A candidate speaks with the recruiter, the hiring manager, a department leader, a panel of prospective colleagues, and finally an executive who was added late in the process.
By the fifth conversation, the candidate has explained the same career transition three times, offered the same examples of leadership and problem-solving, and asked increasingly creative versions of the same questions. The interviewers do not appear to know what was discussed in earlier rounds. Several describe the role differently.
The company may believe it is being thorough.
The candidate may reasonably conclude that the company does not know how to make a decision.
More interviews do not automatically produce better evidence
Some positions legitimately require several conversations. A C-suite executive, board-facing leader, confidential hire, or person entering an unusually complex cross-functional role may need to meet multiple stakeholders. Even then, each conversation should serve a distinct purpose.
The problem is not the number five itself. It is a process in which five interviews repeatedly evaluate the same qualities because no one has designed a coherent way to reach a decision.
Additional evidence can improve a hiring decision. Repeated exposure to the same candidate is not necessarily additional evidence.
If the recruiter, hiring manager, department head, and executive all independently ask the candidate to “walk me through your background,” the organization has not created four layers of rigor. It has recreated the first interview four times.
What an excessive interview process may reveal
A prolonged process often points to problems that began before the candidate entered it.
The role may not have been defined clearly. Interviewers may disagree about which capabilities matter most or even what the person will be expected to accomplish. One leader may view the position as operational while another expects it to drive transformation. Additional interviews are then used to search for agreement that should have existed before recruitment began.
The process may also reflect unclear decision authority. A hiring manager ostensibly owns the role but cannot make the hire without informal approval from several colleagues. Stakeholders are added because excluding them feels politically risky, not because they have something specific to assess.
In other cases, decision-makers simply do not trust one another’s judgment. Each person wants individual access to the candidate rather than relying on a structured evaluation completed by someone else.
More interviews can create the appearance of diligence while allowing the organization to postpone uncertainty. Instead of deciding which evidence is sufficient, it asks for another meeting.
That is not rigor. It is risk aversion without process discipline.
The candidate is paying for the indecision
Every additional round has a cost.
Candidates may need to rearrange work, invent explanations for repeated absences, coordinate childcare, prepare new materials, or protect the confidentiality of a search from their current employer. They continue investing time and emotional energy without necessarily learning anything new about the opportunity.
Strong candidates are often participating in other processes. A company that adds stages without warning or leaves long gaps between them may lose the candidate it was trying so carefully to evaluate.
The experience also communicates something about the organization. When interviewers repeat the same questions, contradict one another, or appear unaware of what has already occurred, candidates are given a preview of how information and authority may function after they are hired.
A needlessly complicated interview process does not merely inconvenience candidates. It can cause the most discerning ones to withdraw.
What a disciplined process looks like
A rigorous interview process does not have to be short, but it should be designed.
Each stage should have:
- A defined purpose
- Specific competencies or evidence to evaluate
- Interviewers selected for a clear reason
- Questions that do not unnecessarily duplicate earlier rounds
- A shared method for recording and comparing observations
- A decision-maker with actual authority
- A timeline communicated to candidates in advance
Multiple stakeholders do not always require multiple appointments. A structured panel can allow several people to participate while reducing repetition and giving everyone access to the same evidence.
Interviewers should also know what has already been assessed. That does not mean sharing another interviewer’s conclusions before they form their own. It means understanding their assignment. One interviewer might evaluate technical depth, another cross-functional influence, and another management judgment. Their findings can then be considered together.
The objective is not to see how many people like the candidate. It is to collect enough relevant evidence to determine whether that person can perform the work.
Candidates are entitled to understand the process
Candidates can reasonably ask early in the process:
- How many stages are anticipated?
- Who will participate?
- What is each stage intended to evaluate?
- Who makes the final decision?
- What is the expected timeline?
A clear answer suggests that the organization has designed the process deliberately. A vague or continuously changing answer is useful information too.
Not every position can be evaluated in two conversations, and speed alone does not make a hiring process effective. But complexity should come from the demands of the role—not from internal confusion about the decision.
If an organization cannot explain what the fifth interview will reveal that the first four did not, it probably does not need a fifth interview.
By Melissa Brandt | Melissa Brandt & Associates