Companies are shifting the cost of inefficient hiring onto candidates through excessive interviews, unpaid tasks and unclear processes. A fairer approach is overdue.

Recruitment has become a process where companies shift the cost of their inefficiencies onto candidates. Members report too many interview stages, unpaid and excessive pre‑interview tasks, poor communication, a lack of transparency and little respect for their time. These practices create economic waste, lost productivity and a one‑sided process that leaves candidates carrying the burden. A fairer, more proportionate approach to hiring is needed.

The Hidden Cost of Modern Recruitment
Across our member conversations at M3 Job Club, one theme keeps resurfacing. Companies are externalising the cost of their hiring inefficiencies onto candidates. What should be a fair and proportionate assessment has drifted into something that drains time, energy and confidence. The result is economic waste, lost productivity and a pattern of unfair labour extraction that job seekers are expected to absorb without question.
These experiences are not isolated. They form a consistent picture of a recruitment landscape that has become unnecessarily complex, unclear and, at times, dismissive of the very people it claims to assess.

Excessive interview stages
The most common frustration is the number of interviews. Too many interview stages are now routine. Members describe four, six or even eight rounds, often meeting long lists of people, only to be rejected at the final stage. This level of repetition creates significant unpaid labour through preparation and attendance, and it leaves candidates emotionally fatigued.
It also raises a more fundamental concern. Interviews are increasingly being used for internal consensus-building rather than genuine assessment. When a candidate has met fourteen people and still leaves without making it to a final interview, and an offer, the issue is not their capability. It is a process that has lost sight of its purpose.

Unpaid and excessive pre‑interview tasks
Another recurring theme is the rise of unpaid, excessive pre‑interview tasks. Candidates are asked to complete aptitude tests, multi‑hour exercises or detailed work samples before meeting anyone from the business. For those with long professional track records, this feels misplaced and unnecessary.
A task can be useful, but only once both sides have established that the role is a genuine fit. When companies refuse even a short introductory conversation before demanding several hours of work, it becomes a form of unpaid consultancy rather than a fair recruitment step.

Time investment not respected or compensated
Members also describe a broader lack of respect for candidate time. Hours of preparation, travel and interview attendance go unacknowledged. There is no compensation for extensive processes and, in many cases, no feedback at all. The message this sends is clear. The employer’s time matters, and the candidate’s does not.
This imbalance sits at the heart of the problem. It is not simply inefficient. It is discouraging and, for many, financially unsustainable.

Lack of transparency about the process
Poor communication makes the experience even harder. Candidates are often not told how many stages to expect, what each stage is assessing or why additional steps have been added. Recruiters sometimes appear unable to challenge the process or advocate for a more efficient approach.
This lack of transparency leaves candidates feeling strung along and unable to plan their time or manage expectations.

Recruiters refusing reasonable boundaries or dialogue
Finally, there is the issue of boundaries. When candidates ask for something entirely reasonable, such as meeting someone from the business before completing a lengthy task, they are often declined. This reinforces a one‑sided process where candidates feel they must comply or lose the opportunity.
A healthy recruitment process should feel like a conversation, not a test of endurance.

Why this matters
These issues reflect a wider shift in the labour market where the cost of inefficient hiring is pushed onto candidates. The wasted time, lost productivity and emotional strain sit entirely with the job seeker. As a community, we hear these stories every week. They are consistent, avoidable and indicative of a system that needs recalibration.

Recruitment can be better. It can be proportionate, transparent and respectful. It can recognise that candidates are partners in the process, not free labour. Our role at M3 Job Club is to surface these experiences and encourage employers to rethink how they hire. A fair process benefits everyone.