Hiring from the Candidate’s Side of the Table 

Debbie Cathro, Senior Consultant at Magnetic shares three things she thinks employers and candidates should be paying more attentions to.

Debbie’s candidate-led insights are grounded in a simple but often overlooked truth: recruitment is not just an assessment process; it is an experience that shapes how people see an employer, a role and a future opportunity. This three-part series looks at common pressure points candidates encounter during hiring, and what those moments reveal about communication, clarity, leadership and employer reputation. 

While each article speaks directly to candidates, the wider message is just as relevant for hiring managers: strong candidates are assessing the quality of the process at the same time the business is assessing them. Done well, recruitment helps both sides make better, more informed decisions. 

1: What your interview process tells candidates about your business 

Candidate insight: You are interviewing the employer too. 

It is natural for candidates to walk into an interview focused on proving they are right for the role. But an interview is not a one-way assessment. It is also one of the clearest windows into how a business communicates, makes decisions, sets expectations and treats people. 

For candidates, that means paying attention to more than the formal questions. For employers, it is a reminder that your process is saying something about your organisation long before an offer is made. 

A well-run interview gives both sides useful information. The candidate should leave with a clearer understanding of the role, the team, the manager, the expectations and the environment they may be stepping into. The employer should leave with evidence of capability, motivation, values and alignment. 

When the process is unclear, rushed, inconsistent or poorly communicated, candidates notice. Those moments can influence whether a strong person remains interested, even if the role itself is attractive. 

What should candidates look for?

You also need to decide whether the role, manager, team and organisation are right for you. 

Consider asking about:

• Role clarity: What does success look like in the first six months, and what will be expected early? 
• Leadership: How does the manager communicate, support performance and handle feedback? 
• Team reality: How does the team work, day to day, and what challenges are they currently navigating? 
• Process quality: Are expectations around salary, flexibility, development and decision-making discussed openly? 
• Culture in action: Does the interview experience reflect the culture the organisation claims to have? 

The goal is not simply to secure an offer. It is to find a role where the candidate can succeed, contribute and want to stay.

A good interview process helps both sides reach that decision with confidence. 

Magnetic takeaway: Interviews are brand moments. Strong candidates are not only answering questions; they are reading the way a business operates. 

2: Silence is still feedback, and candidates remember it 

Candidate insight: Candidates deserve an answer, even when the answer is no. 

A candidate prepares thoroughly, attends an interview, rearranges their day and leaves expecting an update by the end of the week. Friday passes. Then another week passes. Their follow-up goes unanswered. 

For recruiters, this is one of the most common frustrations candidates raise. For employers, it is often underestimated. Silence may feel like a delay internally, but externally it can look like disinterest, disorganisation or a lack of respect. 

Hiring decisions can take longer than expected. Priorities change, decision-makers become unavailable and approval processes stall. Most candidates understand that. What they struggle with is being left without an outcome after investing time and energy in the process. 

A short update is often enough: 

“The process is taking longer than expected, but you remain under consideration. We expect to provide an update next week.” 

That message may take less than a minute to send, but it gives the candidate certainty, preserves trust and allows them to make informed decisions about other opportunities. 

What about when the answer is no?

Where a candidate has been unsuccessful, feedback should be as clear and useful as possible.

Comments such as “not the right fit” or “we went in another direction” provide little value unless supported by genuine reasons. 

Useful feedback might explain that another candidate demonstrated stronger experience in a particular area, provided more relevant examples, or was better aligned with a specific requirement of the role. 

Candidate experience is part of employer reputation. Today’s unsuccessful candidate may become tomorrow’s customer, employee, referral source or industry contact. How they are treated in the process matters. 

A “no” delivered clearly and professionally is always better than silence. 

Magnetic takeaway: Communication is not an administrative extra in recruitment. It is part of the value proposition, and candidates remember the businesses that handle it well. 

3: If team fit matters, define it before the final interview 

Candidate insight: “Not a fit with the team” should not be a vague explanation at the end of a long process. 

Few things are more frustrating for a candidate than completing multiple interviews, taking time out of work or travelling to another city, only to be told they are “not a fit with the team.” 

It raises a fair question:

If team fit was critical, why was it not assessed earlier? 

There will always be occasions where concerns only become clear later in a process. But if team alignment is a genuine requirement, it should be defined, discussed and assessed deliberately from the start. 

That starts with being clear about what “fit” actually means.

Is it communication style, collaboration, adaptability, values, accountability or how someone manages conflict?

Without agreed criteria, “fit” can easily become a proxy for personal preference. 

How can employers assess alignment earlier?

Some practical approaches include: 

• Asking behavioural questions about teamwork, feedback and conflict. 
• Explaining the team’s working style honestly, including pressure points. 
• Using realistic workplace scenarios rather than relying only on general impressions. 
• Including the right stakeholders early, especially where team dynamics are central to success. 
• Using a short video conversation before asking an out-of-town candidate to travel. 
• Separating genuine role requirements from personal preferences. 

Team members should absolutely contribute to the process. Their insight can be valuable. But feedback and decision-making are not the same thing. 

The hiring manager should listen, ask for specific examples and challenge vague statements such as, “I just don’t think they’ll fit.”

Ultimately, the hiring decision, and accountability for that decision, should remain with the hiring manager. 

For candidates, this matters because they invest considerable time, energy and trust in the process.

For employers, it matters because vague decision-making can cost time, damage trust and weaken the quality of hiring outcomes. 

“Not a team fit” should be the outcome of a fair and structured assessment, not a convenient explanation when nobody can clearly articulate why the candidate was unsuccessful. 

Magnetic takeaway: Good hiring decisions are built on clear criteria, structured assessment and honest communication. Fit matters, but it needs to be defined before it can be fairly assessed. 

The candidate and employer are on the same side

The best recruitment processes recognise that hiring is a two-way decision.

Candidates need enough information to understand whether a role and organisation are right for them. Employers need enough information to understand whether a candidate can succeed in the role and contribute to the team.

Neither side benefits from a process that is unclear, overly long, poorly communicated or based on assumptions.

For candidates, that means asking questions, looking beyond the job description and paying attention to how an organisation operates throughout the process.

For employers, it means recognising that every interaction contributes to the candidate experience — and ultimately to how people see your organisation.

Recruitment works best when both sides have the information, clarity and confidence to make the right decision.

That’s where Attract. Connect. comes in.