This is the first instalment in our new ‘Hiring Insights’ series, where we speak with experienced hiring professionals to uncover what great recruitment really looks like, spotlight the common missteps internal processes make, and share practical, real-world guidance for both employers and candidates.
These insights are designed to help candidates stand out and in-house hiring teams build stronger, more effective recruitment processes. This interview uncovers…
This interview uncovers…
1.Candidates stand out quickest when their resumes prioritise measurable achievements over generic responsibilities.
2.Targeted research before interviews is a differentiator – it signals real motivation and lets candidates connect their value to the business.
3. Internal teams often miss the mark by not providing timely, constructive feedback, which harms employer brand and future hiring.
4.The best hiring processes are clear, fast, and tightly staged (usually 2–3 stages within a couple of weeks).
5.Strong communication and expectation-setting keep candidates feeling valued, boosting acceptance rates even when offers aren’t the highest.
Having spent nearly a decade in recruitment, building a career that spans both UK and US markets, James has had a front-row seat into what great hiring looks like in practice – and where it often falls apart. After progressing through multiple consultant roles in the UK department, James moved into a senior leadership position in the US and is now Vice President of Recruiting Operations at The Sterling Choice. In his current role, he partners with food manufacturing businesses across the States to drive growth through strategically securing the right talent – not just filling vacancies, but shaping teams that perform. That blend of grounded consultant experience and operational leadership makes his perspective especially valuable: he understands the hiring journey from both sides, sees patterns across hundreds of processes, and knows what consistently leads to successful hires.
When James talks about strong applications, he doesn’t start with formatting tricks or trendy resume templates. He starts with substance. Across the roles he hires for, the candidates who rise to the top quickly aren’t just listing what they do – they’re showing what they’ve done.
The biggest missed opportunity he sees is that many resumes read like job descriptions. They outline responsibilities but stop short of proving impact. The problem is simple: “Everyone’s got similar responsibilities,” James says, especially in sectors where job functions are tightly standardised. If two candidates are doing the same role in different companies, responsibilities don’t differentiate. Results do.
What stands out fast, particularly for internal hiring teams trying to shortlist efficiently, is tangible evidence of achievement – numbers, outcomes, improvements, and stories of change. James’s advice is to keep responsibilities concise, then go heavier on results. Think of it as a shift from ‘what I was asked to do’ to ‘what I delivered.’
And those achievements don’t need to be grand, company-wide transformations. James points out they should be relevant to the role and grounded in reality. For example, in quality-focused positions, achievements might include:
For other functions, the same principle holds: show your contribution in the language of outcomes. Candidates who do that make the hiring decision easier, because they’re already demonstrating “what you can do for your next employer.” That’s the bar internal teams are hiring against, whether they explicitly say so or not.
Before you send your resume, ask yourself: If someone else did my job, could they submit this exact document too? If yes, it needs achievements. Aim for 3–5 result-centric bullets per role: what changed, how you did it, and what the outcome was.
If your shortlist feels full of “samey” candidates, check whether your job ad or screening criteria encourages achievements. If not, you’re unintentionally selecting for people who can describe tasks, not those who can show impact.
James is equally clear that what happens before the interview often determines whether a candidate ever gets to the offer stage. One of the strongest patterns he sees is that high-performing candidates don’t walk into interviews hoping to “wing it” – they arrive having done real research, and that preparation shows immediately.
For James, research isn’t about memorising the company’s homepage or repeating back the mission statement. It’s about understanding the business in a way that signals commercial awareness and genuine intent. Candidates who put in that effort are able to talk about the role in context: what the company is trying to achieve, what pressures it’s facing, and how the position contributes to those goals. That changes the entire dynamic of the conversation from “please consider me” to “here’s how I can help you.”
What often lets candidates down is assuming their experience alone will carry them. James sees plenty of people with solid backgrounds lose momentum because they can’t connect their skills to the reality of the employer in front of them. In those moments, hiring managers aren’t questioning competence – they’re questioning motivation, curiosity, and whether the person will take ownership once hired.
The strongest candidates also use research to ask better questions. Instead of generic prompts about culture or progression, they ask things that show they’ve been paying attention: about facility expansion, operational priorities, customer expectations, KPIs, systems, leadership structure, or recent changes in the market. That kind of questioning doesn’t just impress hiring teams – it helps candidates assess whether the opportunity is right for them.
