How to get better client feedback on candidate submissions

Useful client feedback is specific enough to improve the next submission. Agencies get it by making the comparison easy and asking a focused question.

The operational problem

A client who receives a pile of CVs can only offer vague reactions. The agency then has to guess whether the issue is skills, context, compensation, or presentation.

For an agency, this is not a theoretical issue. It affects whether the right candidate is still available, whether a client sees a credible recommendation early enough, and whether the recruiter has time to apply their market knowledge where it matters.

The better approach

Present each candidate against the agreed criteria, then ask which requirement or concern changed the client's view.

Keep the workflow simple enough for a live desk. The aim is not to add another reporting layer. It is to make the standard visible before work begins, then carry that context through every recruiter and client handoff.

What good looks like

Capture feedback in a shared record and update the brief deliberately rather than letting preferences drift in private conversations.

This creates a useful distinction between information and judgement. Information can be gathered, structured, and checked consistently. Judgement remains with the recruiter, who can see the evidence, interpret the context, and make a clear recommendation.

Measure the change

Good feedback shortens the search because every rejection produces an insight the agency can act on with the next candidate.

Start with one role type and compare it with the existing approach. The evidence from a live desk will show which parts of the process need refinement far better than a generic feature list ever could.

---

HireOS is built for this kind of workflow: clear role criteria, evidence-led screening, no automatic rejection, and recruiter-owned shortlists. The point is not to make recruitment less human. It is to give the human work more room to matter.