Making Early Talent Recruitment More Human

Ask a candidate what it feels like to apply for an entry-level role and the answer follows a familiar pattern. Hours spent on an application form that asks for the same information five different ways. An AI video interview that lacks any form of human interaction. A rejection email, if it arrives at all, that tells them nothing useful other than they’ve been unsuccessful again. Doing this hundreds of times, over and over again, starts to take its toll on even the most resilient candidates.

None of this happened by accident. Recruitment processes have been designed for recruiters and ultimately, employers, to keep costs low and drive efficiency. That’s fine if you want a transactional process but if you want to leave a long lasting positive impression, the design has to be balanced with the needs of our future leaders.

There are clearly organisational challenges within early talent recruitment such as managing a high volume of applicants, detecting strong candidates amongst AI-generated applications and decreasing resources as organisations tighten budgets. However, if recruitment technology only focuses on these areas to win customers, then they are failing to deliver a memorable candidate experience to the ‘end clients’; young people who want a fair opportunity to demonstrate their potential and learn how to increase their employability.

As per the recent Milburn review, over one million young people aged between 16-24 are now NEET; not in employment, education or training. This is estimated to be costing the UK £125 billion in lost output, tax revenues, and increased welfare and health spending. Whilst employers may see this as a societal issue that the government should solve, they could certainly make a positive impact which would help the UK economy.

Delving deeper into the problems

More than half of candidates have abandoned a recruitment process because of poor communication. Over 60% report being ghosted after an interview. Nearly half said they dropped out of a process because it simply took too long to schedule an interview. And 26% of job seekers in 2024 declined an offer because the overall experience was poor.

These aren't edge cases. They are the norm.

For graduates specifically, the picture is bleaker still. According to US data, only 30% of 2025 graduates had secured full-time employment related to their degree, down from 41% the previous year. One in three is unemployed and actively searching. Yet the processes they are navigating are designed to filter based on hard rules, not for discovering potential.

The experience graduates describe is remarkably consistent: applications submitted into a void, automated rejections with no explanation, assessment exercises that bear no resemblance to the actual job, video interview platforms that feel alienating, and processes that can span six months or more. The emotional toll of this is significant.

Graduate job searching has become one of the most commonly cited causes of anxiety and low self-worth among young people. Not because rejection is new, but because the processes make people feel invisible.

That’s not surprising when you consider the long list of pain points that have been expressed by early talent. You only have to take a look on social media to see some of the consistent problems cited:

:

The Application Process

Black hole applications - submitting applications and hearing nothing back, sometimes for weeks or months, no acknowledgement, no update, not even a rejection. It feels disrespectful and damages trust in the employer.

Repetitive and lengthy processes - being asked to fill in a full application form and upload a CV with identical information, then complete multiple online tests, then a video interview, then an assessment centre… all before any human has even spoken to them.

Zero feedback or reason for rejection - after investing hours in a process, receiving a generic "we've decided not to proceed" email with no explanation as to why, is demoralising. It also takes away the opportunity for the candidate to learn and grow from the experience.

Unpaid or inaccessible experience requirements - being told entry-level roles require experience they couldn't get without either already being employed, or through unpaid internships they can't afford to take.

Fairness and Representation

Feeling filtered out before being seen - algorithms and automated screening tools that reject without a human being involved or any transparency on the reason why. If it’s based on data such as university name, degree grade, or keyword matching then it could create unfair practices.

Assessment tools that feel alienating — online tests, gamified assessments, and video interviews that provide little value to the candidate or sometimes even put them at a disadvantage if they are not designed for people from all backgrounds. There is also often little visibility about how employers use these tools in their decision-making.

Lack of reasonable adjustments — neurodivergent graduates or those with disabilities often find that assessment processes aren't adapted with them in mind. This means that a candidate has to specifically request that reasonable adjustments are needed and therefore disclose their protected characteristic, rather than them being better designed.

Information and Transparency

Hidden or vague salary information - job adverts that say ‘competitive salary’ or list a wide salary band, make it impossible for a candidate to assess whether a role is worth pursuing.

Unrealistic or misleading job descriptions - roles may be described as dynamic, impactful, and exciting when the reality is far more mundane filled with repetitive tasks, leading to early disillusionment and attrition.

No clarity on progression - graduates want to know where a role could lead, but employers rarely communicate possible career pathways clearly during recruitment, making it hard to assess longer term fit.

