships built on trust and mutual respect.

I need to say this out loud because the silence around it is wild. Recruiters hiring recruiters… we have a problem. Lately, I’ve been asked to submit availability only to be rejected before a first call. I’ve been told I’m “moving forward” and then… nothing. I’ve been given timelines that come and go with zero follow-up. Ghosted. Rejected out of the blue. Or left hanging after being explicitly told to expect next steps. This isn’t a market issue. This is a candidate experience issue. And here’s the part we don’t say enough: when you’re hiring good recruiters, we know the process. We live in it every day. We know what strong communication, clear expectations, and respectful follow-through look like. You can’t spin vague updates, shifting timelines, or silence and expect us not to notice. We know what “great” looks like because we’ve built it. What’s especially frustrating is watching genuinely strong recruiters struggle to land roles while poor hiring practices continue unchecked. Some of the worst candidate experiences I’ve had recently have been from recruiting teams themselves. Then there’s the ask: • 4–5 interview rounds • Take-home assignments • Contract or RC roles treated like VP searches At some point we have to ask… what are we optimizing for? Because it’s clearly not trust, efficiency, or respect for time. I love this industry. I believe in good recruiting. I know what excellent candidate experience looks like. But right now, the disconnect is loud. Amazing recruiters are out here, ready to work, ready to add value, and ready to show up. The process shouldn’t be what breaks them down first. If you’re hiring recruiters, please remember: Your candidates know the playbook. Your process is the brand. And how you show up matters. End rant. Back to refreshing my inbox. 😮💨

Job seekers don’t ghost randomly. They walk away informed. Long before an application is submitted or a recruiter reaches out, candidates are already forming opinions based on what they see publicly. Leadership behavior. Employee tone. Responses to pressure. Signals around burnout and accountability. That is employer branding in real time. From a job seeker’s perspective, culture is not a buzzword. It is a risk assessment. And today, much of that assessment happens on #LinkedIn. This is where top talent spends time. Yet senior #HR and leadership teams are often absent. When the only visible signal is a stream of “we’re hiring” posts, trust does not increase. Distance does. When something feels off, candidates rarely explain why. Interest fades. Replies slow. Momentum disappears. Safer environments win. This is why some organizations struggle to hire and retain talent at the same time. The problem is not a talent shortage. It is a trust gap. Your employer brand is not a careers page or an award badge. It is the lived employee experience, interpreted publicly. From the candidate’s point of view, trust is built when companies get these 6 things right: 1. Celebrate employee and customer wins publicly. ↳ What you amplify externally tells candidates who gets recognized internally. 2. Tell the truth early ↳ Spin is detected long before an offer is made. 3. Hold leaders accountable always ↳ Culture reflects what leadership rewards and tolerates. 4. Make values known and enforceable ↳ If behavior is not upheld, values are just copy. 5. Invest in leadership development for managers ↳ Most career decisions are reactions to one manager. 6. Address toxicity quickly ↳ What is tolerated behind closed doors becomes reputation in the marketplace. Job seekers are not asking for perfection. They are looking for alignment, psychological safety, and leadership they can trust. And HR is the function that determines whether candidates lean in or quietly disappear. Jobseekers, what makes you lose trust in a company instantly? ♻️ Repost to help senior leaders see this through a candidate’s lens 💜 Follow Dr. Jessica E. Samuels, ACC for weekly insights on executive development, HR, and employer brand strategy

We talk a lot about “candidate ghosting”… but there’s a quieter trend emerging that’s just as damaging: companies are putting candidates on ice 🧊 🥶 I’m seeing it now more than ever. Candidates go through 2, 3, even 4 interviews…They’re the leading contender… And suddenly, everything freezes. ❄️ Not rejected. Not advanced. Just… paused indefinitely. Why? 🤷♀️ Because an internal candidate applies late in the process. 🤔 Because a “friend of the org” slides in at the last minute. 🤫 Because a hiring manager quietly shifts direction and HR finds out after the fact. 🙅 Because budgets are shaky, approvals unclear, or leadership is hedging its bets. And here’s the part we don’t talk about enough: This isn’t just a candidate experience issue. It’s a trust issue, a brand issue, and a culture issue. From the inside, it often looks like: • fear of making the wrong hire • internal politics or pressure • unclear ownership of the hiring process • leaders interviewing “just in case” instead of with intention From the outside, it looks like disrespect. AND it hurts your brand. READ THAT AGAIN. Candidates rearrange schedules, prepare deeply, invest emotionally, and then sit in silence while HR is left to explain decisions they weren’t included in. If we want a healthier hiring ecosystem, we need to ask some hard questions: ✨ Who owns the integrity of the hiring process? ✨ How do we protect both internal AND external candidates from being treated as afterthoughts? ✨ What guardrails ensure that leaders don’t use candidates as contingency plans? ✨ How do we rebuild transparency, trust, and respect into hiring? Let’s open this up: 👉 Candidates: Have you been put “on ice”? How did it impact your perception of the company? 👉 TA/HR leaders: What’s driving this inside your organizations? Budget uncertainty? Politics? Poor alignment? Something else? No judgment...just an honest conversation we need to start having. Because as a search recruiter, it's heartbreaking to watch the candidate experience eroding before our eyes. We have to do better. #Leadership #Hiring #TalentAcquisition #CandidateExperience #RecruitingTrends #CultureMatters #EmployeeExperience #ExecutiveRecruiting #LeadershipDevelopment #PeopleAndCulture #HRCommunity #CareerConversations #FutureOfWork

