Went through SEVEN hours of interviews (with a total of 10 hours invested) only to be told I’m not qualified for the job?!

Understanding the Frustration of Job Search Rejections After Extensive Interviews

Navigating the job market can be an exhausting and often frustrating experience, especially when investing significant time and effort into multiple interview stages. Many applicants have faced situations where, after lengthy and seemingly positive interview processes, they are ultimately told they are not qualified — a situation that can feel disheartening and confusing.

A Recent Candidate’s Experience: The Lengthy Road to a Rejection

Consider the case of an individual in the midst of transitioning careers, who embarked on an ambitious two-month journey of securing a new role. During this period, they participated in numerous interviews across various companies, with the goal of breaking into a new industry segment.

This individual advanced to final interview stages with two companies, referred to here as Company A and Company B. They successfully received an offer from Company A, which, although their less preferred option, represented a tangible step forward. The offer was appreciated, marking a positive milestone in their career transition.

However, the experience with Company B — which was initially highly promising — proved to be complex and ultimately disappointing. The candidate was attracted not only due to the higher starting salary but also because of the role’s interesting nature and the company’s unique product. Their benefits package was appealing, including options for employee ownership.

The interview process with Company B was notably intensive. It commenced with a comprehensive assessment consisting of 50 questions to be completed in 15 minutes—a challenging and somewhat invasive step. Following this, the candidate engaged in multiple interview rounds:

• First Interviews: A recruiter and subsequent interviews went smoothly, with positive feedback.

• Third Round: A more demanding stage involving two interviewers and a required presentation prepared over several hours. This phase also included a timed assessment in Excel, purportedly testing aptitude or critical thinking skills.

• Final Round: An intense series of four consecutive, one-hour interviews with senior managers, a director, and the CEO, conducted via video calls with no breaks in between.

Throughout this process, the candidate received encouraging feedback, with interviewers praising their business acumen, background, and potential fit within the company.

The Unexpected Turn: Rejection and Surprising Feedback

Despite feeling confident after the interviews and receiving positive comments, the candidate was unexpectedly declined. The formal rejection email cited that the team appreciated their talent and potential but emphasized a preference for a candidate with prior experience in that specific role.

This revelation was startling, especially considering the extensive time invested — over seven hours of interviews and multiple rounds of preparation. It felt inconsistent with the prior positive feedback from interviewers and the detailed conversations held. The candidate expressed feelings of being misled and taken advantage of, questioning why earlier feedback did not clarify that experience was a non-negotiable requirement.

The Broader Lesson

This story illustrates a common challenge faced by job seekers: the dissonance between interview feedback and final hiring decisions. It underscores the importance of transparency in the recruitment process and managing applicant expectations. It also highlights the emotional toll of investing significant effort—preparing presentations, engaging in multiple lengthy interviews—only to learn that the core qualification was a prerequisite from the start.

For job seekers, this experience serves as a reminder to seek clarity early in the process regarding essential qualifications and to be prepared for instances where feedback may not align with interview impressions. While the frustration is real, perseverance and continued search can lead to better opportunities, as was the case for this individual who secured an alternative offer they found satisfactory.

In conclusion, the job market remains a challenging arena, but understanding the process and maintaining resilience are key. If you’ve faced similar situations, know that you’re not alone, and your effort is valuable—even if sometimes the outcome isn’t what you expect.

Hiring 2 people out of 40 applicants is ‘good’?

Understanding Recruitment Metrics: Is Hiring 2 Out of 40 Applicants Considered Success?

Navigating the hiring process can often be a challenging and sometimes discouraging experience. Recently, I had an insightful conversation with a recruiting firm about our current hiring efforts, which prompted me to reflect on what constitutes a successful recruitment outcome.

Our Current Hiring Landscape

At my organization, the responsibility of recruiting primarily falls on my shoulders and one other team member. I handle various tasks—from posting job listings on platforms like Indeed, screening applications, scheduling interviews, to onboarding new hires. Over the past week, I reached out to approximately 40 applicants. Among these:
– Ten responded positively to initial contact.
– Of those ten, five attended scheduled interviews.
– From those interviews, we ultimately hired two new team members.

While the outcome—hiring 2 out of 40—may seem modest, it’s important to contextualize these figures.

