When a role gets signed off, it rarely arrives with calm planning. It usually lands on the desk of a talent acquisition team with the message that the person was needed yesterday. Headcount approvals have been debated, budgets stretched, and leaders are already feeling the gap. By the time the requisition is released, urgency is of the utmost priority. Everyone hopes to reduce the time to hire.  

So recruiters respond in kind. Shortlists are pulled together at speed. For an urgent contract, that can be within 24-48 hours. But while the first stage moves quickly, the momentum often fades once CVs are submitted. CV reviews can drag on, interview panels can’t find time, and in the worst cases, feedback can take weeks. By the time the internal wheels turn, the best candidates have already moved on.  

According to recent research, the average time to hire for permanent employees in Australia is now 44 days. That’s an all-time high and one of the slowest turnaround times we’ve seen in years. In sectors like energy and defence, the cycle can stretch up to 67 days .   

Contracting should, in theory, be faster. Organisations turn to contractors because they need skills quickly. But contracting processes are tending to mirror permanent hiring, with the same approval chains, scheduling delays, and compliance bottlenecks. The result is that contractors, who are often available immediately, go on to other roles while organisations are still waiting for final sign-off.  

“Speed is the difference between hiring the best and missing out,” says Liz Frank , Launch’s Melbourne recruitment consultant specialising in government recruitment. “Good candidates don’t wait around.”  

Recruitment is more competitive than it may appear. Even in the current market, which is flooded with applicants, where roles can attract hundreds for a single posting, the strongest people are always sought after. They’re never on the market for long. They either accept offers quickly, by employers who recognise they will be in demand, or they’re approached directly by other employers.  

While it’s understandable and often unavoidable to have thorough processes and a level of internal red tape, delays in approvals and scheduling risk sending a message that an organisation is indecisive or unorganised. Candidates interpret silence as disinterest, and many will walk away. Research shows 70% of job seekers say they would ghost a company if the process took too long.  

This is true for both permanent and contract candidates. But in the case of contractors, it’s more likely they will already be in their next role while ignoring old, delayed responses. Companies need to reduce the time to hire without losing the structure and rigour that the process requires.   

“It doesn’t give the end client a good reputation when delays mean candidates drop out,” Liz explains. “We can’t keep telling candidates ‘we’ve not heard anything back yet’ without it leaving a sour taste.”  

Across both permanent and contracting recruitment, there are predictable pinch points that slow the process. In government and other regulated environments, these challenges are amplified by the number of stakeholders involved.  

One is the review of CVs: Strong candidates can be submitted quickly, but when diaries are full and approvals take more time than necessary (due to internal coordination lags rather than genuine due diligence), the days add up and momentum is lost. Even short delays can mean the difference between securing a preferred candidate and seeing them go somewhere else.   

Interview scheduling is another: Initial interviews, often conducted in a panel format, are difficult to align, especially when senior managers are involved. When time is not reserved in advance, interviews are confirmed at the last minute. For candidates already in demanding roles, short-notice scheduling can be inconsiderate and challenging to turn around, forcing them to juggle work commitments or decline altogether.  

Finally, feedback can be slower than expected. Even after interviews, Liz commonly sees one or two weeks pass before the next steps are confirmed. That pace can be manageable for permanent hires who are invested in a long-term career move, but contractors rarely have the luxury of waiting. They can’t hold on and hope for the best; they have to accept another project.  

The good news is that because these pinch points are predictable, they can also be planned for. With small adjustments to internal efficiencies, it’s possible to reduce time to hire without compromising on process.  

The delays we see most often are recurring gaps in coordination and planning. Because they’re predictable, they can be addressed with straightforward changes that save days, sometimes weeks, off the process.  

Liz notes that CVs can be submitted within 24–48 hours, yet approvals often wait on already full diaries. That lost time is often not due to poor process; it’s the pauses in between the steps. Interviews and approvals face the same issue: organisations want immediate turnaround, but the time needed to review, meet, and decide hasn’t been reserved in advance. When calendars are already full, the process stalls, even though speed was the original priority.  

Here’s a breakdown of the common friction points, their impact, and how to close the gaps:

Set service-level agreements (SLAs) for each stage of recruitment so responsibility is clear and delays don’t creep in.  

The role of internal talent acquisition is not an easy one. We don’t envy the masterful juggle it takes to keep multiple stakeholders aligned while moving candidates through a process that is often complex and highly visible. Every organisation has competing priorities, shifting diaries, and approval chains that can’t always be simplified.  

But what can be controlled is how predictable pinch points are handled. Protecting time for CV reviews, interview panels, and approvals in advance reduces the time to hire and shows candidates that the organisation is organised, respectful, and decisive. That reputation is just as important as filling a role.  

Permanent hires will remember how efficient or frustrating their experience was, and contractors will make choices based on which clients can move quickly. In both cases, speed is a differentiator.  

By planning ahead, setting SLAs, and holding stakeholders accountable, organisations can move from reactive urgency to a repeatable rhythm. And in a market where the best candidates disappear fast, that rhythm is often the difference between securing first choice and settling for second best.  

If you’d like to explore how to streamline your hiring process and secure the strongest candidates, get in touch with Liz Frank or the team at Launch.