Two days ago, I wrote about a situation that made me both laugh and wince. When I, yes it was me, sent a message to a hiring manager about a senior role application. My note was polite, thoughtful, and full of strategic insights and ideas for the role.
The hiring manager, while admiring the initiative, sent a standard response. “Thank you for reaching out. Please apply through the process stipulated to ensure fairness for all applicants.”
In other words, thank you for being proactive, but please stop.
I want to be fair and clarify that it is easy to judge the manager for missing the opportunity. Yet anyone who has ever been responsible for recruitment in a large organisation knows the reality. The manager was not being rude or ungrateful. They were being careful. Careful about rules, transparency, equality, and the long shadow of HR compliance.
The modern recruitment process has been built to eliminate bias and protect fairness. It is structured, documented, and auditable. It ensures every candidate is treated identically, every step justified. On paper, that sounds like progress. In practice, it often turns hiring into an exercise in bureaucracy rather than discernment.
The problem is not that these systems exist. It is that they have become the only acceptable route. Managers are told to follow the procedure to the letter, even when common sense suggests flexibility. The system is supposed to serve judgement. Instead, judgement now serves the system.
The fear of breaking rules has replaced the courage to spot talent.
Behind closed doors, many hiring managers admit their frustration. They want to move fast, have exploratory conversations, and identify potential in unconventional ways. But they are constrained by policies that value procedural equality over human connection. The result is a strange paradox: the more an organisation talks about innovation, the less room it leaves for it in its own recruitment.
What started as fairness has quietly become avoidance. Fairness is about creating opportunities. Avoidance is about minimising risk. They look similar but are worlds apart.
The truth is that great hiring requires judgement. It is a human skill, not a mechanical one. No system can predict how someone will challenge, inspire, or stretch a team. Algorithms measure data. Humans measure chemistry, intuition, and potential. The best leaders know the difference.
Somewhere along the way, recruitment became too clean. We have built walls to protect integrity, but in doing so, we have sterilised curiosity. Many managers are afraid to engage with candidates outside formal channels for fear of being accused of bias. Yet bias does not vanish through avoidance; it simply hides behind process.
There is another hidden cost. Systems built to treat everyone equally often end up treating everyone the same. The unusual candidate, the creative thinker, or the person who sees a problem differently is lost in the noise. The process has no room for originality.
The irony is that the best organisations still depend on human courage. Every major innovation, transformation, or cultural shift has begun with someone breaking routine. The same must be true for talent. The courage to recognise and reward initiative is part of what separates good leaders from administrators.
I have worked with hiring managers who understood this balance beautifully. They followed the process, but not blindly. If someone reached out with genuine insight, they acknowledged it. They still asked the person to complete the formal application, but they also began a conversation. That small act sent a powerful message: we value your initiative as much as your credentials.
Fairness should not mean silence. It should mean openness. The fairest system is one that welcomes initiative while maintaining transparency. It should empower managers to use judgement, not strip them of it.
Hiring is not a compliance exercise. It is one of the most strategic acts any organisation performs. Every appointment shapes culture, capability, and momentum. A process that treats it as paperwork is already losing the war for talent.
If we want to hire innovators, we must design processes that allow them to behave like innovators. Otherwise, we are not recruiting creative minds; we are recruiting rule followers.
Perhaps the real question every leader should ask before opening a vacancy is this: do we want someone who fits our process, or someone who will improve it?
Key Takeaways
- Modern recruitment systems prioritise procedural safety over intelligent judgement.
- Fairness and curiosity are not opposites; they can reinforce each other.
- Risk avoidance has quietly replaced talent discovery.
- The best hiring managers use process as a tool, not a cage.
- Every hiring decision is a leadership act, not just an HR transaction.
Try This
If you are responsible for hiring, review your last recruitment cycle. How many candidates did you engage with personally before shortlisting? Did you spot potential or simply process compliance? Next time, when someone shows initiative, acknowledge it. Fairness is not threatened by a conversation; it is strengthened by one.
If you work in HR, ask managers what parts of the process feel unnecessarily restrictive. Find one place where discretion can safely return. Systems should enable people, not muzzle them.
Closing Thought
If this resonates with you, share it with someone involved in hiring. The next time a thoughtful candidate reaches out, perhaps we can treat it as a signal of value, not a breach of process. Fairness and flexibility can coexist if leaders are brave enough to let them.