Insights from Our Recruiting Partner

Our conversations with a recruiting firm revealed that such metrics are, in fact, quite common across many industries. The recruiter assured us that hiring 2 individuals from around 40 applicants is considered within the typical range; in some cases, a 5-10% conversion rate from application to hire is seen as excellent. This underscores how challenging the recruitment process can be, especially when assessing candidate quality and engagement.

Reflecting on Recruitment Realities

These numbers highlight a broader reality: the pool of applicants is often larger than the number of truly qualified, responsive candidates. Many applicants may apply en masse or may not follow through with their applications, phone calls, or interviews. This means that, despite seemingly low yield rates, the pool of genuinely interested and qualified candidates is smaller than it appears.

Advice for Job Seekers

For those seeking employment, understanding this process can be encouraging. When facing fierce competition or seeing large applicant pools, it’s tempting to feel discouraged. However, the reality is that many applicants may not respond or follow through. Responsiveness, professionalism, and a proactive attitude can significantly improve your chances. Showing up prepared and punctual can set you apart from the crowd.

Final Thoughts

While the hiring process may sometimes seem opaque or discouraging, the key takeaway is that a modest success rate doesn’t mean failure. Employers often expect to interview many candidates before making a hire. For job seekers, understanding these dynamics can be empowering—your attentiveness and professionalism can make all the difference. Patience and perseverance, combined with a proactive approach, are your best tools in securing that next opportunity.

Navigating recruitment metrics can be complex, but with the right mindset and approach, both employers and candidates can find success amid the challenges.

Gotta say as someone who found this sub by accident random people on reddit really seems to not believe personality and/or soft skills matter.

Understanding the Impact of Personality and Soft Skills in Recruitment: A Reflection

In the realm of employment and hiring practices, there is often an ongoing debate regarding the significance of personality traits and soft skills. A recent reflection on a popular online community underscores a common misconception: that technical qualifications alone should determine a candidate’s suitability for a position, regardless of their demeanor or interpersonal skills.

Many recruiters and professionals recognize that while technical expertise is essential, it is only part of the larger picture. For example, a recruiter might point out that a candidate is not a good cultural or team fit, receiving some recognition in the form of positive feedback. However, a contrasting viewpoint frequently emerges within these discussions—one that minimises the importance of personality, suggesting that as long as an individual is qualified, their attitude or behavior should not matter. This perspective, often garnering substantial support, overlooks critical factors influencing workplace harmony and productivity.

The reality is that most jobs attract multiple qualified applicants. When the pool is that deep, personality becomes a rational differentiator. Traits such as teamwork, communication style, emotional intelligence, and mutual respect impact how well someone collaborates with colleagues and adapts to organizational culture. For instance, an individual whose personal beliefs or communication style conflicts with company values or team dynamics may not thrive, regardless of their technical prowess.

Moreover, job roles often require specific personalities to succeed. Consider a person wearing an inflammatory or provocative shirt in a professional environment, or someone with views that starkly contrast with the organization’s core values. Such differences can hinder integration and affect team cohesion. In some cases, certain personality types are ill-suited for particular duties—think of a high-stakes bomb disposal technician versus a corporate office worker. While both roles may require a similar skill set, the temperament and mindset suitable for each differ markedly.

A personal example can illuminate this point. While I am qualified for a sales role, I know that my anxiety around talking to strangers makes it impossible for me to perform effectively in commission-based sales. Conversely, roles that involve precise technical work, such as military Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD), demand a personality capable of maintaining composure under extreme pressure—a trait unlikely to serve well in a standard office setting.

The recurring narrative that “personality should not matter if a candidate is qualified” ignores the fundamental fact that no organization wants to work with difficult or incompatible individuals. For sustainable team dynamics and organizational success, soft skills and personality traits are just as crucial as technical capabilities.

This reflection is shared in a casual context—sparked by a moment of introspection while reading a community’s top posts after a few drinks. Nevertheless, it highlights a vital aspect of modern hiring: the need to balance qualifications with interpersonal qualities.

In conclusion, recognizing the importance of soft skills and personality traits is essential for creating cohesive, efficient, and positive work environments. Both employers and candidates should appreciate that technical ability alone does not guarantee success—how one interacts, communicates, and aligns with organizational culture are equally vital components of professional excellence.

Is it just me or do people not use Linkedin anymore?

