
Recruitment’s dirty little secret isn’t ghosting—it’s erosion. Not of employer brand awareness. That’s table stakes.
If you’re leading Talent Acquisition or employer brand right now, here’s what should give you pause: data presented at SIOP 2025 confirms what a lot of us have long suspected but couldn’t quantify until now.
What we’re talking about is the slow, silent erosion of candidate confidence—and it’s happening during your assessment phase. Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) 2025 brought receipts—and it’s time we stop designing experiences that undermine the very people we’re trying to attract.

“Candidate experience is the key driver of satisfaction—and far outweighs demographics or personality traits when it comes to NPS.” (Goyal, S. @ SIOP 2025)
Let's talk data:
-According to the Mercer and Aon panelists in this morning's symposium session, only 4% of Net Promoter Score (NPS) variance is explained by demographics and personality.
-A whopping 41% of NPS variance can be predicted by applicant reactions to assessments—things like clarity, ease of use, and whether the assessment was engaging.
- The top predictor of high NPS wasn’t age, gender, or personality—it was whether a candidate walked away feeling good about you. Let that sink in.
So, what’s driving erosion?
It’s not just the obvious culprits like clunky UX or radio silence post-assessment. It’s the message beneath the experience that does the most damage. Candidates are picking up on every signal—intentional or not—and making assumptions about how your organisation values them based on the experience you deliver. Assessments that feel like a black box? That signals a lack of transparency. Overly clinical language and rigid structures? That says you’re optimising for control, not connection. And here’s the twist: the push for shorter, snappier assessments in the name of efficiency? That might actually be backfiring.
Data presented at SIOP 2025 revealed that the highest Net Promoter Scores (NPS) came from assessments lasting 45 to 61 minutes—not the shortest ones. Not the hyper-optimised, minimalist versions many of us have been led to believe are candidate-friendly. The longer assessments correlated with higher satisfaction, likely because they signalled that the company took the process, and by extension the candidate, seriously.
This runs counter to the popular narrative that attention spans are shrinking and assessments need to be quick to be effective. But maybe the problem isn't the length. Maybe it’s that short assessments often feel superficial. And when something feels superficial, it risks being perceived as a waste of time—or worse, a hollow checkbox exercise.

Gamified and situational judgement tests drove higher NPS, while traditional questionnaires dragged it down. (Shake, J. @ SIOP 2025)
In the end, it’s not just about how long an assessment takes. It’s about whether it communicates respect, relevance, and a sense that this process is designed for the candidate—not just to filter them out.

Turns out the sweet spot for candidate satisfaction isn’t ‘as short as possible’—it’s ‘as structured and meaningful as necessary. *Note: zoom in on the adjusted R²! (Shake, J. @ SIOP 2025)
Sedine volum
As a reminder: NPS isn’t just a satisfaction metric. It’s an advocacy metric. And if your assessments are tanking that score, you're not just losing applicants—you’re bleeding employer brand credibility.

Gender, age, region—collectively explain just 3% of NPS variance. The rest? That’s on us.
Here's what the data from SIOP tells us to do differently:
Design for ease. "Easy to navigate" and "clear instructions" significantly increase NPS—across the board.
Make it engaging. Engagement is one of the strongest predictors of whether someone walks away wanting to work for you—or warning others away.
Give candidates the benefit of the doubt. “Trying hard” negatively correlates with NPS in some studies, suggesting candidates feel punished for effort. That’s a signal, not noise.
Respect their time and their intelligence. The highest NPS was found in assessments lasting 45–61 minutes—not shorter, not longer. Just well-calibrated.
Final thought:
Candidates aren’t just completing your assessments. They’re collecting evidence about who you are. Every click, delay, and vague instruction tells them whether they’ll belong—and whether it’s worth it.
So I’ll leave you with this: Are your assessments building candidate confidence—or breaking your employer brand behind the scenes?
Because confidence is contagious—but so is doubt.
Related Posts









