In today's job market, a simple job search can turn into an exhausting marathon of interviews and tests. The rise of 'skills testing' has job seekers facing an unprecedented number of hurdles, with some companies demanding up to 11 rounds of interviews and assessments.
Take James Bore, a 42-year-old job seeker who encountered this exact scenario. When he applied for a security engineering role at a major finance company, he was initially offered an interview. However, what followed was a never-ending series of interviews, coding tests, and presentations. James had already invested 14 hours of his time into the process, only to be met with more rounds of testing.
"It just made me feel like it was a complete waste of time," James shared with Metro. "I had other offers with just one or two interviews, so I decided to save them the effort."
James' experience is not an isolated incident. Long and drawn-out job interviews have become increasingly common, with 85% of companies now preferring this rigorous skills-based hiring process over traditional resume and interview methods, according to TestGorilla's 2025 survey. While employers may see more success with these methods, with 82% satisfied with their hires, the process is taking a toll on job seekers.
"It requires so much effort, and I don't think 11 rounds of tests and interviews benefit companies," James emphasized.
The lengthy delays are causing many job seekers to abandon their applications. StandOutCV reports that it takes an average of 4.9 weeks for a company to hire someone in the UK, with government roles taking up to six weeks, and banking and finance roles close behind at 5.9 weeks. This is a significant increase in time compared to previous years.
But here's where it gets controversial: while companies may believe they are identifying the best candidates through these extensive processes, they are also risking losing out on talented individuals. Indeed's research reveals that 50% of hiring companies admit to losing good candidates due to the lengthy hiring process.
Jim Moore, an employee relations expert at Hamilton Nash, agrees that these long-winded interview processes can be counterproductive. He suggests that anything beyond three or four stages may indicate a lack of effective decision-making within the business.
"If an organization needs 11 interviews to choose, it might be a sign of risk aversion or a lack of internal alignment," Jim explains.
He also warns against using assessment tasks as a means of obtaining free labor, emphasizing that candidates should not be expected to undergo excessive rounds of interviews and tests.
"The more stages a candidate endures, the more demoralizing any rejection can feel," Jim adds. "As a candidate, see such exploitative practices as a sign of a workplace culture that doesn't value your time."
So, is this rigorous skills testing really the best way for companies to find the right talent? Or are they shooting themselves in the foot by exhausting applicants and potentially missing out on great hires? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below!