Evaluating LinkedIn Engagement: Is the Platform Losing Its Effectiveness?

In recent months, many professionals and recruiters have observed a notable decline in engagement metrics on LinkedIn, prompting questions about the platform’s current efficacy.

A common concern among users is the reduced response rates to InMail messages. Traditionally, LinkedIn’s InMail feature has been a valuable tool for outreach and networking, boasting response rates that often hovered around 30%. However, recent reports suggest that these rates have significantly declined, with many users experiencing response rates between 15-18%.

It is important to note that these figures typically exclude responses such as “thanks but no thanks,” indicating that the actual engagement might be even lower. As a result, some users are questioning the return on investment (ROI) they receive from LinkedIn Recruiter and other premium features, especially when coupled with the perceived decrease in meaningful interactions.

This trend raises an important inquiry within the professional community: Is LinkedIn still as effective as it once was, or are users feeling a disconnect from the platform’s advertised potential?

While individual experiences may vary, this collective sentiment underscores the need for professionals and recruiters to reassess their outreach strategies and explore supplementary channels for engagement.

In conclusion, if you’ve also noticed diminished response rates or a decline in LinkedIn interactions, you are not alone. The evolving landscape of social and professional networking platforms calls for adaptive strategies to maintain meaningful connections and achieve desired outcomes.

Maybe a controversial take – but there are too many “consultants”

The Surprising Surge of Consultants in the Modern Business Landscape: A Critical Perspective

In today’s competitive environment, the proliferation of consultants has become an increasingly common phenomenon across various industries. While consulting services can provide significant value when properly employed, there is a growing concern about the overwhelming number of less-than-reliable practitioners flooding the market. This phenomenon warrants a closer examination.

Industry Context and Personal Experience

Drawing from my own professional background, I have spent several years working within a large corporate agency before transitioning to a client-side role approximately a year ago. My move has been mutually beneficial; I no longer contend with the relentless pursuit of new deals, and I am satisfied with the stability my current position offers.

However, this transition exposed me to an unexpected challenge: the sheer volume of transient consultants eager to engage with my company. Coming from a sector outside the typical tech or finance domains—specifically, construction—the frequency of outreach has been startling.

The Reality of Consultant Outreach

Since taking on my current role, I have experienced approximately 2-3 LinkedIn connection requests daily from various third-party firms. My phone rings regularly with pitches that often lack relevance or effectiveness. Over the past year, I’ve counted more than 100 different agencies attempting to offer their services.

A significant portion of this outreach—estimated at around 95%—performs poorly from a sales perspective. Common tactics include cold emails featuring superficial information about candidates who do not align with the specific needs of my organization, and cold calls where I can often hear the nervousness in the caller’s voice, clearly scripted and unconvincing.

Challenging the Status Quo

Despite my own solid performance—ranking comfortably within the top 15-20% in my office—I am perplexed by how these agencies sustain themselves amidst such a saturated market. Furthermore, I find myself wasting valuable time each day responding to outreach, often having to reiterate: “We’re currently limiting third-party spend. I’ll reach out when we need assistance.”

The Need for Market Consolidation

This abundance of consultants appears to be a direct result of an oversimplified belief that simply obtaining a LinkedIn license and dreaming big suffice to succeed in the industry. The reality suggests a pressing need for a natural reduction—or “culling”—of the herd.

Final Thoughts

As the consulting landscape becomes increasingly crowded, both clients and genuine practitioners must navigate these challenges thoughtfully. Quality over quantity should be the guiding principle, and industry stakeholders should advocate for a more discerning and sustainable approach to consultancy services. Only through such measures can we ensure that valuable expertise is distinguished from mere noise.

The vicious cycle of refilling roles over and over

Breaking the Cycle: Addressing the Recurrent Challenge of High Turnover in Recruitment

In today’s competitive talent landscape, many organizations find themselves trapped in a frustrating pattern: internal recruiters repeatedly tasked with filling the same roles due to persistent employee turnover. This cycle not only drains resources but also hampers overall productivity and morale within the recruitment team.

Understanding the Underlying Issue

Often, the root cause of this recurring vacancy crisis lies beyond the immediate hiring process. Management may hesitate to confront underlying issues such as workplace culture, compensation dissatisfaction, or lack of growth opportunities, which contribute significantly to employee attrition. As a result, recruiters are caught in a continuous loop—identifying candidates, making offers, only to see new hires leave shortly after onboarding.

