Recruitment in transition

A strange moment to hire

Interest rates have climbed from zero, and the expected upturn keeps getting pushed back by geopolitics.

Meanwhile the AI investment boom has created pressure to hire AI specialists, and high hopes that AI will lift productivity everywhere else.

118 companies answered

We reached out to roughly 1,000 companies by email and direct message. Slightly over 10% took part, giving us 118 complete responses.

Thank you to everyone who did. This study wouldn't exist without you.

Every size of company

The sample covers small startups and large employers alike, with the biggest group coming from companies of over 250 people.

Roughly a third of respondents were founders or CEOs, a third HR professionals or recruiters, and a third hiring managers. Many work in technology.

From 22 CVs to 94

Processes wrapped up in under two weeks review about 22 applications on average. Searches running past three months get through almost 94.

Interviews barely move

The number of people interviewed stays between 5.3 and 7.2 whatever the process length. Teams interview about the same number of people. They just sift through more to find them.

One to two months is normal

Nearly half of respondents say a typical process takes 1–2 months. Next come 2–4 weeks (22%) and 2–3 months (17%).

Long processes have several causes. More interviewers means more calendar juggling, big candidate pools take time to work through, and precise role definitions call for deeper assessment.

Volume scales with size

Small companies (1–10 people) usually review fewer than 30 applications, most often 6–15. Mid-sized companies tend to land between 31 and 99. Large companies commonly review 100–199, or over 200.

Companies making over 10 hires a year handle more applications with tighter interview ratios, which points to well-developed screening. Those hiring fewer than five a year lean on networks and decide more slowly.

Who uses what

Each circle shows the share of companies in a size group using that channel. Bigger circle, more companies.

High-volume recruiters use paid channels 40% more than low-volume ones, a clear shift toward systematic, paid solutions as hiring scales.

LinkedIn and own networks dominate

LinkedIn is the most popular channel at every size, especially for specialists and direct sourcing. Its downside is volume: lots of applications, lots of imprecise matches.

Own networks and recommendations deliver the best candidates and conversion rates. They're limited by reach, and they tend to favour cultural fit over cultural add.

Career pages grow up with the company

Only 40% of the smallest companies recruit through their website, against 97% of those with over 250 people.

Career page applicants often show more motivation and better cultural alignment.

Paid help increases with scale

Job boards shine in volume hiring like warehouse and healthcare roles, though quality and timing vary.

Recruitment firms are most effective for senior specialist roles and take work off internal teams, at an external cost and with some dependence on a third party.

IT companies skip public services

None of the IT companies use public employment services, compared to 25% of other organisations. They also use recruitment agencies less (12% versus 32%).

Tech companies either have stronger in-house recruitment or find traditional channels weak at assessing technical skills.

Quality is the top complaint

Half of companies with 51–250 people and 52% of those with over 250 struggle with application quality. Across all respondents it's 43%.

Shortages hit specific skills

Talent shortage affects about a third of mid-sized and large companies. Smaller companies feel it less: 28% of companies with 11–50 people and 15% of the smallest.

Slow processes, everywhere a little

Slow internal processes bother 14–20% of companies regardless of size. Respondents also mentioned time pressure, organisational change, tough market conditions, communication with candidates and candidates' commitment.

Volume drives the quality problem

Companies making over 10 hires a year report quality issues far more often: 65% versus 35%. Talent shortage hits both groups equally.

Tech companies report more quality issues (58% versus 42%), while other sectors more often cite shortage (45% versus 32%). Tech attracts volume but struggles with relevance; other sectors face real scarcity.

Data, BI and AI/ML

The hardest area to fill. What's missing most are experienced specialists who can turn complex data into business value.

Developers who think in systems

Software development is still tough, especially roles that need architectural thinking. Full-stack, frontend and backend engineers with strong system design skills are in short supply.

Technical leaders and consultants

Management-level technical roles and specialist consulting positions get harder to fill when they need both technical depth and business acumen.

Salespeople who get the tech

Sales roles become hard when the product is complex. Technical understanding plus sales ability is a rare combination.

Small specialist pools

SAP/ERP implementation, mobile development, supply chain optimisation and regulatory compliance all have limited talent pools, which creates bottlenecks.

Culture and language count

In international settings, technical skills alone aren't enough. Cultural compatibility and language skills often decide the hire.

Mostly senior

68% of hard-to-fill positions require 5+ years of experience, and data and AI roles ask for the most.

Demand for experienced people has outrun the talent pool that grew up alongside these technologies. Building skills in-house may beat waiting for the perfect external hire.

Bigger companies see more of it

Detection rises steadily with company size, from 35% in companies with 1–10 people to 67% in companies with over 250.

45% of the largest companies see AI across many applications. Small companies notice less and are less sure what they're seeing.

Tech and HR spot it first

Tech companies detect AI in 62% of cases versus 48% elsewhere. HR professionals spot it in 58% of cases versus 41% for CEOs and founders.

Either these groups get more AI-assisted applications, or they've become better at recognising them.

In video interviews, mostly HR notices

34% of HR and talent professionals have seen AI used in some interviews. Among CEOs and hiring managers, it's 7–8%.

That gap likely reflects how many interviews HR people sit through, and practice in spotting AI-assisted answers.

Good or bad? Both.

Respondents see AI use as negative about as often as positive. Some reject obviously AI-written applications; others treat skilful AI use as a sign of competence.

If AI is a work tool, should it be part of the assessment too? Companies need to decide.

Bigger companies, more partners

Partner use climbs from 25% of companies with 1–10 people to 44% of those with over 250, as both budgets and complexity grow.

Volume matters most

Companies making over 15 hires a year use partners 67% of the time, versus 28% for low-volume recruiters. High-volume teams buy capacity; low-volume teams keep it in-house.

Tech keeps it in-house

Non-tech companies use partners far more often (35% versus 24%). Tech roles need deep domain understanding, which may push tech companies to build their own recruiting muscle.

The consultant matters more than the brand

Good experiences come from long-term, carefully chosen partners who find strong candidates for hard senior roles. Bad ones involve weak candidates, high costs and partners who don't get the tech or the culture.

Many organisations have moved toward in-house direct sourcing to keep control of cost and quality.

The price range

Answers spread from under €5,000 to €20,000, with a clear peak in the middle.

€8,000–12,000 wins

30% of respondents picked this range. It's the most common and, for most specialist roles, the most realistic.

Under €12,000 for most roles

€5,000–8,000 is almost as popular at 28%. Together with the lowest band, about 69% of respondents put the right fee below €12,000 for specialist and mid-management hires.

Tech wants it cheaper

45% of tech companies accept €8,000–12,000 and 35% prefer lower fees. Among other companies, 38% accept the middle range and 42% accept more than €12,000.

Volume buys tolerance

High-volume recruiters are 25% more open to fees above €12,000, since outside capacity pays off when you run several searches at once.

Higher fees need a clear payoff: speed, quality, specialist expertise or real relief for the internal team.