September 7, 2026

Tiny Signals, Big Hiring Mistakes

Last week I read a Sky News story that stopped me in my tracks. A newborn baby’s tiny nail infection led doctors to investigate further, only to uncover an aggressive brain tumour. It is a heartbreaking reminder that sometimes the small symptom is not the problem. It is the clue. Source: Sky News, 'Newborn baby's nail infection led to brain tumour diagnosis' https://news.sky.com/story/newborn-babys-nail-infection-led-to-brain-tumour-diagnosis-13582341

Now, before anyone accuses me of comparing recruitment to paediatric oncology, let’s all breathe. I am not saying hiring is life and death. I am saying this: in business, tiny signals often reveal much bigger issues.

And too many leaders miss them.

A candidate drops out late. A hiring manager cannot explain what good looks like. An interview panel disagrees wildly. A role sits open for five months while everyone shrugs and says, 'Tough market'.

No. Not always.

Sometimes that 'tiny infection' in your hiring process is actually a warning light for something much bigger: confused leadership, weak succession planning, poor employer positioning, or a business trying to hire before it has decided who it wants to be.

Small hiring issues are rarely small

One of the biggest myths in recruitment is that hiring problems are isolated.

They are not.

If you cannot attract strong infrastructure engineers, it may not be because there is a shortage. It may be because your process is too slow, your package is fuzzy, your scope is vague, or your story is about as compelling as damp toast.

If your BI or data candidates keep stalling, it may not be because they are flaky. It may be because they can smell internal confusion from three interview stages away.

Good candidates are brilliant at pattern recognition. Frankly, they have to be. Their career is on the line. So when they spot signs of indecision, politics, or role ambiguity, they do not wait around for episode two.

They exit.

The missed hire is the symptom. The real issue usually sits upstream.

What the best leaders do differently

The strongest founders and hiring leaders I work with do one thing brilliantly. They treat friction as data.

They do not wave away awkward signals. They get curious about them.

If a candidate asks hard questions about strategy, they do not get defensive. They realise the question matters.

If every shortlisted cyber candidate wants clarity on reporting lines, they do not blame the market. They clean up the structure.

If interview feedback sounds inconsistent, they do not just push harder. They align the panel.

This is where average hiring teams lose to great ones. Great teams investigate the signal, not just the symptom.

That takes humility. It also takes speed.

Because here is the awkward truth: the market does not care how nice your intentions are. If your process is messy, the best people will politely ghost you and go somewhere more coherent.

And honestly, can you blame them?

The nail infection test

Here is a simple framework I use with clients. I call it the nail infection test.

When something small goes wrong in hiring, ask: is this the issue, or is this evidence of a deeper one?

Run through these four lenses.

Clarity

Does everyone actually understand the role?

• What outcomes will this person own in 12 months?
• What does great look like by month six?
• What is genuinely non-negotiable versus merely nice to have?

If those answers are fuzzy, you do not have a sourcing problem. You have a leadership clarity problem.

Credibility

Does your hiring story stand up to scrutiny?

• Can you explain why this role matters now?
• Can you articulate the business case clearly?
• Can candidates see evidence that your leadership team backs the hire?

Candidates are not buying a job spec. They are buying your seriousness.

Consistency

Is the process aligned, or are people freelancing?

• Are interviewers assessing against the same criteria?
• Is feedback structured or vibes-based?
• Does each stage have a clear purpose?

If one interviewer wants a builder, another wants a strategist, and a third wants a magician who can somehow lower cloud costs and improve culture by Friday, that is not rigorous hiring. That is chaos in business casual.

Speed

How much drag is built into your decision-making?

• How long does it take to move from first interview to offer?
• Where do approvals get stuck?
• How often do top candidates disappear mid-process?

Slow hiring is not always a resourcing issue. Often it is an organisational confidence issue dressed up as prudence.

What tiny signals tend to reveal

Over the years, I have seen small recruitment issues point to much larger business realities.

Here are a few of the classics.

'We are not seeing the right calibre'

Translation: the market is unconvinced by your brief, your package, or both.

'Candidates are dropping out after interview two'

Translation: somewhere in your process, the excitement falls off a cliff.

'We keep changing the spec'

Translation: leadership is still debating the problem, but trying to hire the solution anyway.

'No one we meet feels quite right'

Translation: either the bar is unclear, the process is biased toward caution, or the business wants a unicorn on a Labrador budget.

That last one is especially popular.

Questions leaders should ask right now

If you are hiring in tech, data, infrastructure, BI or cyber, ask yourself this before launching the next search:

• What repeated friction are we normalising?
• Where are strong candidates losing confidence in us?
• What part of our hiring process would an outsider find confusing?
• Are we solving a skills gap, or exposing a leadership gap?
• What signals have we ignored because they felt inconvenient?

These are not fluffy workshop questions. These are commercial questions.

Every delayed hire has a cost. Every muddled process has a cost. Every bad hire has a cost that likes to linger around the office long after everyone has stopped making eye contact about it.

Actionable moves that actually help

If this is landing a bit too close to home, good. That means there is something useful here.

Here are a few practical fixes.

Tighten the brief before you go to market

Not just the job description. The actual brief.

Define success, decision rights, business context, and the trade-offs you are willing to make.

Audit your candidate journey

Mystery-shop your own process.

Ask:

• Where does momentum build?
• Where does it sag?
• Where are we asking candidates to invest without giving much back?

Standardise interviewer scorecards

If feedback is subjective waffle, your process is running on personality rather than evidence.

Get clear on what each interviewer is testing and how success is measured.

Treat dropouts as intelligence

Do not just write them off.

Look for patterns in why people decline, stall or withdraw. Patterns are where the truth lives.

Bring in an external perspective

Sometimes you are simply too close to your own business to spot the issue. That is where a good recruiter earns their keep, not by firing CVs into the void, but by diagnosing what the market is telling you.

Yes, subtle plug. But also true.

The real lesson

The Sky News story is powerful because it captures a hard truth. The small thing you can see is not always the big thing you need to solve.

In hiring, leaders often fixate on the visible symptom. Not enough candidates. Late-stage dropouts. Offer rejections. Hard-to-fill roles.

But the best hiring outcomes come when you look beneath the surface.

Because sometimes the problem is not the role.

It is the story around the role.

Sometimes it is not candidate scarcity.

It is decision-making sludge.

Sometimes it is not bad luck.

It is a signal you have ignored for too long.

If a tiny warning sign keeps showing up in your hiring process, do not dismiss it as noise. Investigate it properly. That little clue might be pointing to the thing that is quietly sabotaging your growth.

And if you want someone to help you spot it before it turns into a much bigger mess, you know where I am.

Back to news