You know what makes zero sense to me?

It's easier to get a job when you already have one.

At a previous firm, we ran the numbers. Candidates who were currently employed were significantly more likely to get an offer than those who weren't. Not just slightly. Think 2x the interviews, 3x the offers.

It struck me as backwards.

Sure, you can rationalise it, maybe they're seen as more competent, more stable, more "in demand." But dig deeper, and the real reason is simple: perception.

Recruitment is full of these invisible biases. Not all of them are fair. But they're real.

And unless your hiring process accounts for them, you're making decisions based on noise, not signal.

The bias you didn't mean to hire with

I get it. Someone comes in, sharp suit or outfit, confident energy, solid role on their CV. You think: "They must be good."

Then someone else comes in, equally qualified, maybe even better, but they've been out of work four months. They're a little more tense. A bit more cautious. Same skills, different aura.

Who gets the offer?

More often than not, it's the one who's currently employed.

Because "gut feel" (ahem: bias) tends to favour polish over potential.

The data backs it up

I'm going to be blunt here: the hiring market doesn't play fair.

Employed candidates get 3x as many job offers and 4x the response rate as unemployed ones.

They're also offered higher salaries, on average over 70% more per hour than their unemployed peers.

Even candidates not actively looking get better outcomes than those who are visibly on the market.

Source: Federal Reserve Bank, Columbia University, UK Labour Market Statistics.

So why does this happen?

Because being employed is a signal. It doesn't mean you're better, but it suggests you're relevant, current, and wanted.

Recruiters notice. Hiring managers notice. Your interview panel definitely notices.

So when someone walks in unemployed, it triggers questions, consciously or not. And unless your interview process is structured to cut through the noise, you'll fall into the trap of hiring who looks safest, not who'll actually deliver.

The fix: structure over snap judgement

When people say they "hire on gut feel," what they're really doing is replacing process with bias.

If you want to hire the best, not just the shiniest, then structure is non-negotiable.

A rigorous, scorecarded interview process levels the field. It:

  • Measures performance, not polish
  • Focuses on evidence, not energy
  • Surfaces high-potential candidates who may not have the loudest voice

So why wouldn't you? Structured interviews don't just improve hiring accuracy. They improve retention, too.

The hidden cost of getting this wrong

If you're still winging interviews, here's what's happening under the surface:

  • You're rejecting brilliant candidates because they don't look like they're winning
  • You're hiring based on narrative, not delivery
  • You're losing out on talent who could've made the difference

Let's not pretend "calm under pressure" is always the right signal. Sometimes it's just a well-practised mask.

The goal isn't to hire the calmest candidate. It's to hire the best one.

Timing matters too

One final point: timing your hiring process matters more than you think.

If you're planning a major hire, avoid:

  • June to August: decision-makers disappear and hiring slows
  • November to December: year-end wrap-up, budget fatigue, holidays

Instead, aim for January to February and September to October. That's when market activity spikes and talent is most open to change.

Final thought: don't confuse comfort with control

Too many hiring managers let their perceptions guide their decisions. Too many candidates wait until they need a job to enter the market.

Both are risky.

Hiring should be intentional. Strategic. Grounded in process, not optics.

And if you're a candidate reading this? Don't wait until your role's on fire. The best time to explore the market is when you don't have to. That's when you hold the cards.

Richard