Address

(Tower 2, Level 20, Darling Park)

201 Sussex Street

Sydney, NSW, 2000 Australia

Get in touch
Follow us
Attracting the Best Part 2: The Candidate Experience
Debbie Morrison • September 7, 2021

Attracting the Best Part 2: The Candidate Experience

How do you attract the very best candidates for every position?


This is the second in a two-part series focused on the question of how to attract the very best candidates for every position. In the first, we looked at the employee experience, because attracting the best begins with retaining the best. Here, we’ll focus on the candidate experience.

 

The ‘candidate experience’ is the sum total of every point of contact between your organisation and a prospective employee. This is an important principle, because every single element of that start-to-finish lifecycle contributes to the candidate’s experience, and therefore their perception of your organisation. Handled well, this works in your favour. If it’s not, it can result in candidates dropping out of the process, or declining offers. The candidate experience is comprised of four primary elements: the initial impression through employment marketing, the application stage, interviews and communication between them, and the hiring and onboarding process.

 

Employment Marketing

Smart companies understand that a job posting and a job description are two different things. A job description is an internal HR document. A job posting is a marketing piece; it’s your opportunity to sell your company, and your opportunity, to the candidates you’re trying to recruit. Great candidates are attracted by postings that speak to them about what it’s like to work for your company, and about some of the more positive – even exciting – elements of the work they’ll get to do there. If there are clear paths for progression, even better; top employees want to see that they can learn, grow, and develop further in their career. Your company website is also a recruitment tool – the best candidates thoroughly research companies they’re considering, so every part of your website (not just the ‘Employment Opportunities’ page) should be viewed through that lens. Good recruiters seek to understand the unique value of working for your company, so we can sell the opportunity in a compelling way when we’re speaking with prospective candidates.

 

Application Process

Have you ever tried to apply to work for your own company? It can be an interesting experiment that helps you see firsthand how easy or difficult it is, and the kind of first impression it leaves with applicants. If you invite candidates to email resumes and cover letters, do they receive a confirmation letting them know their application was received, and perhaps even what to expect next? If you ask candidates to fill in a form with their experience, is the form clean and visually appealing, and does it work properly? When a submission is made, does the applicant get confirmation that it was successful? Some companies – particularly those that have recently begun using applicant tracking systems – ask candidates to do both: submit a resume and cover letter, and also to enter the same information in a form. Redundancies like this are frustrating to applicants, and can cost you the candidate you really want. Ideally, it should be just as easy for a person to apply to work for you, as it is for a new customer to work with you.

 

Interviews and Communication

Before starting a recruitment process for any position, it pays to think about who needs to be involved in the interview process, and when. High performing candidates often have to take time away from a current job to interview, and this can become difficult and frustrating when an interview process has too many separate steps. Group interviews, or having shortlisted candidates move through several back-to-back interviews in one day, can be helpful ways of streamlining the process for everyone. It’s also helpful to determine what you’re looking for at each stage of the interview process. This way, the questions each interviewer asks will be more strategic and intentional, making the interviews more focused and productive.


Throughout the process, one person – an employee, or a recruiter if you’re using a firm – should be the main point of contact with candidates, keeping lines of communication open. If someone is no longer being considered, delivering the news promptly (and compassionately) leaves as positive an impression as possible. If you want a candidate to move ahead, it’s even more important to stay closely in touch, being clear about timelines and next steps.


 

Hiring and Onboarding

The final step in a successful hiring process is, of course, the hire. Smart companies plan beyond day one, though. The experience that a brand new employee has in their first few weeks with your company sets the tone for their time with you, and in fact can cement their decision to stay or to keep their eyes open. Onboarding differs vastly from one company to the next; there’s no single formula for success, but a new hire should feel welcomed, and should have a clear sense of structure and organisation: that the role and the company were ready for them to start. Take advantage of the opportunity you and your new hire have to make a great mutual first impression that turns into a lasting relationship.


Paying attention to these four stages of the candidate experience pays dividends. You’ll attract and successfully hire more of your first-choice candidates, winning the race for the high-performing employees you need on your team