The Human Experience

Feeling like a number, not a person - highly transactional processes where graduates never speak to anyone who would actually work with them, leaving them with no sense of the culture or whether they'd belong.

Inconsistent or unclear timelines - being told a decision will be made within two weeks and then chasing for six, or being rushed through a process only to wait indefinitely at the end.

Financial and logistical burden - being expected to travel to assessment centres at their own expense, take unpaid days off part-time jobs, or buy professional clothing for interviews when they may not have the funds to support it. Especially when you’re having to attend many before securing a role.

Mental health toll - the cumulative stress of rejection, uncertainty, financial pressure, and comparing themselves to peers leads many graduates to describe job searching as one of the most damaging experiences of their early adult lives often leaving them with increased anxiety.

A human-centred design approach

Human-centred design is a methodology that begins with understanding and empathising with the experience of the people a system is meant to serve, identify where the system is failing them, and build solutions to provide a solution that meets their needs.

In the context of early talent recruitment, there are multiple ‘humans’ it needs to be designed for. From candidates, to recruiters, to managers, to employers and even higher education as we need to design seamless career journeys. To date, being employer-centric has been the default, often without much thought about how it feels to be on the other side of the experience.

By putting early talent at the centre, it creates a more balanced experience whilst maintaining value for employers and other stakeholders.

IDEO sets out the core principles of human-centred design, but how can you apply these practically? Here are the key stages when applying a human-centred design approach:

Empathy before assumptions

Start by understanding what the candidate's experience actually is, not what you assume it is. Interview recent applicants, particularly those who were rejected. Map the emotional journey of the application, not just the functional steps. How did they feel at each stage of the process?

Define the real problem

Unless you have spent time understanding the pain points from a candidate’s perspective, it’s possible that you’ve been solving the wrong problems or prioritising other problems. Once you’ve identified the real problems and defined them, you may find the solutions are more simple and tangible than you think.

Ideate without constraint

By collaborating to come up with ideas about what an ideal early talent candidate experience would look like, you can conduct a gap analysis. How far is the gap between the actual and the ideal experience? Would other key stakeholders be impacted negatively by creating the ideal candidate experience? If so, find a more balanced approach.

Prototype and test

Identify tools you can use that can deliver your desired candidate experience. You may be able to replicate this using simple tools or free trials with suppliers so you can prototype the redesigned approach and test the value it creates. Ensure early talent is at the heart of the design decisions you make.

Iterate based on feedback

Once you roll out your new approach more widely, you should consider ways in which you can measure value, including feedback loops that will help you to continually improve. How did people feel? What would they change? Were there any unintended consequences? Then, iterate to make small changes, continually striving to solve real problems.

Ask different questions for different results

Redesigning entry level recruitment through a human-centred lens doesn't require tearing everything down. It requires asking different questions at each stage of the process so you can make small tweaks to continually improve the experience.

At the attraction stage:

Are we reaching a broad range of candidates?

Is the job advert clear, specific and relevant?

How authentic is our representation of the organisation?

What is the candidate’s initial impression of the company?

How does the advert make them feel about the opportunity?

At the application stage:

Are we causing needless friction and inefficiencies for candidates?

Is the process transparent and clear for candidates?

What kind of expectations are we setting and can we meet them?

Are we clear on what we consider appropriate use of AI within applications?

How does the application stage make candidates feel?

At the assessment stage:

Does this assessment actually measure the criteria that’s important?

Is our assessment criteria fair or will it create biases?

Are our assessments accessible to ALL candidates?

Are we testing for behaviours that will lead to success in our organisation?

How does the assessment stage make candidates feel?

At the decision stage:

Would rejected candidates apply for a future role at your organisation?

Would candidates recommend applying for a job at your organisation?

Will candidates be able to grow and develop from their candidate experience?

How did you help early talent candidates increase their employability?

Was the decision clear and how did it make the candidate feel?

At the communication stage:

How frequently are you keeping your candidates updated on progress?

Are you letting applicants know if there is a delay to the process?

Are candidates receiving feedback or reasons for rejection?

For unsuccessful candidates, was the communication motivational?

How did the communications make candidates feel?

In rushing to optimise for efficiency, many employers have automated empathy out of the process entirely. Putting early talent candidates at the centre of your design optimises for a more valuable recruitment experience for all stakeholders.

Want to contribute to the conversation on how we can design for better outcomes?

Join us on 9th July at 11am for a free collaborative workshop to explore how we can make early talent more human! Click here to sign up now.