The phrase “poor hiring talent shortages” isn’t just a buzzword-it’s a self-inflicted wound plaguing industries from tech startups to corporate law firms. I’ve watched companies spend tens of thousands on recruitment only to see their “top picks” ghost them after the first week. Or worse, hire candidates who show up, go through motions, and then quietly leave when the “real work” begins. It’s not that the talent isn’t there. It’s that the hiring process itself is so poorly designed that even qualified people walk away before Day One. The irony? These same companies then blame “the market” for talent shortages while their own practices actively push away the very people they need.
poor hiring talent shortages: Job postings that push people away
The first red flag often appears before the application is even submitted. I remember advising a client whose “Patient Care Associate” posting read: “Seeking motivated individual with strong interpersonal skills.” I told them to kill that immediately. It wasn’t just vague-it was an insult to candidates’ intelligence. Experts suggest only 12% of job descriptions attract the right people because they fail to describe what success actually looks like.
Take the case of a Boston biotech firm that posted for a “Data Analyst” with “strong Excel skills” as the only technical requirement. Within weeks, they had 180 applicants-none of whom could actually write a pivot table to save their lives. The problem wasn’t the talent pool; it was the description. Companies that treat hiring like a game of “who can we fill this role with?” instead of “who can actually do this job?” create their own talent shortages.
Here’s what good looks like instead:
- Be specific about what the role actually does-not just responsibilities, but impact
- Name the tools and metrics candidates will work with
- Describe the team culture beyond “we’re a family”
When culture gets lost in translation
The worst descriptions don’t just attract the wrong people-they repel the right ones. I worked with a financial services client whose “collaborative” environment was apparently code for “we’ll tell you what to do and pray you don’t complain.” The result? Their “top candidates” kept dropping out after interview feedback that went something like: “We loved your ideas-but our team isn’t the creative type.”
Experts suggest the #1 reason candidates reject offers is vague culture promises. When a company says “we’re fast-paced” but doesn’t explain what that means in terms of deadlines or stress, candidates walk. They want to know: Will I be working 70-hour weeks? Will I be the only woman in my team? Will my manager actually listen? Companies that fail to answer these questions create their own talent shortages-because the right people simply won’t apply.
Processes that kill before they start
Even if you attract the right people, a poor hiring process can turn them into no-shows before they ever sign an offer letter. I’ve seen firms where the interview process lasted longer than the candidate’s current job tenure. One client’s hiring timeline included: 4 rounds of interviews, 3 HR screens, and a “budget review” that took two weeks. By the time they finally made an offer, candidates had moved on-or worse, started complaining about the company to their network.
The solution? Make it efficient. Salesforce’s process is a masterclass in this-structured behavioral questions that assess skills while giving candidates respect. Their interviews are about 30 minutes total, with clear next steps. The result? They hire faster and keep better candidates.
Here’s what turns candidates off (and why):
- Too many interviews – each step should add value
- No clear timeline – “We’ll get back to you” should have a date
- Vague feedback – “We’re not the right fit” is useless
The “let’s try them for 3 months” trap
Perhaps the most dangerous form of poor hiring is the “we’ll hire them anyway” approach. I’ve seen companies take a candidate they “like” but who clearly lacks the right skills, just because they “think they’ll grow into it.” The result? A temporary fix that costs way more than proper hiring would have. In my experience, these “trial hires” almost always become the ones who leave the fastest-because they don’t believe in the company’s ability to actually develop them.
One client I worked with had a “trial period” policy that lasted six months. During that time, they spent thousands in training only to realize the employee wasn’t a cultural fit. The turnover cost was astronomical. The lesson? If someone isn’t right from the start, they’ll be right-but wrong-for much longer.
The companies that handle hiring well don’t just fill seats-they build teams. They attract people who are already good, give them the right tools, and then get out of their way. The talent shortages aren’t coming from nowhere. They’re the result of companies that treat hiring like an afterthought. Fix the process, and the right people will find you. But first, you have to stop pushing them away before they even start.
