New data* clarifies why candidates leave the recruitment process in different regions, providing more detail about their priorities and expectations.

It demonstrates how alienating candidates who apply for jobs can affect their perception of you (77% of senior candidates) and actually make them less likely to engage or recommend you in future (64% senior candidates.)

This data should help leadership teams and recruiters stop more of the strongest talent leaving their process — but just as importantly, it offers insights into how they might increase the diversity of their pipeline.

Top findings
Candidates are frustrated by scheduling delays, especially in senior roles

Peaking at 54% of senior UK candidates, but also 34% of all senior candidates

Employers are losing great candidates because of scheduling

62% of senior candidates have left the process because of this — 73% in the UK.

The quality of your recruitment process directly affects perception + future engagement/ recommendation

77% of senior say it affects perception

84% of senior UK

65% of all

64% senior would be less likely to engage/ recommend in future

77% of senior UK

48% of all

US/ UK favour responsiveness, GER/ FRA want human touch

47% of US and 43% of UK vs 28%/ 22% for GER/ FRA

Commenting on the findings, Cronofy Co-founder and CEO Adam Bird said: “It’s important for firms to remember that their brand values exist in their ACTIONS, not words. This is why some are unconsciously stumbling into an experience for some of the most important people they come in contact with that ruins their reputation forever more.”

Hung Lee is Curator of Recruiting Brainfood, one of the more powerful HR, talent and recruiting communities in the world. He emphasises the impact on minorities:

“Particularly interesting was the high rate of women that drop out because of scheduling issues. As a group, they probably feel this most because of the additional domestic responsibilities that they may still take on. But even if women will feel it most, it affects everyone. The movement to remote working has revealed a lot of iniquities that people have always had to deal with.”

Maddy Cross is a Partner at Erevena, an executive, board and strategic search firm for investor-backed companies. She thinks one of the lessons is simple:

“This data shows how simple it can be to improve the recruiting process at all levels of seniority. Having great scheduling can drastically enhance the candidate experience and help companies land really exceptional candidates, even in a market that’s fiercely competitive for talent.”

“We see this even more in the current global situation. Previously, when people had to factor their physical location into scheduling, candidates might have been more forgiving of lack of clarity around interview timings. With things being entirely remote for the majority of companies now, any breakdown in the flow of the interview process can be less forgivable.”

David Smith is the UK’s number one speaker on People Engagement and business performance and former HR Director at ASDA. He talks about how to use technology for speed without losing the human touch:

“The human touch is what happens when the appointment has been booked. I don’t think people expect you to have a phone call with them to book an appointment. That’s a waste of time. I think streamlining a process and then being really human and friendly at the end when they get to the real interaction is what it should look like.”

• The UK are incredibly sensitive to scheduling frustrations, especially at senior levels

• 84% will judge you on your process
• 77% would be less likely to recommend you in future
• 73% have left a process because of scheduling

• The US are frustrated by scheduling, want it to be more automated

• 40% of senior wanted to see more automation in scheduling
• 62% have left a recruitment process because of scheduling delays
• 64% would be less likely to engage in future

• France is most patient and rates human touch most highly

• Germany is more patient than UK/ US but has similarly high expectations for timings/ delays

• Women are more patient but expect better communication and responsiveness

• Women rate poor responsiveness/ communication most frustrating (39% vs 27%) and 49% name responsiveness as most important thing
• Men put speed first (27% vs 10%) and cite scheduling delays as greatest frustration (31% vs 12%)