Managing Candidate Expectations

Strict criteria often create efficient hiring. They do not always create the right talent. In one hiring drive, a fresher was rejected in the initial screening because they did not meet a specific experience filter. Later, during a walk-in interaction, the same candidate explained their approach to problem solving with clarity and asked questions that reflected genuine understanding. The earlier rejection was not about capability. It was about how the system was designed. In another instance, a fresher who was selected despite limited exposure showed faster adaptability than experienced hires. They documented learning, asked for feedback, and improved consistently within weeks. What they lacked in experience, they compensated with intent and effort. This is becoming more relevant today as roles evolve faster than static criteria can keep up. Rigid filters often prioritize familiarity over potential. This simplifies a key gap in hiring. Experience reflects what someone has done. It does not always reflect how quickly they can learn or how effectively they can grow. This matters because organizations that only hire based on predefined criteria risk missing individuals who can build long term capability within the system. The real question is not whether a fresher fits every requirement today. It is whether they have the ability and willingness to meet those requirements once given the opportunity. When was the last time you evaluated potential with the same seriousness as experience? “Every experienced professional was once rejected for not having experience.” Follow me for more reflections on leadership, workplace culture, and career growth - Madhu #FutureOfWork #WorkplaceCulture #Leadership #Employee #CareerGrowth

Rethinking Your Recruitment: Stop Boxing Your Future It starts with a simple truth: "When you box your candidates, you actually box your team, growth, and organisation." Your current hiring criteria are myopic and not future-proof; they are actively restricting your organisation's potential. We need to zoom in on the filters that are leaving critical positions vacant: ⛔Rigid Qualifications: Insisting on a specific qualification or background, overlooking valuable transferable skills, diverse experience, and potential. ⛔Company Rigidity: Only targeting candidates from a handful of "approved" or legacy businesses. ⛔Salary Bottleneck: Refusing to adjust a narrow range or overemphasizing internal equity, thereby disqualifying excellent talent. ⛔"People Group" Bias: Subconsciously seeking a "like us" profile, which restricts diversity and innovation. 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐂𝐚𝐧'𝐭 𝐀𝐟𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐧𝐲𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 The talent market is fundamentally shifting. We face rising constraints: 🎯Demographic Challenges: The employable population is shrinking due to aging and a smaller younger generation pool. (This calls for reskilling, upskilling, and openness to senior talent). 🎯Policy Restrictions: Tighter work pass controls limit the ease of importing talent, forcing reliance on domestic pools 🎯Market Dynamics: Evolving trends demand we hire for potential and adaptability, not just experience. 🎯Generational Expectations: Younger talent demands flexibility, purpose, and strong values alignment. They prioritise working smart over working hard. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 The immediate consequence of this restrictive thinking is that many positions are unfilled, forcing existing team members to shoulder the burden of additional duties and increasing burnout. The hiring team must move away from the false belief that the department is functioning adequately in its current capacity. It is not. Survival is not sustainability. The mandate is clear: 💡𝐁𝐞 𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞. 𝐁𝐞 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧-𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝. 💡Make the necessary adjustments to role scope, training, and profile expectations. 💡This includes building capacity into your teams and operations to create a buffer. 💡Stop waiting for the perfect candidate who no longer exists in a tight market, and start empowering your team's success today. What is the single most restrictive criterion you see companies clinging to today, and what immediate action would you recommend to change it? #TalentStrategy #Recruitment #HRLeadership #WorkforcePlanning #Lightwayhr 15Oct2025

Most students approach data science interview prep still like it’s 2021. Brush up Leetcode. Memorize stats & ML theory. Skim a few project slides with visuals. But technical interviews are evolving and so should your prep. In the age of AI, hiring managers are no longer just asking: → “Can you code?” → “Do you know XGBoost?” → “What’s the difference between precision and recall?” They’re asking: → “Can you adapt to new tools quickly?” → “Can you apply statistical thinking to ambiguous business problems?” → “How would you audit the output of an LLM?” → “What processes would you automate and which would you leave manual?” And they want to see more than just clean code. They want: → End-to-end thinking → Business understanding → Opinions on what should be built and not just what can be If you're prepping for interviews today, here’s what I’d focus on: → Know your fundamentals; especially programming logic, stats, SQL, and model development and deployment → Build projects that reflect real business use cases → Practice explaining tradeoffs, assumptions, and limitations → Stay current on how AI tools are changing workflows → Get comfortable thinking like a product owner, not just a data analyzer Because in this new landscape, interviewers are looking for those who know how to make data (and AI) actually useful. #datascience #techinterview #ai #careerstrategy #machinelearning #interviewprep #realworldskills #earlycareer #productthinking