The Impact on Recruitment Teams

This cycle can lead to professional burnout among recruiters who feel their efforts are in vain, fueling frustration and disillusionment. The repeated cycle not only affects individual morale but also diminishes the organization’s ability to attract and retain top talent. It becomes a self-perpetuating problem: high turnover leads to more open roles, increased workload, and ongoing recruitment efforts that seem to never reach a resolution.

Moving Toward Sustainable Solutions

To effectively break this cycle, organizations must first recognize and address the core issues driving turnover. This may involve implementing comprehensive employee engagement strategies, reviewing compensation packages, fostering a positive workplace culture, and providing clear career development pathways.

For recruitment professionals feeling caught in this relentless cycle, open communication with leadership about these systemic issues is crucial. Advocating for organizational changes that promote employee retention not only benefits the workforce but also streamlines the recruitment process.

Conclusion

Repetition in recruiting roles is a clear signal that deeper organizational issues need attention. Leaders and HR teams must work collaboratively to identify root causes, implement targeted solutions, and create a more sustainable talent ecosystem. Only then can companies break free from the vicious cycle and build a resilient, committed workforce.

If you’re a recruiter or HR professional experiencing similar challenges, remember that your efforts are valuable—and sometimes, the most impactful change begins with advocating for organizational improvements. Perhaps, it’s time for the next step—your step—toward a more stable and fulfilling workplace.

My boss is taking my candidates and not giving me commission

Understanding Candidate Ownership and Fair Compensation: Navigating Workplace Ethics and Policies

In the competitive landscape of recruitment and talent acquisition, clear policies and ethical practices are essential to ensure fair treatment of employees and maintain a healthy work environment. Recently, discussions have emerged around the issue of candidate ownership and fair commission distribution, highlighting important considerations for both employers and employees.

The Scenario: Candidate Relationships and Compensation Concerns

Consider a professional who has invested significant effort into sourcing and engaging potential candidates. Over months of diligent work, they establish relationships, conduct interviews, and develop a pipeline of qualified prospects. However, they notice that their supervisor is now reaching out directly to these candidates, some of whom were initially identified and engaged by the employee months prior.

More concerningly, the supervisor appears to be transferring the ownership of these candidate relationships from the original employee to themselves. This action results in the supervisor receiving the full commission associated with successful placements, effectively diverting potential earnings from the original contributor.

Impact on Employee Morale and Fairness

Given that a substantial portion of the employee’s compensation relies on commissions, such practices can significantly impact motivation and financial stability. When efforts are undermined or when ownership rights to candidate relationships are not clearly defined, it can lead to perceptions of unfairness, reduced morale, and potential conflicts within the team.

Policy Considerations and Best Practices

While company policies may vary, it is advisable for organizations to establish transparent guidelines regarding candidate ownership. Clear definitions help prevent misunderstandings and ensure that all team members are recognized for their contributions. Even in the absence of explicit policies, fostering a culture of fairness and collaboration is vital.

Employees should also be proactive in understanding their company’s stance on candidate ownership and commission sharing. If ambiguities exist, discussing these concerns with management or HR can help clarify expectations and establish mutually agreeable practices.

Recommendations for Navigating the Situation

1. Review Company Policies: Examine the employee handbook or contractual agreements to identify any relevant clauses related to candidate ownership and commission distribution.

2. Open Dialogue: Initiate a respectful conversation with your supervisor or HR representative to express your concerns about the recent developments and seek clarity on policies.

3. Document Interactions: Keep records of your interactions with candidates and any communications related to ownership or commission agreements.

4. Propose Fair Solutions: Suggest transparent practices such as partial commission sharing or joint ownership arrangements, fostering teamwork and equitable recognition.

5. Seek Formal Agreements: Where possible, establish written agreements that clearly delineate candidate ownership rights and commission splits.

Conclusion

Fair treatment and transparent policies are foundational to a productive and ethical workplace, especially in fields where commissions significantly influence compensation. Addressing concerns proactively, fostering open communication, and advocating for clear guidelines can help ensure that effort and contribution are appropriately recognized and rewarded.

By cultivating a culture of fairness and clarity, organizations can motivate their teams, retain top talent, and uphold professional integrity in their recruitment practices.

