A commercial real estate firm in Toronto spent 13 weeks trying to fill a mid-level asset management role.

By the sixth week, their top candidate had already accepted another offer. By the ninth week, their second choice did the same. In the end, the firm hired their third pick — a solid hire, but not the one they wanted most. 

The human resources team followed the established process, yet that is part of the issue: outdated procedures are slowing progress.

Most hiring in Canada, including in commercial real estate and development, still relies on traditional methods. Companies often conduct lengthy interview processes, use generic job descriptions and make decisions based on intuition or existing relationships.

While this approach once sufficed when candidates had limited choices, the landscape has changed.

The job description problem

A review of job postings for asset management directors reveals near-identical requirements: "8+ years of experience", "strong communication skills", "team player." These descriptions are rarely tailored to attract the best person for the role and often recycle language from earlier postings.

This pattern fails to encourage fresh thinking and instead perpetuates the status quo. Organizations that articulate the real challenges a new hire will face over the next 18 months distinguish themselves, as such clarity remains uncommon.

Assumptive thinking and the comfort lens 

Most hiring managers assert they hire based on merit. However, if asked to assess their last five hires on attributes such as likeability, comfort level and perceived fit, the results would likely mirror their ratings for comfort.

This is a classic example of assumptive thinking: believing someone from a familiar background is qualified simply because they remind us of past successes and seeing unfamiliar profiles as a risk.

When comfort becomes a deciding factor, unconscious bias can slip in, even when no one intends it. Rather than asking, ‘Would I enjoy working with this person?’ the better question is, ‘Can this candidate help us evolve as a team?’

It’s important to look for resilience, adaptability and a genuine desire to learn, especially since the demands of a role can change quickly.

These qualities rarely appear on standard hiring scorecards. Many companies continue to evaluate candidates based on stereotypes of role requirements, rather than prioritizing critical thinking and adaptability.

According to Opportunity@Work, over 70 million U.S. workers are "Skilled Through Alternative Routes" — qualified individuals who are often overlooked due to nontraditional credentials. The real estate sector similarly tends to value pedigree over substantive assessment.

The predictability problem

Another challenge is the limited scope of talent sourcing. Most candidates are drawn from a narrow pool of universities, feeder firms and established recruiter networks.

The rationale of "we've always hired this way" reflects habit rather than strategy. Jobvite's Recruiter Nation surveys indicate that referrals account for approximately a third of external hires, despite representing a minority of applicants.

While efficient, this approach perpetuates homogeneity in hiring outcomes.

The cost of slow

Moving quickly is now just as important as offering a competitive salary. Top candidates are rarely in just one interview process; they’re fielding several offers at once. The employers who act decisively and extend clear offers are the ones who attract and secure the best people.

Gallup's 2026 State of the Global Workplace report found that global engagement dropped to 20 per cent in 2025, the lowest since 2020.  This has cost the world economy about $10 trillion in lost productivity.

The same report shows that job market optimism in the U.S. and Canada has dropped 23 points since 2019, from 70 per cent to 47 per cent, now ranking second-to-last among all regions Gallup tracks.

The best candidates take jobs elsewhere, while firms call their process thorough. Eventually, word spreads and top talent stops applying.

The provocative question

The question worth sitting with: are we selecting the best candidates, or the safest ones?

Much of what is described as "rigorous" hiring — such as lengthy interview cycles, an emphasis on referrals, and a preference for candidates resembling previous hires — is actually risk aversion presented as diligence.

Hiring familiar profiles is rarely questioned, whereas endorsing a nontraditional candidate entails perceived risk. As a result, the system defaults to safety while labelling it thoroughness.

Modernizing the playbook

None of these changes mean replacing human judgment with algorithms, or relying on blind resume screening. Removing names from resumes only addresses a symptom, not the real problem.

It doesn't show if someone can actually do the job, and it doesn't fix a talent pipeline that was never diverse or capable in the first place.

Companies should rethink how they measure candidates and whom they compare them to. Putting greater weight on competencies and potential, rather than relying solely on background, mirrored experience or previous titles, makes it easier to match people to what the job actually requires.

Building professional networks based on demonstrated value, rather than personal relationships, is key. The central question should be: "Who has delivered meaningful results elsewhere?"

Not long ago, a mid-sized real estate investment firm with a few billion dollars in assets faced this problem: high turnover, low engagement and a pattern of hiring people who only looked good on paper.

The leadership team went back to the company's core values and changed their hiring approach.

They started looking for people who could add real value, not just fit in or deliver quick results. Turnover dropped. Engagement improved. The jobs stayed the same, but the expectations changed.

None of this is exotic. Tech and professional services firms have used pieces of this playbook for years, largely because they compete in markets unforgiving enough to punish anyone who doesn't.

Commercial real estate has had the luxury of moving slower and hiring for comfort. That luxury is running out. Update the playbook now, or keep calling the process thorough while the best people accept offers somewhere else.

The closing move is a simple choice: modernize now or risk losing your best people who are ready to move on.