A bilingual search can stall even when suitable candidates exist. Unclear requirements, repeated interviews and slow decisions all add time. Improve the steps you control before assuming the answer is more applications.
Measure the stages separately
Choose a consistent definition for your metrics. For this review, use “time to fill” for approved vacancy to accepted offer, and “candidate time to hire” for a candidate entering your process to accepting. Other organisations may define them differently, so document yours before comparing results.
Track the time spent waiting between stages as well as the time spent assessing. A one-hour interview followed by a week without feedback creates a different problem from a genuinely complex technical assessment.
Find the delay that is actually occurring
| What you observe | What to check | Useful action |
|---|---|---|
| Many applicants, few relevant profiles. | Role clarity, compensation and language-task description. | Revise the brief before increasing advertising. |
| Good candidates wait for an interview. | Calendar availability and decision ownership. | Reserve interview slots before launching. |
| Panels repeat the same questions. | What each stage is meant to establish. | Assign a distinct purpose to each stage. |
| Offers are declined late. | When pay, location and schedule were discussed. | Clarify practical fit earlier. |
Agree a process your team can execute
Before sourcing, confirm the budget, essential competencies, language tasks and final decision-maker. Reserve screening and interview capacity. Decide who communicates with candidates and what happens when an assessor is unavailable.
A planning example is to review new screened candidates twice a week, collect interviewer feedback the same day and hold a short decision meeting within two working days of the final assessment. These are internal service targets to consider—not market benchmarks or promises of a completed hire.
When a requirement changes, record the change and reconsider the affected applicants. Quietly changing the criteria midway can make the process slower and less consistent.
Move useful screening earlier
A short, relevant bilingual work sample can help identify a major mismatch before several managers spend time interviewing. Keep the exercise proportionate and explain its purpose. Early screening is useful when it answers a real question; an extra test that nobody uses only adds friction.
Do not remove necessary checks simply to improve a speed metric. A faster offer is not a better outcome if the candidate misunderstood the schedule or the team never assessed a critical competency.
Keep candidates informed
Tell applicants what the next step is and when they can expect an update. If the timetable changes, say so. In Ontario, applicable 2026 public job-posting rules require covered employers to inform interviewed applicants whether a hiring decision has been made within the prescribed 45-day period. This is a legal outer requirement for covered situations, not a recommended communication target. Review the regulation and its scope.
After the search, review where time was lost and why candidates declined. Separate sourcing difficulty from internal waiting time so the next search improves the right problem.
Give your managers a more useful starting point
MS2’s bilingual and role-specific screening is designed to bring relevant competency information into the shortlist. Compared with sending every résumé directly to a hiring manager, that can reduce repeated early screening work. Actual timing still depends on the role, market, availability and your decisions; no universal speed advantage is promised.
Published · 3 min read
