Why "Let's Wait for 2–3 More Candidates" Often Means You Will Lose the Best One
Does this sound familiar?
The selection process is well underway. You’ve interviewed the first three candidates, and one of them stood out in particular.
You’ve finally found a person who meets the technical requirements, fits into the team culture, and leaves a great impression during the interview.
If you collaborate with an IT recruitment agency, you’ve very likely received a candidate who suits your business, understands the product, and is ready to hit the ground running.
And then, in a meeting, someone utters the sentence that, in my opinion, has "killed" thousands of good hires:
"This is all great, but let's put them on hold until we see two or three more candidates. Just to test the market and be completely sure."
At first glance, this seems like a responsible decision.
And sometimes it really is.
If you aren't sure that the candidate is the right choice, continuing the process is completely justified.
The problem arises when you are already sure that you want to offer that person the job, but you delay the decision simply because you feel you might be able to find someone else.
That is precisely when you step into a psychological trap you often aren't even aware of.
The Anchoring Effect: Why the Brain Wants More Comparisons
What many managers call thoroughness or responsible "testing of the market," psychology knows as the anchoring effect.
When you meet a candidate early in the process who covers most of what you are looking for, your brain unconsciously sets them as a benchmark.
From that moment on, the selection process changes.
You no longer evaluate new candidates purely based on the requirements of the position.
You begin comparing them to that single person.
"This one has more experience, but the first candidate communicated better."
"This one knows Kubernetes better, but the first candidate fit into the team much better."
The paradox is that subsequent interviews often don't serve to find a better candidate.
They serve to confirm that the first one was actually the best.
In other words, you aren't increasing the quality of your decision.
You are just increasing the number of comparisons.
When Waiting Makes Sense, and When It Becomes a Mistake
There is a big difference between these two situations.
The first is when you aren't sure.
The candidate meets most criteria, but there are serious doubts about their experience, working style, or team fit.
In that case, continuing the process makes sense.
The second situation is much more dangerous.
You know the candidate is a fit.
You know you would, in all likelihood, extend an offer.
Yet you still decide to continue interviews just to be "100% sure."
In my experience, this is precisely when companies most often lose the best candidate.
Is there someone better on the market?
There probably is.
But they might not be the best fit for your product.
They might not be the best fit for your team.
And maybe you aren't the best company for them either.
Hiring is never about finding the single best candidate on the market.
It is about finding the best mutual match.
While You Wait, the Candidate Is Drawing Conclusions About You
Most companies think the candidate is waiting for their decision.
In reality, the candidate is deciding on the company during that time.
Every delay, postponed interview, or multi-week wait sends a specific message.
The candidate isn't evaluating just the offer.
They are evaluating the way the organisation makes decisions.
If the process drags on without a clear reason, they very often conclude:
- that the company isn't sure what it wants,
- that decision-making is slow, that management/administration isn't efficient,
- that day-to-day work will likely look similar.
This is especially true for senior candidates.
To them, an interview isn't just an assessment of their knowledge.
It's an opportunity to evaluate how the company they're considering joining operates.
Even when they don't have another offer, it isn't uncommon for them to drop out simply because of the experience they had during the hiring process.
The Best Candidates Rarely Wait Long
One of the biggest misconceptions in IT hiring is that a top candidate will still be available whenever you finish your process.
In the vast majority of cases, they won't.
High-quality professionals are very often having multiple conversations in parallel.
A company that makes a decision quickly sends several important messages:
- we know what we're looking for,
- we respect your time,
- we are efficient,
- we are confident in our decision.
This doesn't just leave a good impression on the candidate.
It also increases the likelihood that they will accept your offer over others.
How to Avoid This Psychological Trap
There are a few simple rules that can significantly reduce the risk of losing top-quality candidates:
- Recognize when you've already made a decision.
If you are already sure you want the candidate, don't extend the process to justify procedure.
- Separate certainty from delay.
More interviews don't automatically mean a better decision. Sometimes they mean more comparisons.
- Define an internal deadline.
If the candidate meets the criteria and all key decision-makers agree, decide within 48 to 72 hours.
- Look at the process from the candidate's perspective.
Every step of your hiring process says something about what working at your company is like.
Ask yourself:
"If I were the candidate, would I want to work here after experiencing this process?"
Conclusion
In IT hiring, the biggest problem often isn't that you haven't found a good candidate.
Much more frequently, the problem is that you found them, but failed to decide in time.
The best candidates rarely leave because they found a more perfect company.
They much more often go where they felt clarity, decisiveness, and respect for their time.
So next time you hear in a meeting:
"Let's wait for two or three more candidates."
pause and ask yourself one question:
Are we really still looking for a better candidate, or are we just trying to delay a decision we've already made?