Most terrible candidate experiences can be attributed to Hiring managers having a terrible process that they are adamant about

Understanding the Impact of Hiring Processes on Candidate Experience

In the realm of talent acquisition, one of the most significant factors influencing candidate experience is the hiring process itself. Unfortunately, many candidates encounter frustrating and inconsistent interview procedures, often due to the approaches and expectations set by hiring managers. Recognizing and addressing these issues is crucial for cultivating a positive reputation and attracting top talent.

The Common Pitfalls in Hiring Practices

Many organizations grapple with a recurring set of challenges stemming from hiring managers’ preferences. These include:

• Lengthy, drawn-out interview processes: Some managers insist on multiple interview rounds, extending the timeline unnecessarily.
• Lack of timely feedback: Candidates frequently report waiting weeks without responses or constructive feedback, leading to disengagement.
• Impossibly high or vague candidate standards: There’s often a desire for the “perfect” candidate—or a “unicorn”—without realistic or commensurate compensation.
• Inconsistent interview procedures: Changing interview formats midway can cause confusion and frustration among applicants, giving an impression of disorganization.

A Reflection on Perspective

It’s worth noting that hiring managers were once job seekers themselves. They’ve experienced the uncertainty of interviews, the impatience of waiting for responses, and the importance of being given a fair chance despite not ticking every box. Recognizing this shared experience can foster more empathy and fairness in the current hiring process.

Power Dynamics and Their Effects

Unfortunately, some hiring managers, wielding authority over the process, become resistant to streamlined or candidate-friendly methods. They may impose complex, drawn-out procedures, believing it to be a marker of thoroughness. However, this often backfires by damaging candidate perceptions and ultimately narrowing the talent pool.

Recruiters and HR professionals frequently find themselves caught between managerial demands and the need to create a positive candidate experience. The reality is that many of the frustrations and negative experiences simply reflect the rigid or inconsistent processes dictated from the top.

Moving Toward Better Practices

Ideally, the hiring process should be efficient, transparent, and respectful. A simple, effective approach—a one or two-step interview process, clear communication, and reasonable expectations—serves both the organization and candidates well. Reducing unnecessary steps and focusing on meaningful interactions allows organizations to present themselves as welcoming and professional.

Final Thoughts

Creating a positive candidate experience requires awareness, empathy, and a willingness to adapt processes. Hiring managers hold significant influence over this experience, and their commitment to fair, straightforward procedures can make all the difference. By aligning expectations, minimizing unnecessary hurdles, and respecting candidates’ time and efforts, organizations can not only enhance their reputation but also attract the quality talent they seek.

In conclusion: The most problematic candidate experiences often originate from flawed hiring processes driven by overly rigid or inconsistent managerial demands. Emphasizing simplicity, fairness, and empathy in hiring can transform a once-terrible process into a compelling showcase of your organization’s professionalism.

Why is it frowned upon to focus on salary?

Understanding the Tension Surrounding Salary Focus in the Workplace

In today’s dynamic job market, many professionals prioritize salary growth as a key factor in their career decisions. Despite receiving positive performance evaluations and feeling engaged in their roles, some individuals still find themselves contemplating new opportunities primarily to increase their earnings. This situation raises a broader question: why is it often considered inappropriate or frowned upon to focus on salary when evaluating one’s career?

The Reality of Financial Needs vs. Workplace Expectations

It is common for employees to seek better compensation, especially when financial responsibilities are increasing. For instance, supporting a family or managing personal debts can make salary growth a critical concern. In such cases, seeking higher pay is not merely about financial gain but a necessary step toward financial stability and well-being. Unfortunately, societal perceptions sometimes cast this focus on salary in a negative light, as if it equates to greed or a lack of dedication.

Why Do Society and Workplace Cultures View Salary Emphasis with Skepticism?

Several cultural and organizational attitudes contribute to this perception:

• Valuation of Passion and Loyalty: Many workplace cultures emphasize intrinsic motivation, passion for the work, and loyalty over monetary compensation. Focusing solely on salary might be seen as superficial or as a sign of greed, undermining values of dedication.

• Financial Success as a Taboo Topic: Open discussions about compensation can be viewed as taboo or impolite, leading to stigmatization of those who prioritize earnings.