Why You Should Be Hiring Leaders Who Embrace Discomfort

By John Elliott • April 6, 2025
Comfort has become the silent killer of executive performance. In an era defined by disruption, volatility, and shrinking margins, too many leadership teams are still optimising for control, not adaptability. They talk about transformation, but build cultures of stability. They prize clarity, yet avoid the ambiguity where real growth lives. The problem isn’t capability. It’s discomfort intolerance. The solution? Start hiring and promoting leaders who deliberately seek discomfort—not just those who can tolerate it when it arrives. Growth Mindset Isn’t Enough Anymore You’ve heard the term "growth mindset" countless times. It’s become a leadership cliché. But it’s not wrong—it’s just incomplete. A growth mindset says, "I believe I can learn." Discomfort-driven leadership says, "I will actively seek out the hardest experiences because that’s where I’ll grow fastest." The distinction matters. Leaders with a growth mindset tend to thrive when external change forces them to adapt. But leaders who embrace discomfort create those conditions on purpose. They invite hard feedback. They question their own success. They take action before external pressure arrives. According to a 2023 study by Deloitte, only 22% of executives say their leadership team is “very prepared” for the future—despite record spending on transformation programmes (Deloitte Human Capital Trends, 2023). That gap exists because most teams are trained to manage change , not lead into uncertainty . Ask yourself: Are you hiring leaders who wait for disruption—or ones who walk towards it? Discomfort Is the Driver of Strategic Advantage Companies don’t fall behind because they make bad decisions. They fall behind because their leaders avoid the hard ones. In high-stakes industries like FMCG, where regulatory pressure, margin compression, and shifting consumer loyalty are accelerating, comfort is dangerous. It fosters: Short-termism Decision paralysis Lack of innovation Cultural stagnation McKinsey found that organisations with a strong tolerance for ambiguity—where leaders frequently challenge their own assumptions—are 2.4x more likely to be top-quartile performers on total shareholder returns (McKinsey & Company, 2022). In other words: embracing discomfort isn’t a trait—it’s a multiplier. Let’s take an example. When COVID hit, Lion Brewery—one of Australia's largest beer producers—was forced to rethink logistics and supply overnight. But smaller craft breweries who had already diversified through direct-to-consumer models adapted faster. Why? Their founders had already been operating in discomfort. They were trained for volatility. What Discomfort-Driven Leaders Actually Do Differently You can spot these leaders. They don’t always look like the most confident in the room—but they’re always the most effective in a storm. They: Seek feedback from critics, not fans Prioritise strategy over popularity Tackle underperformance head-on—even if it means conflict Ask hard questions that slow down groupthink Regularly step out of their functional lane to challenge assumptions They also act . Not rashly—but decisively. In a recent Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) survey, directors ranked “resilience and adaptability” as the #1 trait they now seek in new appointments—outranking experience for the first time (AICD, 2024). That’s not a trend. It’s a shift in what leadership now demands. The Real Cost of Hiring for Comfort Not hiring discomfort-driven leaders isn’t just a missed opportunity—it’s a risk. Here’s what it’s costing you: Strategic Drift: Without challenge, strategies become stale. Your team optimises yesterday’s model. Talent Exodus: Top performers disengage when they see leadership avoiding tough calls. Innovation Bottlenecks: Safe cultures don’t take smart risks. New ideas die in committee. Crisis Fragility: Leaders who haven’t been tested won’t perform when stakes are high. Bain & Company found that companies with decision-making cultures built around speed and tension—not consensus—were 95% more likely to deliver sustained value creation (Bain, 2023). Ask yourself: Is your executive team equipped for bold calls—or just built for calm waters? How to Identify Discomfort-Driven Leaders in Interviews Everyone talks a good game in interviews. But few have the scar tissue that comes from operating in real discomfort. The trick is to go beyond surface-level success stories. Here’s how: Ask Better Questions: “What’s the most uncomfortable decision you’ve made in the last 12 months—and how did it play out?” “Tell me about a time you got strong pushback from your team. What did you do?” “What’s a belief you held strongly that you’ve now abandoned?” “When have you chosen a path that was harder in the short term, but better long term?” Look for: Specificity (vagueness = theory, not lived experience) Self-awareness without self-promotion Signs of humility: they talk about learning, not just winning Evidence of risk-taking: role changes, cross-functional moves, or failed experiments Pro tip: Ask referees how the leader handles ambiguity. Not just performance. This will tell you more about how they lead under pressure. What to Do Now: Practical Actions for Executive Teams If you want to build a leadership culture of discomfort, you have to engineer it. It won’t happen organically in high-performing, risk-averse teams. Here’s how to start: Audit Your Current Team: When was the last time each leader took on something that scared them? Rethink Talent Criteria: Shift from stability and experience to adaptability and action under pressure. Redesign Development: Stretch your execs with ambiguous, cross-functional challenges—not just workshops. Model It at the Top: If the CEO isn’t embracing discomfort, no one else will. You don’t need to create chaos. You just need to stop insulating your leaders from discomfort—and start asking them to seek it. The Discomfort Dividend You can’t build a future-ready business with comfort-first leadership. The next generation of strategic advantage will come not from better processes or faster tech—but from bolder human decisions. From leaders who are willing to feel awkward, wrong, or out of their depth—because they know that’s where the value is. So next time you're hiring a leader, ask yourself: Are they looking for clarity—or ready to lead without it? Do they want the role—or are they ready for the risk that comes with it? Are they seeking comfort—or prepared to create discomfort for progress? Because in 2025, comfort is a luxury your business can’t afford .