Within 2 days, a candidate forgot me. She was genuinely interested in the role. Cleared the rounds. I rolled out the offer. Even adjusted the joining date as per her availability. She confirmed — “I’ll sign and join.” Fast forward to joining day. I texted to check what time she’ll reach — no response. Called, assuming she might be traveling — she picked up within two rings. The moment she heard my voice, she cut the call… and switched off her phone. No response since then. What surprises me isn’t rejection — that’s part of hiring. What’s disappointing is the lack of basic communication. A simple message like “I won’t be joining” would have saved time, effort, and opportunity — for both sides. As recruiters, we invest time, trust, and often turn down other candidates based on commitments. Professionalism is not about saying yes — it’s about communicating clearly, even when the answer is no. #Hiring #Recruitment #WorkEthics #Professionalism #HRInsights

7 out of 10 people lose their interview in the first 10 minutes, before the hiring manager even asks a question. But my clients used these exact strategies to land interviews at Google, Meta, and McKinsey. 1. Revisit the job description (but differently this time) Open the JD and ask yourself: → “Which 2 bullets here do I most want to speak to?” → “Which one am I least confident about?” Have a line or example ready for each. This keeps your answers relevant, not rehearsed. 2. Pull up the interviewer’s LinkedIn Check their background: → Where did they work before this? → Are they technical, business, or people-focused? Adapt your communication style accordingly. 3. Keep a metrics sheet next to you Open a one-pager that lists: → 3 projects → Key metrics (revenue impact, adoption, time savings) → Your specific role This avoids “uhh” moments when they ask for examples. 4. Have your browser tabs prepped like a cockpit Open just 3 tabs: → The JD → The company’s latest blog or product page (to drop a timely reference) → Your own resume (to scroll fast if needed) Prepare a 1-sentence summary for every job on your resume Not the tasks. The outcome. “If you had to explain what you achieved in 12 months — in one line — what would it be?” This builds clarity fast when they ask: “Walk me through your experience.” Reframe nervousness as a signal, not a threat Say this to yourself: “This isn’t fear, it’s energy. And I’m going to use it to stay sharp.” It shifts your focus from emotion to execution. Tactical prep beats positive thinking every time. Save this if you’ve got interviews lined up. Follow me for more practical tips on interviews, cracking the ATS, job search, and more! P.S. DM me if you are a tech professional in the U.S. looking to crack interviews and land high-paying jobs. Let's build a strategy that gets you there.

Recently spoke with a founder who lost 97% of qualified candidates because they insisted on 3 specific requirements: - Specific technical skills - Certain company pedigrees - Particular educational background They're creating an impossible hiring scenario. It's a bit of a fool's errand. You're excluding the 80-90% of people who could do the job exceptionally well but don't check every arbitrary box. Our Recruiting Partners solve this by showing founders the real-time impacts: 1. First, we list ALL their criteria (even the crazy ones) 2. We show them exactly how many candidates exist in that pool 3. Then we adjust ONE requirement and watch the numbers change "Great. Instead of 20 people, now we've got 1,000" This visualization is powerful. You can literally see how each "must-have" narrows your options from thousands to dozens. The irony: The 80-90% of candidates you're excluding could likely do the job exceptionally well - they just don't check every arbitrary box. If you're struggling to fill a role that's been open too long, this might be why.