• Ideals of Selflessness and Service: Some industries and communities hold the belief that work should be driven by purpose rather than monetary rewards, fostering a sense that prioritizing salary is crass or unprofessional.

The Reality for Many Professionals

Despite these cultural notions, it is vital to recognize that prioritizing salary is a legitimate concern, especially when financial stability is at stake. Employees are entitled to seek fair compensation for their efforts, expertise, and contributions. After all, earning a living is a fundamental aspect of employment, and expecting to be compensated appropriately is both reasonable and necessary.

Balancing Passion and Practicality

A healthy perspective involves balancing enthusiasm for the work itself with practical financial considerations. Employees who seek higher pay to support their families or improve their quality of life are not being selfish; rather, they are ensuring their ability to continue contributing effectively.

Redefining the Narrative

It is essential to challenge the notion that focusing on salary is inherently negative or unprofessional. Open dialogue about compensation, transparency, and fair pay should be encouraged within workplaces. Recognizing that employees’ financial motivations are often grounded in legitimate needs can foster more supportive and understanding organizational cultures.

Conclusion

While societal expectations may cast a shadow of negativity on the pursuit of higher salary, it is a natural and valid aspect of career development. Prioritizing fair compensation to support oneself and one’s family is not only reasonable but necessary. Embracing this perspective can lead to healthier work environments where employees feel empowered to advocate for their worth without shame or guilt.

If you’re navigating questions about career growth and compensation, remember that your financial needs are valid. Prioritize open communication and seek opportunities that align with your professional goals and personal responsibilities.

Anyone actually cut hiring costs using AI recruiting tools at scale?

Exploring the Impact of AI-Driven Recruiting Tools on Hiring Costs and Efficiency

The landscape of talent acquisition is rapidly evolving, driven in large part by advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and automation technologies. Many organizations are exploring AI-powered recruiting tools to streamline their processes, reduce costs, and accelerate hiring timelines. However, as this wave of “AI everything” continues to surge, questions remain about the tangible benefits these solutions can deliver, especially at scale.

The Promise and Reality of AI in Recruitment

Artificial intelligence promises to transform recruiting by automating repetitive tasks such as candidate screening, interview scheduling, and initial assessments. These innovations aim to alleviate the administrative burden on HR teams, enabling faster decision-making and potentially lowering hiring expenses.

Nonetheless, amidst the flood of new tools and platforms, some users report that many offerings feel underwhelming or insufficient for high-volume recruiting needs. There’s concern that some solutions are more marketing hype than practical aid, especially for organizations processing dozens or hundreds of candidates each month.

Empirical Evidence and ROI Considerations

For organizations actively utilizing AI-driven recruiting tools at scale, the critical question is whether these technologies have demonstrably reduced hiring costs or shortened time-to-fill metrics. While anecdotal reports and small-scale case studies exist, comprehensive, systematic data remains limited. Organizations are encouraged to evaluate ROI carefully, considering factors such as:

• Cost savings from reduced manual effort
• Improvements in time-to-hire
• Quality of candidate matches
• Integration capabilities with existing HR infrastructure

Key AI Recruitment Technologies of Interest

Several AI-powered solutions are gaining traction across various stages of the recruitment process:

• AI Interview Platforms: Tools that conduct automated preliminary interviews or assess candidate responses to streamline initial screening.

• AI Screening Software: Solutions that analyze resumes and applications to identify the most promising candidates automatically.

• AI Interview Scheduling: Systems that coordinate interview slots, reducing scheduling conflicts and administrative overhead.

• Applicant Tracking System (ATS) Automation: Enhancements that integrate AI functionalities with existing ATS platforms to optimize workflows. For example, organizations using Bullhorn are exploring integrations that leverage AI to manage candidate pipelines more efficiently.

Looking Ahead

While the true ROI of AI in large-scale recruiting remains an evolving story, early adopters report varying degrees of success. Companies should approach AI implementation thoughtfully—testing solutions thoroughly, ensuring compatibility with existing HR systems, and establishing clear metrics for success.

As AI continues to mature, it holds considerable promise for transforming volume hiring—if organizations can navigate the current landscape and select tools that align with their operational needs.

Disclaimer: This article aims to provide an overview based on current industry insights. Organizations are encouraged to conduct their own due diligence before integrating new AI recruiting solutions into their hiring processes.