Recruiters routinely must deliver news that candidates and hiring managers don’t want to hear, from rejecting finalists and rescinding offers to challenging unrealistic hiring expectations. How they handle those conversations can shape relationships, influence future recruiting outcomes, and affect an employer’s reputation.
Preparing for these moments is essential to balancing empathy with business realities, according to Anna Howell, recruiting lead at Interra Health, based in Boston.
Howell shared practical strategies for navigating high-stakes conversations with candidates and hiring managers at an event hosted Oct. 5, by recruitDC, a professional networking community in the Washington, D.C., area.
“It is tough to have some of these conversations with candidates. It can be really daunting,” Howell said. “Recruiting is very much a relationship driven business, and uncomfortable moments can really define it.”
Recruiters often occupy an especially challenging position between candidates, hiring managers, executives, and the broader business, she explained. They may have to communicate decisions they did not make, explain constraints they did not create, and influence stakeholders with greater organizational authority, all while preserving relationships.
Although recruiters cannot always control the circumstances that make a conversation difficult, they can control how they approach it, Howell said. Preparation, clear communication, and an understanding of the other person’s perspective can help recruiters deliver difficult messages without unnecessarily damaging trust.
Delivering Rejections with Empathy
Rejecting a candidate is among the most familiar — and uncomfortable — responsibilities in recruiting. The conversation can be particularly difficult when a finalist has completed several rounds of interviews, invested considerable time in the process, and begun imagining a future with the organization.
Recruiters have traditionally been encouraged to deliver finalist rejections by phone as a personalized gesture that acknowledges the candidate’s investment. Howell, however, said recruiters should reconsider whether a live conversation is always the best approach.
“I think it might be a bit of a recruiter-centric sentiment,” she said, noting that recruiters are accustomed to communicating by phone, while candidates receiving disappointing news may need more time to process it.
A written message can give candidates more control over how and when they absorb the information, without the immediate pressure to respond to a recruiter on the spot. That does not mean recruiters should avoid conversations altogether, Howell said. Instead, they can communicate the decision in writing while offering to discuss the outcome and provide feedback by phone.
Howell recommended a straightforward framework for rejection notices: establish the context; communicate the decision clearly; acknowledge the candidate’s effort; and invite feedback.
Recruiters should avoid burying the decision beneath excessive explanation or vague language, she said. A message can express appreciation for the candidate’s interest and recognize that the applicant pool was competitive without creating false hope or making the rejection about the recruiter’s own discomfort.
“You want to sound human; you want to write the way that you actually speak to a person,” Howell said.
Consistency matters, too. Candidates should not receive conflicting explanations from different people in the organization. Recruiters should coordinate with hiring teams to ensure the message accurately reflects the decision and the reasons that can appropriately be shared.
The level of personalization should also reflect the candidate’s investment in the process. Finalists, referrals, and candidates with whom the organization hopes to maintain a relationship generally warrant a higher-touch approach. Applicants who have completed only an initial recruiter screening may receive a thoughtful template message that allows recruiters to communicate efficiently at scale.
Templates should not become an excuse for impersonal communication, however. Howell described reviewing 93 emails from her own job search, and concluded that many messages were impersonal, overly formal, excessively long, or inconsistent. Fewer than five asked for feedback about the interview process.
Her takeaway: More words do not necessarily make a message more empathetic. Recruiters should prioritize clarity, gratitude, and a genuine human tone.
Artificial intelligence can help recruiters draft thoughtful rejection messages more efficiently, Howell said. By supplying relevant details about the interview process and the feedback they want to acknowledge, recruiters can use AI to produce a starting draft that they then review and personalize.
Repairing a Poor Candidate Experience
Not every difficult conversation involves a rejection. Sometimes recruiters must repair damage caused by a disorganized or disappointing interview process.
Howell explained that an interviewer might fail to show up, panelists might provide conflicting information about the role, or a hiring manager might appear distracted or dismissive. Candidates may also become frustrated when recruiters promise an update that never arrives or repeatedly extend what was supposed to be the final stage of interviews.
Recruiters cannot always reverse those experiences, but they can acknowledge what happened and take steps to restore confidence in the organization, Howell said.
She recommended that recruiters address problems directly, take responsibility for what they can control, apologize when appropriate, and explain what will happen next. They should avoid lengthy justifications or blaming individual colleagues.
Just as important, recruiters should not wait for candidates to complain before looking for signs that something has gone wrong.
“You can’t fix something that you didn’t know about,” she said.
Recruiters can build opportunities for candid feedback into every stage of the process by asking candidates whether interviews have been informative, whether their understanding of the role has changed, and whether they have concerns about the opportunity.
Howell recommended administering candidate surveys after the interview process is complete, when candidates may feel more comfortable speaking freely.
Regular feedback helps recruiters identify recurring problems, address issues before they escalate, and give hiring teams a clearer picture of how their behavior affects the candidate experience.
Handling the High Stakes of Rescinded Offers
Rescinding an offer is an especially consequential conversation, particularly when a candidate has already resigned from another job or made significant personal or financial decisions based on the expectation of joining the organization.
Howell considers offer revocations an exception to her preference for giving candidates time to process difficult news in writing. In these situations, she recommended calling the candidate directly, then following up in writing so the person has a clear record of the information and an opportunity to consider questions.
Recruiters should begin by explaining that they have difficult news, state plainly that the offer is being rescinded and pause to allow the candidate to absorb the decision. They should acknowledge the consequences without minimizing the situation or making promises the organization cannot keep.
“I know you’ve already given notice. I’m truly sorry,” is one example of the kind of acknowledgment Howell suggested when appropriate.
Recruiters should then explain what happens next, provide any available information about potential support, and make themselves available for follow-up questions. When appropriate, they might offer to help with the candidate’s job search, connect the person with relevant contacts or provide information about any assistance the organization can offer.
The goal is not to make an inherently difficult decision painless. It is to communicate honestly, treat the candidate with dignity, and avoid compounding the harm through silence or ambiguity.
Resetting Unrealistic Hiring Expectations
Difficult conversations also take place behind the scenes, particularly when hiring managers expect recruiters to find exceptional candidates despite unrealistic compensation, experience requirements, or timelines.
“Recruiters can facilitate attracting talent, but recruiters don’t conjure talent out of thin air,” Howell said.
She added that talent attraction depends on multiple factors, including labor-market conditions, employer brand, industry dynamics, the availability of particular skills, compensation, benefits, and the hiring process. Recruiters may influence some of these variables, but they do not control all of them.
When a hiring manager wants a premium candidate on a limited budget, Howell recommended that recruiters make the tradeoffs visible instead of simply telling the manager the expectations are unrealistic.
For example, the organization could preserve the budget while adjusting experience requirements, reconsider the skills needed, or rethink the role’s scope, she said. Presenting these options reframes the conversation as a business decision rather than a disagreement between recruiter and hiring manager.
Recruiters can also bring relevant stakeholders into the discussion, particularly for high-priority roles, she said. Keeping recruiting leaders, HR executives, and the hiring manager’s supervisor informed can help ensure that everyone understands the constraints and the decisions required.
Was this resource helpful?
Validate your HR expertise
Earning your SHRM-CP credential makes you a recognized expert and leader in the HR field.
Related Content
Transform HR with mobile technology to streamline workflows, enhance communication, and boost employee engagement across distributed teams.
A new study found that talent development practitioners believe performance-based assessments are more effective at measuring employee learning outcomes than knowledge tests.
As AI makes deeper inroads into organizations, employee concerns about the technology continue to grow. Here's how HR leaders can address the fear of AI among their own staff, as well as in the wider organization.