Spend 30–45 minutes doing targeted research before every interview. A simple framework:
If candidates are repeatedly turning up under-prepared, it’s a signal to tighten your pre-interview information. Stronger job briefs, clearer role scorecards, and a short “what success looks like” overview can raise the baseline and help great candidates show their best selves.
Later in the conversation, James moves from candidate advice to something hiring teams urgently need to hear: where internal processes cause the most harm. And for him, the biggest failure point isn’t sourcing or salary. It’s what happens after interviews.
“Where a lot of companies let themselves down,” he says, is either not giving feedback at all or giving feedback that isn’t constructive. This is more than a courtesy issue – it hits future hiring power and reputation.
James frames it in a way that’s sobering for internal teams: industries like food, CPG, and adjacent markets may look huge from the outside, but in reality they’re small ecosystems. People talk. Networks overlap. Word spreads quickly. A single poor candidate experience can ripple outwards through colleagues, peers, and social platforms.
His point isn’t that every candidate needs to get an offer – they won’t. Candidates generally understand rejection. What they struggle with is silence or dismissal. Feedback, even when it’s not positive, validates the time and energy they invested. It gives them a reason. It gives them a way to improve. Without it, they leave feeling devalued – and that becomes the story they share.
James is blunt: mishandling unsuccessful candidates is damaging because those people might be right for another role later – and now they won’t come back. Worse, their view of your organisation becomes a warning signal to others.
Yes, feedback takes longer. But James sees it as an investment activity hiring teams consistently underestimate. A quick, thoughtful note or call protects your reputation, keeps candidates engaged, and strengthens your talent pipeline for future needs.
If feedback isn’t provided, don’t assume the worst. Follow up politely, asking for one or two improvement areas. Even if you don’t receive it, that approach reinforces your professionalism and can keep doors open.
Build feedback into your process, not as an optional add-on. Even a short structure helps:
One strength, one gap relative to the role, one suggestion for next time.
That single step reduces dropout, preserves your employer brand, and improves the candidate market’s perception of you long-term.
When we asked James what brilliant hiring looks like, he said it’s hard to pinpoint a single “perfect” process because success is less about a specific company and more about a set of behaviours. The best processes share the same DNA: they’re clear, concise, and fast enough to keep good people engaged.
He links this directly to acceptance rates. Longer, heavily staged hiring processes almost always create more attrition. The ones that convert well move through two or three stages in a couple of weeks, with strong communication throughout. That combination makes candidates feel “valued and appreciated.” It also prevents internal teams losing top hires to competitors who move quicker.
James keeps coming back to four drivers:
Candidates don’t “freak out,” as he puts it, when a delay happens – if they’re updated. People understand life gets in the way. Hiring managers are busy. Decisions take time. But silence erodes confidence and trust. A short message saying “here’s where we are and when you’ll hear next” is often the difference between retention and dropout.
He shares a real example that makes this tangible. One candidate had “three or four offers on the table.” The one he chose wasn’t the highest paying. He accepted the offer that made him feel most valued during the process – clear timelines, responsive comms, and a sense that he mattered. The emotional experience of the hiring journey beat salary in that decision.
That’s the biggest takeaway for internal teams: your process is part of your offer. You’re not only evaluating candidates; candidates are evaluating you. How you behave shapes who accepts.
If you’re juggling offers, don’t only compare salary. Compare the process. The company that communicates clearly and values your time is often the one with healthier leadership and culture once you’re inside.
Audit your time-to-offer and stage count. If it’s stretching beyond 3 stages or 3–4 weeks without a strong reason, you’re likely losing great people unnecessarily. Speed doesn’t mean rushing decisions – it means removing friction and keeping candidates informed.
James’s insights land in a simple but powerful place: great hiring is about clarity of value on both sides. Candidates need to show value through achievements, not just responsibilities. Hiring teams need to show value through experience, not just evaluation.
For candidates, the path to standing out is measurable impact and clean storytelling. For internal hiring teams, the path to better hires is shorter, clearer processes and a commitment to feedback – because trust and reputation are now part of how talent decides where to go.
And in markets where everyone talks, that isn’t a “nice to have.” It’s a competitive edge.
Want to secure James’s guidance in your next career move or key hire? Contact James.