Boutique consulting partners often lose high-value mandates because they mistake a sales process for a transaction. In my work advising boards, the most frequent failure I observe is the collapse of three distinct, necessary dialogues into one hurried pitch. Effective consulting sales is not a linear sprint; it is a series of recursive conversations. These are the exploratory, the diagnostic, and the solution stages. While these can occur over a single afternoon or span months, the sequence is non-negotiable for high-margin work. The pressure to maintain utilisation often forces partners to jump to the "solution" before the problem is fully bounded. This is a strategic error. Research into professional service firm dynamics suggests that clients often suffer from information asymmetry: they are frequently unable to accurately articulate their underlying needs at the outset. If you offer a solution before the client has fully explored their own internal context, you are merely guessing. The exploratory conversation is about alignment. This is where you determine if the client’s organisational maturity matches your firm’s specific methodology. It requires a high degree of epistemic humility: the willingness to admit what you do not yet know about the client’s environment. The diagnostic stage is where the real value is created. It is an educational process for the buyer. By deliberately slowing down here, you help the client understand the hidden variables behind their symptoms. This phase is critical because, as the service-dominant logic framework suggests, value is co-created. If the client does not participate in the diagnosis, they rarely take ownership of the outcome. The solution conversation should be the shortest of the three. If the first two stages are handled correctly, the proposal becomes an inevitable conclusion rather than a competitive pitch. I have seen firms lose significant opportunities because they provided an answer to a problem the client had not yet agreed was a priority. When you rush, you signal that your desire to sell is greater than your desire to solve. This "sales-first" behaviour erodes the trust required for complex advisory work. Slowing down allows you to build what social psychologists call idiosyncratic credits. It demonstrates that you are a partner who values precision over speed. In the long term, this rigour reduces project failure rates and increases the likelihood of follow-on work. For leaders in boutique firms, the trade-off is clear: rushing might close a small project today, but a deliberate, staged approach secures the relationship for the next decade. #consulting

The Decision Trap: Why "Just Decide Quickly" Is The Most Dangerous Advice In fast-paced environments, we are taught to equate speed with strength. Hesitation is treated like weakness, and slow decisions are immediately labeled as fear. But here is the single, hard truth about momentum: Rushed decisions take the longest time to fix. The High Cost of the Rush Fast action feels like progress, but it often sacrifices clarity for comfort. When you rush because you are uncomfortable sitting in uncertainty, the team pays the price later. Rushed decisions can lead to: The Unwind: Creating commitments (time, resources, or budget) that are incredibly difficult and expensive to backtrack on. The Idea Killer: The optimal, most elegant solution often surfaces only after the initial, frantic pressure has subsided. The Repair Work: The time spent explaining, correcting, or apologizing for an unvalidated choice always exceeds the time saved by acting fast. Clarity is what actually creates momentum, not speed. Real leadership isn't about reacting fast, it's about choosing wisely. The Decisive Difference The goal isn't to overthink, but to know the difference between two states: ❌ Rushing: Acting from a place of anxiety because you're uncomfortable with uncertainty. ✅ Precision: Acting from a place of conviction because you've done the necessary hard thinking. The strongest decisions aren't fast, they are right. The cost of a rushed decision isn't just the outcome; it's the erosion of trust and the lost time repairing what patience could have avoided. Advice Worth Keeping: Don’t confuse your personal anxiety for the company’s urgency. Slow down and validate your premise. What’s one major decision you wish you had slowed down, even by just a day, to avoid a major fix later?