The most surprising piece of recruitment data I have ever seen… The executive candidate who was LEAST interested in the role was 8x more likely to get hired than the candidate who wanted it most. Years ago, whilst leading executive search teams, we decided to test a theory. Every executive shortlist looked remarkably similar. There was usually one candidate who really wanted the role. Perhaps they had been made redundant. Perhaps they had been searching for months. Perhaps they saw this opportunity as the answer to a difficult period in their career. And then there was another candidate at the opposite end of the spectrum. Someone we had headhunted. Someone already successful. Someone who didn’t need the job and often had to be persuaded to attend the interview. We called it the “Keenness Factor”. For every shortlist, we ranked candidates from 1 to 5. 1 = Most keen 5 = Least keen Then we analysed the hiring outcomes. If keenness had no impact, each candidate should have had roughly a 20% chance of securing the role. That isn’t what happened. The most keen candidate was offered the role just 5% of the time. The least keen candidate was offered the role 40% of the time. Eight times more often. The data genuinely shocked us. Why would employers reject the people who wanted the role most? The answer became clear when I started sitting on more interview panels. The least keen candidates weren’t better qualified. But they behaved differently. They asked better questions. They challenged assumptions. They were more candid about their strengths and limitations. They were comfortable discussing whether the opportunity was right for them. In short, they treated the interview as a two-way commercial conversation rather than a one-way assessment. That behaviour created trust. And senior leaders hire people they trust. The lesson was profound. The pressure of needing a job often causes talented people to oversell, overtalk and inadvertently reduce their impact. Meanwhile, the candidate with options appears confident, curious and authentic. Ironically, that makes them far more attractive. So if you have an interview coming up, remember this: Your objective is not to convince someone to hire you. Your objective is to determine whether there is a mutual fit. The best interviews feel less like an interrogation and more like a boardroom discussion between equals. 🎯 This Thursday at 12.15pm UK we’re running a JOB SEARCH HACKS LIVE Interview Masterclass where we’ll share the frameworks, tactics and psychology that help executives perform at their best and attract more offers. Link is in the comments and my featured section should you wish to join. 👇 Let’s get to work!

I recently spoke with a hiring manager who had screened over 30 candidates for their open Sr. Scientist position. He was shocked by the response when the job posting went live—over 300 applications in the first 48 hours. To manage the overwhelming volume, he started by selecting the top 10 resumes and screened those candidates. From that group, he chose 2 to move forward for interviews with his team. Both candidates performed well, and onsite interviews were scheduled for two weeks later. One candidate accepted another job offer during that time. The other attended the interview and gave their presentation, but the team had reservations and decided to continue the search. Determined to improve the process, the hiring manager expanded his efforts. This time, he shortlisted the top 20 resumes. He advanced 4 candidates to meet with his team and invited 3 to a final interview—this time within a week. Despite his efforts, the challenges persisted. One candidate accepted another job offer before the final interview. Of the two remaining, both gave their presentations, and the team decided to extend an offer to their top choice. It took 3 days to get the offer approved by management.The candidate requested a few days to consider the offer. Two days later, they informed the hiring manager that they had accepted another offer with a $20k higher salary. When they turned to the second-choice candidate, she was no longer interested. After waiting two weeks for a decision, she had received a promotion. The hiring manager was back to square one after reviewing hundreds of resumes, conducting 30 phone screens, 6 team interviews (with 4-5 employees per session), and 3 final presentations (involving 6-7 employees). Despite all this effort, no hire was made. Total Cost: He had no idea. Moral of the Story: Speed, communication, market intelligence and decisive action are critical. Candidates have options, and delays—whether in interviews or approvals—can cost you top talent. Streamlining your hiring process and prioritizing quick, transparent decision-making can make all the difference in securing the right hire.

I almost rejected one of the best JavaScript developers I've ever hired. During his first technical interview, Adam (not his real name) struggled with a whiteboard coding exercise. His solution was inefficient, and he seemed to miss obvious optimisations. Based on our standard process, he was a clear rejection. But something caught my attention—his problem-solving approach was unique. While his code wasn't optimal, his questions revealed a depth of understanding about edge cases and potential pitfalls that most candidates missed entirely. I broke protocol and scheduled a second interview with a different format: a pair programming session on a real (sanitised) problem from our codebase. The transformation was remarkable. Away from the artificial whiteboard environment, Adam flourished. He wrote clean, elegant code, communicated his thought process clearly, and even identified a bug in our existing solution. Adam went on to become one of the top performers, leading several critical projects and mentoring junior developers. This experience fundamentally changed how I help to prepare hiring managers for interviews: __I now review candidate resumes looking for evidence of both technical skills AND problem-solving approaches __I suggest to prepare multiple assessment formats to accommodate different working styles __I always recommend to bring another technical interviewer for a second perspective Has anyone else had a similar experience with a candidate who performed differently across different interview formats? What did you learn? #TechHiring #InterviewExcellence #CandidateExperience