At candidate.fyi, our team put in over two weeks of work to analyze recruiting coordinator’s workload, our customer data, and even interview recruiting operations experts in the industry. The result was the Recruiting Coordination Wrapped 2025, a report based on 257,000+ coordination data points from the past year. It captures something enterprise talent teams feel every day: scheduling capacity is becoming a hard ceiling, and volume keeps pushing upward.
If you want the full dataset and breakdown, download the report here.
This post expands on one headline finding: when recruiting coordinators use an AI scheduling agent, they can coordinate about 153 interviews per week per coordinator, which is roughly 4× what many teams consider normal output.
That number matters because it changes the operating model. It is no longer realistic to “hire more coordinators” as the primary plan when the system itself keeps generating more manual work.
Further, the data puts a spotlight on a key point that teams are finding difficult to quantify: is AI actually resulting on a return on my investment?
Summary
In our Recruiting Coordination Wrapped 2025 dataset, recruiting coordinators using the fyi AI agent averaged about 153 interviews scheduled per week, per coordinator, counting new candidates across screens, on-sites, and panels.
That level of throughput is what happens when automated interview scheduling absorbs the repetitive actions that normally create drag, such as confirmations, reminders, conflict checks, time zone fixes, and closing the loop when people do not respond.
In the same way that self-serve booking changed sales calendars, an interview scheduler that can execute coordination work changes the throughput of talent teams, especially in high-volume environments.
Why are recruiting coordinators hitting a scheduling ceiling right now?
Enterprise teams are running into a simple constraint: coordination capacity scales linearly with humans, while hiring volume and complexity do not.
A single coordinator can schedule a surprising amount when everything behaves. The problem is that interviewing is not a clean calendar math exercise. People decline invites late. Hiring managers accept a meeting and then realize they are double booked. Candidates respond after a long shift, then ask to change their window. That’s not all.
Industry practitioners describe the baseline reality clearly. Geva Whyte, a recruiting coordinator who has worked at Lyft, Stripe, OpenAI, and Google Fiber, said coordinators “might schedule anywhere from 20 to 40 interviews a week,” and that juggling multiple calendars to find overlaps is one of the most tedious parts of the job.
What the scheduling ceiling looks like inside enterprise hiring teams
When coordination volume rises, the first symptom is a “poor” candidate experience rating. Candidates wait longer between steps because coordinators are managing too many parallel loops.
Our report teases one example that makes the friction visible: manual availability collection takes about 243 minutes in many workflows. That number is not “three hours of work in one sitting.” It is three hours of cumulative back and forth, context switching, and waiting for humans to respond.
Another example shows how the system breaks at the exact moment it needs to be most stable. After analyzing our customers’ workflows, we found the time it takes for interviewers to decline invites can sit around 68 hours, and with AI assistance it drops closer to 21 hours. When declines surface faster, schedules stay intact and candidates receive clearer next steps sooner.
This is the hidden reason scheduling becomes a credibility problem. Candidates do not experience “time to schedule” as an operations metric, they experience it as silence in a very stressful job market.
Unlock the Future of Recruiting— Book a Demo Today!
How automated interview scheduling changes throughput without adding headcount
The interesting part of the 153 interviews per week result is not the number itself.
Throughput increases when the system removes the micro delays that compound across every interview loop. In manual scheduling, each step waits for a person. Even when everyone is cooperative, the workflow pauses repeatedly, and those pauses stack.
An interview scheduling software layer that can execute coordination tasks shrinks those pauses because it does not need to wait for a coordinator to notice, decide, and send the next message.
That does not mean “AI runs wild.” We know that AI can hallucinate, so we build our own AI agent, fyi, to have autonomous execution paired with human approval steps and escalation rules.
The power of AI taking admin work off a coordinator’s plate (and why it adds up)
A good way to think about coordination work is as a pile of small actions that are easy individually and heavy in aggregate.
Confirming times sounds trivial until you do it across dozens of candidates each week, across multiple time zones, across interviewers with shifting calendars.