Are You Hiring for Emotional Intelligence — or Emotional Avoidance?

By John Elliott • March 24, 2025
Emotional intelligence is one of the most valued traits in executive leadership today.  It’s also one of the most misunderstood. In interviews, every candidate knows how to speak about empathy, collaboration, and “bringing people on the journey.” But when does that emotional intelligence start to look more like emotional avoidance? If you’re hiring into a senior role in consumer goods or food and beverage manufacturing, this distinction matters. Hiring someone who avoids hard conversations risks building a culture that performs around problems, not through them. The leaders delivering the best outcomes in 2025 understand how to build trust and rapport — without dodging the accountability that comes with real leadership. Emotional Intelligence: What It Gets Right In complex, fast-paced industries like FMCG and food production, leaders need more than technical expertise. They must influence, de-escalate tension, manage change, and build alignment across functions. That’s where emotional intelligence shines. High-EQ leaders are more likely to: Retain talent through strong, trust-based relationships Remain composed in high-stakes environments Reduce conflict through proactive, clear communication Drive psychological safety while still pushing for results The research backs this up. According to a 2024 EHL Insights report , emotionally intelligent leaders improve employee satisfaction, engagement, and collaboration — all essential in manufacturing settings where coordination between departments is critical. But there’s a fine line between emotional intelligence and emotional overcorrection. When Emotional Intelligence Becomes Emotional Avoidance The risk is subtle: leaders who over-index on empathy may begin to avoid the discomfort of conflict altogether. That looks like: Letting underperformance linger to “keep the peace” Over-relying on collaboration instead of making firm decisions Avoiding direct feedback Prioritising harmony at the expense of clarity A 2024 Forbes article described how emotionally avoidant leaders — despite good intentions — often undermine the very culture they’re trying to protect. Accountability erodes, decisions slow down, and high performers become disengaged. We’ve seen this play out in executive search mandates across the sector. On paper, a candidate may appear ideal: emotionally intelligent, highly personable, well-liked. But dig deeper, and a pattern emerges — reluctance to address performance issues, vague language around past team challenges, and a track record of avoiding direct confrontation. That’s not emotional intelligence. That’s fear, dressed as empathy. Emotional Intelligence Is a Must — But It’s Not the Full Picture More organisations are making emotional intelligence a key leadership trait in hiring — and for good reason. In high-change environments, emotionally intelligent leaders: Build trust across teams quickly Navigate transformation without losing people along the way Stay composed under pressure Handle interpersonal complexity with clarity But some of the most costly mis-hires we see come from leaders who present as highly empathetic, but struggle to lead through tension. Not because they lack EQ — but because they confuse it with keeping everyone comfortable. The difference? The leaders delivering the best outcomes in 2024 and 2025 are doing both: Holding people accountable while building engagement Delivering hard feedback without defensiveness Balancing calm with courage These are the leaders who retain high performers, protect standards, and still earn trust across the business. Hiring Outcomes Are Better When EQ Is Tested in Context The most effective hiring processes we’re seeing in the market today aren’t just asking, “Is this leader emotionally intelligent?” They’re asking: Can this person hold accountability and empathy at the same time? Have they delivered under pressure without letting performance slide? Do they create safe cultures that are also high-performing? The difference in outcomes is clear: More resilient leadership teams Better cultural fit Fewer surprises post-placement What to Look for in Executive Interviews Hiring emotionally intelligent leaders isn’t just about what they say — it’s about how they’ve acted in real moments of challenge. The most effective hiring panels are getting beyond rehearsed narratives by asking sharper questions: To probe real emotional intelligence: “Tell me about a time you had to lead a team through a change that wasn’t popular.” “How do you approach a conversation when someone on your team is underperforming?” “Describe a time you disagreed with your CEO or board. What did you do?” Watch for signals: Are they clear and specific, or vague and diplomatic? Do they show respect and resolve? Do they accept responsibility, or redirect it elsewhere? In reference checks, ask: “How did they manage pressure or uncertainty?” “Were they able to deliver difficult feedback directly?” “Did they avoid difficult decisions in the name of team cohesion?” When emotional intelligence is genuine, it shows up in results — not just relationships. Why This Matters Now Organisations in the consumer goods and food manufacturing sectors are undergoing constant disruption — from digitisation to regulatory shifts to cost pressures. In this environment, leadership soft skills aren’t optional. But it’s not enough to hire likeable leaders. The ones delivering real impact are those who bring empathy and edge. They’re able to sit with discomfort, hold the mirror up, and still bring people with them. That’s what true emotional intelligence looks like in 2025. So when you’re hiring your next senior leader, don’t just ask if they care. Ask if they can care and confront — with courage, with clarity, and with conviction. Because your culture doesn’t need more harmony. It needs more truth.
Share by: