Many organizations may have an annual employee engagement survey.  In fact, it is highly recommended to have these periodic check-ins with the workforce.   As a result of these surveys, organizations put in place from the simplest to the most complicated actions plans in the hope that their scores will improve.  Yet many overlook an uncomfortable truth: by the time an employee arrives for their first day, their experience of the organization has already begun.

It may have started when they read the vacancy notice. It continued when they submitted an application, waited for a response, attended an interview, received, or in some cases, did not receive feedback and negotiated the terms of an offer.  At each stage, the organization communicated something about its culture, values and regard for people.  And those feelings, positive or negative, continue throughout their career with the organization.

So that, dear readers, is going to be the topic of this week’s Corner Office.  I am going to discuss how the experiences of recruitment form an early psychological contract between the candidate and the organization and how HR can improve employee engagement, even at that early stage.

Let’s be honest.  Most organizations have the tendency to treat recruitment as a self-contained transaction.   But from a candidate perspective, the selection process is not simply an isolated experience to be forgotten.  No Sir!  The process becomes part of the story the person tells themselves about the organization.

A transparent process can create an initial feeling of trust.  A disrespectful process on the other hand, can create suspicion that follows the employee into the workplace.

Let’s take, for example, the vacancy notice.  If it is vague, the assumption may be that the organization may not know what it needs.   Then the candidate moves on to the application form.  How convoluted is it?  Is it extremely long?  That may signal that internal processes take precedence over people’s time.   And then there is the interview.  An interviewer who arrives late without acknowledgement communicates something about status and respect.

Now, let’s talk about everyone’s bugbear, the silence after the interview.  Protracted silence following an interview sends a message, even if the organization did not intend to send one.  So does a last-minute interview cancellation, an unexplained salary change or a refusal to discuss how the role will be evaluated.

The new employee may accept the offer, attend orientation and smile for the welcome photograph.  But they may also arrive asking themselves: Is this organization organized? Do people communicate honestly? Are decisions made carefully? Does the organization value fairness? Will I be treated as a person, or simply as a resource to be acquired?

Organizations often attempt to repair this distrust through onboarding.  But a polished orientation cannot erase an unfair selection experience. Nor can a welcome gift compensate for weeks of silence, shifting criteria, unexplained decisions or negotiations that left the candidate feeling deliberately underinformed.

Consider instead that early trust affects whether new employees ask questions, admit uncertainty, seek help and offer ideas. When employees begin their working life with an organization with the feeling that they were treated fairly or that the organization acted fairly from the get-go, they are more likely to extend goodwill when inevitable difficulties arise.  When they begin with distrust, even minor problems may be interpreted as confirmation of a deeper organizational defect.

Don’t get me wrong.  I understand that recruitment teams face legitimate pressure to move quickly.  Vacancies in fact create operational strain because hiring managers become impatient and strong candidates may accept other offers.  Efficiency matters. But it should not become a justification for treating candidates as units moving through a workflow.

Applicants should know up front what the process involves, how long it is likely to take and whether they remain under consideration.  After all, candidates who invest substantial time in interviews or assessments deserve timely closure.  Internal candidates as well deserve constructive feedback that helps them understand the decision and their future prospects.

That said, here’s where HR can help.  HR should begin by mapping the candidate’s journey from the candidate’s perspective and not merely from the perspective of the recruitment process or what the hiring manager wants.

That means, examining every significant point of contact: the advertisement, application, acknowledgement, assessment, interview, reference check, offer, negotiation, rejection and transition into onboarding.  At each stage, ask what the candidate is likely to understand, feel and infer about the organization.

Second, establish clear standards for procedural fairness. Selection criteria should be defined before applications are reviewed and should not be quietly altered to favor a preferred candidate.  Panels should record evidence against those criteria, disclose conflicts of interest and distinguish between essential requirements and personal preferences.

Third, measure the experience.  Candidate surveys should cover successful and unsuccessful applicants. HR should track communication delays, offer withdrawals, candidate complaints, internal-application outcomes and recurring reasons for declining offers. The data should be disaggregated where appropriate to identify patterns by gender, nationality, location, disability, employment status or other relevant characteristics.

Fourth, strengthen the treatment of internal candidates. Employees should understand how appointments are made, why they were unsuccessful and what development would make them more competitive in the future. Managers should not discourage employees from pursuing opportunities merely because losing them would inconvenience the current team.

Finally, hold hiring managers accountable. Candidate experience cannot remain solely the recruiter’s responsibility.  A hiring manager who repeatedly delays decisions, changes requirements, treats candidates dismissively or arrives unprepared is shaping the employer brand and creating organizational risk.

In summary, remember that people begin forming judgments about an organization before they receive an employment contract. They notice whether communication is timely, whether questions are welcomed, whether people keep their word and whether important decisions can be explained.

Those judgments do not disappear when the person becomes an employee. They become the foundation upon which later experiences are interpreted.

If the recruitment process demonstrated fairness, the employee may enter with trust. If not, the organization begins the relationship with a deficit.

So, my HR colleagues, get it out of your head that recruitment is merely about acquiring talent.  Start thinking that it is in fact the organization’s first opportunity to show people how seriously it takes its values and what kind of organization it intends to be.  What is clear is that by the time the employee walks through the door, they have already been paying attention.