In our own research, the work split is measurable:
- AI agent: 46% of actions
- Candidates: 26% of actions
- Coordinators: 28% of actions
That distribution is the heart of the “4×” throughput story. Nearly half of the coordination pressure moves into automation, a meaningful chunk moves into candidate self-service, and coordinators retain control over the work that actually benefits from human judgment.
The predicted recruiting engineer role
During the building of the Recruiting Coordination Wrapped report, we interviewed a notable expert in the industry, Jeremy Lyons, a recruiting operations consultant.
When asked how AI will benefit hiring teams in 2026 and beyond, he said:
“We’re going to see new roles emerge, including this recruiting engineer concept, where highly technical people sit inside recruiting operations. They are not traditional software engineers, but the tools and knowledge have become democratized enough that teams can build and configure their own systems.”
When coordinators are no longer buried in admin, the work naturally moves up the stack.
What this means for candidate experience and hiring outcomes
Greenhouse has been writing publicly about the reality that recruiters are being hit with more volume per role. They reported that in Q1 2024 their customers averaged 222 applications per job opening, which they described as almost three times as many as at the end of 2021.
So, with 62% of HR teams operating beyond capacity and application volumes up 32%, you cannot hire enough coordinators to solve the problem.
When volume rises and capacity stays flat, candidate experience degrades in predictable ways. This is where automated interview scheduling connects directly to candidate engagement. Shorter gaps between steps and fewer “silent” delays reduce the moments when candidates accept another offer or disengage.
What talent teams should expect next as volume keeps rising
If there is a single takeaway from the Recruiting Coordination Wrapped report, it is that coordination is becoming an engineering problem.
Teams will keep tracking time to schedule and time to interview, but the winning teams will also start treating coordination capacity as a core operational metric, because it controls everything downstream. If you cannot move fast enough to keep candidates engaged, you will lose candidates, regardless of how good your brand is.
The operational playbook is likely to converge on three moves:
First, teams will adopt interview scheduling software that can execute the repetitive coordination work with governance, rather than dumping that work onto coordinators and expecting heroics.
Second, teams will make candidate communication feel structured and visible, typically through a candidate experience platform that centralizes the journey so candidates always know what is happening.
Third, recruiting operations will look more like system design. That is where the recruiting engineer role becomes real, because someone has to shape the workflow, maintain the rules, and continuously improve it.
If you want the full dataset behind these numbers, plus the breakdown on availability collection time, interviewer declines, and the coordination action split across AI, download the full report here.
Question & Summary
How many interviews can a recruiting coordinator schedule per week?
In many enterprise teams, a typical range is about 20 to 40 interviews per week, depending on role complexity and interview stages. In our dataset, recruiting coordinators using an AI scheduling agent scheduled about 153 interviews per week on average, because far more of the coordination work was automated.
What is automated interview scheduling, and how is it different from a booking link?
Automated interview scheduling goes beyond letting candidates pick a time. It handles the coordination work that creates delays, such as confirmations, reminders, time zone adjustments, conflict checks, reschedules, and closing the loop when people do not respond. A booking link can offer times, but it typically cannot manage enterprise-level exceptions and follow-through.
What tasks can an AI interview scheduler automate for recruiting coordinators?
An AI interview scheduler can automate high-frequency coordination actions, including confirming interview times, sending reminders, chasing missing confirmations, checking availability, detecting conflicts, handling time zone adjustments, syncing updates to the ATS, sending follow-up instructions, and tracking responses so scheduling does not stall.
How does an AI scheduling agent help teams scale high-volume hiring without hiring more coordinators?
Scaling by headcount is difficult when application volume grows faster than coordinator capacity. When an AI agent performs a large share of the coordination actions, coordinators spend less time on repetitive admin and can manage more interviews in parallel. That is how teams move from a baseline of a few dozen interviews per week per coordinator toward triple-digit throughput.
How does automated interview scheduling improve candidate experience?
Candidate experience improves when the process stays clear and responsive. Faster confirmations, fewer reschedule loops, and quicker recovery when calendars change reduce the silence that makes candidates disengage. Over time, shorter time to schedule and tighter follow-through after interviews lead to fewer drop-offs and a hiring process that feels organized to candidates.
