What Companies Misunderstand About Candidate Experience (and What to Do Differently)

Candidate Experience Is a System, Not a Slogan

Most hiring teams believe they're offering a strong candidate experience. They reply promptly. They send follow-up emails. They write professional job descriptions. On the surface, those are all decent practices. But if you talk to the candidates themselves or look at the data, the picture gets complicated. Ask most job seekers if they’ve had a bad experience during a hiring process within the last year, and most will say yes. And if you think they’re not sharing that experience with their network, you’d be incredibly naïve.

There’s a gap between what hiring teams assume they're providing and what candidates experience. That’s not just a PR issue. It’s an operational one. Fixing it doesn’t require more polish. It requires better systems.

The Problem Starts with Fragmentation

The typical recruitment process is spread across multiple teams and systems. Employer branding lives with marketing. Screening lives with recruiting. Scheduling may be owned by operations or a third-party RPO. Candidate FAQs often sit in a helpdesk platform that no one remembers to check. The result is that candidates bounce between tools and contacts without continuity.

Each team might be doing its job well. But the candidate only sees the total experience. When that experience feels piecemeal, confusing, or repetitive, they disengage.

Improving candidate experience starts with structural clarity. Not motivational posters.

Immediacy and Relevance Matter More Than Politeness

Most recruiting emails say “Thank you for your interest.” That’s not the problem. The problem is that they arrive 72 hours late, don’t answer any questions the candidate may have, or worse, they point them to a portal that doesn’t recognize their login.

Candidates don’t judge an experience based on whether the tone is friendly. They judge it based on whether it makes sense and respects their time.

If someone applies to a role and receives no meaningful interaction for days, they move on. If they spend 15 minutes on a phone screen only to be asked the same questions again during an interview, they start to assume your organization doesn't value their effort. Simply put: This is bad candidate experience, and your competition will be doing it better.

The Silent Drop-Offs

The most dangerous point in the candidate journey isn’t the rejection. It’s the silence. When people don’t get responses, when they’re told “we’ll follow up soon” and no one does, when interview feedback disappears without explanation, they exit the process without saying a word. You won’t see them unsubscribe. They’ll simply stop replying, ignore the scheduler, or withdraw their application without a note.

These aren’t edge cases. They’re common. And they’re often preventable.

What Actually Improves Candidate Experience?

Let’s break this into tactical principles and implementable strategies:

1. Consistency Across Channels

A candidate who speaks with a recruiter on Monday should not get an automated message on Tuesday asking them to apply for the same role. If your ATS and CRM aren’t connected, or if your AI tools are generating content without context, you’re likely sending mixed signals.

Fixing this means ensuring that your candidate-facing touchpoints are coordinated and responsive to each other. It doesn’t need to be expensive. It just needs to be intentional.

2. Faster Time to Engagement

This is where tools like Maya, Curately.ai’s conversational voice recruiter, become practical. The moment someone applies, Maya can call them back within minutes. There’s no calendar lag and no recruiter bottleneck. She can clarify experience, answer questions, and gauge candidate fit in real time.

This isn't about speed for its own sake. It's about showing candidates that your process moves with efficiency, purpose, and respect for their time. When someone hears back from a company the same day they apply, they stay engaged. They feel seen.

3. Clarity at Every Stage

No one should be confused about what happens next. Is there a second interview? When will they hear back? Will they receive feedback either way? Most companies think they’re being clear. Candidates consistently report otherwise.

Templates help if they’re customized and kept up to date. Better yet, use systems that can automatically tailor responses based on where the candidate is in the process and what status they’re in. Maya, for example, can end a call by confirming next steps based on instructions provided by the recruiter.

4. Adaptive Interaction

This is where many AI tools fall short. Static scripts don’t work. If a candidate gives a nonstandard answer, the system needs to adjust and keep the interaction flowing. Restarting the workflow frustrates people.

Maya doesn’t rely on rigid scripts. She can manage pauses, handle redirections, and follow up with relevant clarification. She was built to behave like strong recruiters do: listen carefully, respond appropriately, and continue the conversation.

This adaptability reduces friction. And when friction goes down, trust goes up.

5. Human-Level Respect Even When Automated

Candidate experience doesn’t need to feel polished. It needs to feel deliberate. Whether it’s through a human recruiter, a voice AI, or an ATS-generated email, every interaction functions as a small contract. The company agrees to respect the candidate’s time. The candidate agrees to stay engaged in return.

This isn’t hard to implement. But it does require you to examine your process from the outside in.

Let Candidates Opt In Instead of Forcing Them Through

One of the most common candidate complaints is being forced through steps that don’t feel relevant. A 45-minute assessment. A four-screen application for a warehouse job. A video interview before a human even says hello.

When systems are built for internal convenience rather than candidate usefulness, candidates disengage. Improving candidate experience means reducing unnecessary steps. Let people opt into additional stages, and you’ll often get more buy-in and more accurate responses in return.

Final Thought: Your Current System Might Be Causing Drop-Offs You Don’t See

Silence doesn’t always mean satisfaction. Candidates rarely tell you where the frustration started. They just leave.

If you’re trying to compete for strong talent, your candidate experience needs to respond faster, communicate more clearly, and adjust in real time. Tools like Maya don’t just add efficiency. They help you match candidate expectations with recruiter intent.

You don’t need a rebrand to improve the hiring journey. You need a process that makes sense from the candidate’s perspective.

‍