How humane is your recruitment process from the candidate’s perspective?
Caveats
It is true that this post is not about either web strategy or online learning, but I’ve recently heard the sad tale of a friend’s quest to find new employment, and memories of my own experiences with the recruitment process from both sides of the table rose to the surface in sympathy. I feel compelled to speak out (at some length). Let me say up front that most of the egregious sins against the candidate that I have experienced or know about personally have been perpetrated by universities, but I know such problems exist across all sectors.
1. Reasonable applications
Every organisation seems to have its own quirky application that’s just different enough to make it difficult for an applicant to fill it in easily. Too many orgs are suspicious about allowing applicants to use the resumes or CVs that they have spent so much time crafting to display their strengths. At best, they are required to supplement their CV with the application, which asks for the same information all over again.
Is this suspicion designed to circumvent any spin that might be contained in the CV and show the applicant’s true colours? Generally, no. It is designed to make sure the information fits into the software or database the org uses and present an easily digestible way to compare candidates.
In addition, too many orgs are still requiring hand-written applications either to make sure the candidate is literate and weed out plagiarism, or because they can’t be asked to computerise their recruitment system. Both of these reasons are bad ones and point to questionable business practices and attitudes.
Ideally, an org will let a candidate use his or her own CV and have a short supplement for any additional information they need to collect. However, if orgs will insist on making candidates fill in idiosyncratic forms, make sure applicants can copy and paste from their own CVs, submit online AND save a copy of the application locally.
2. Acknowledgement and regular updates
It should go without saying that a polite organisation will acknowledge every application received immediately upon receipt and provide regular updates about the recruitment timetable to everyone who has taken the trouble to apply. Applicants should be told in a timely manner about deadlines and movements from one stage to another in the process. Being left hanging without even knowing for certain that the application has been received is an unnecessary stress on candidates and can lead to them ringing the HR team in large numbers to find out what’s going on. If this happens, the irritation the harrassed HR officer feels should be aimed directly at the faulty system his or her own org has in place.
If a job announcement results in an unexpected and overwhelming number of applications that need to be read by the recruitment team, the reason will be one of the following:
- the advert wasn’t specific enough to the actual post on offer (org’s fault)
- the org has recently become popular and lots of people want to work there (a good thing)
- appropriate first-cull processes are not in place (org’s fault)
- we’re in a period of high unemployment or other external factor (no one’s fault)
Regardless, everyone deserves an acknowledgement, even an automated one as long as it verifies whether the application has been received in good order.
3. Thoughtful shortlisting and longlisting
Once the initial cull has weeded out candidates who clearly don’t fit the post for whatever (legitimate) reason, the recruitment committee — containing all the members of the interview team — needs to pick the short list (or, in the case of a major or competitive hire) a long list and then a short list. The long list includes the best candidates and others who are acceptable if the whole short list ends up out of contention after interviews.
This listing is a private process, of course, but the issue for the candidates is how long they are to be left hanging before they know whether they have a chance. Of course the shortlist will know right away as they will be invited to interview, but those on the long list are usually left with no idea. I would advocate a certain level of transparency — the long listers should be told they’ve made the first cut and may still be called for interview, and the organisation should ask for patience. This is very encouraging for the candidates and won’t endanger the process.
If there’s a delay while the chosen candidate is negotiating or deciding whether to accept the offer, short-listers who are still in contention should be told that’s what’s happening. This will keep their expectations realistic and show your consideration.
4. Humane and knowledgeable interviewing
In my experience, except for certain university practices, most interview teams do try to be humane while they’re interrogating nervous candidates. It takes a particularly callous person with no memory to be unmoved by trembling, sweating, stammering people so desirous of working with you that they’re willing to forego their dignity for the chance. No matter how much you smile patiently, pour glasses of water and ask easy ice-breaker questions, you will never overcome most candidates’ nerves. The best thing you can do as an interviewer is be pleasant, efficient and — above all — ask well-worded and relevant questions and really listen to the answers.
We all know that candidates should rehearse and prepare ahead of time, but it’s also important for interview teams to keep to a carefully prepared plan and list of questions, choose ahead of time who will ask which questions and decide what they will do if certain things happen (a fire drill comes to mind in the middle of one of my own interviews). Too often, interviews are slapdash: how they think they’ll find the right employee with ill-conceived and unorganised questions is beyond me.
Some orgs run personality tests, which I think are dubious at best, as they’re time-consuming, unreliable and most candidates will be too nervous to concentrate or will do their level best to answer only what they think the org wants to hear anyway.
It may be specific to academia, but there’s a style of interviewing that’s designed to throw candidates off-balance to see how they’ll react, whether through hostile attitudes and questions, uncomfortable environment (hotel room with interviewers sitting on the bed) or by having the whole short-list spend the interview day together, competing for the attention of the interview team. Needless to say, I think these practices are unethical and sadistic.
Lastly, candidates should have some say in the timing of their interview. Granted, scheduling is a big headache, but once the day(s) for interviews has been set, show some consideration for those who have tricky travel arrangements and don’t penalise them for daring to ask for a different time. Short-listed candidates should also have all reasonable travel expenses reimbursed by the org.
5. Sensitive, constructive and timely rejection
One of the biggest and most common failings in the interview process is the way unsuccessful candidates are rejected. Many orgs leave notification of rejection to HR, who treat it as a tedious afterthought, whereas it is absolutely critical to the candidate’s sense of self-worth. A people-centred org will have a considerate process and policies about handling this unpleasant but necessary task.
One of the worst things an org can do is to put a notice in the advert ahead of time saying that if the applicant hears nothing by such-and-such a date, to assume they weren’t successful. This indicates a complete abnegation of duties and lack of respect for the applicants. If an org needs an employee and can be bothered to recruit, they damn well better be bothered to follow through the whole process responsibly. Orgs which send generic “dear applicant” letters are only one step better: if they can master a simple mail-merge task, they can at least make sure everyone is named in their letter.
But the one that really gets my goat is the org that sends short-listed candidates the same generic “dear applicant” letter they sent to the first cull as the only followup to the interview. If you thought enough of these candidates to bring them to an interview, you should think enough of them to explain why you chose someone else. Every short-listed candidate should receive a personal phone call from a member of the interview team. To do any less is unforgiveable rudeness and cowardice.
The letter to first-cull applicants should be sensitive and a bit bland, thanking them for the application, but expressing the strength of the pool and the existence of people with more relevant experience, qualifications, etc. These letters should never pass judgement directly on the applicant. The personalisation and sensitivity should increase accordingly for candidates rejected at later stages of the process.
A responsible and caring org will:
- send first cull applicants a rejection letter, mentioning them by name, as soon as they’ve been culled
- send unsuccessful long list applicants a personalised rejection letter as soon as possible, with constructive feedback
- phone unsuccessful short-listed candidates as soon as possible once the decision is made and send them a personalised letter with constructive feedback.
6. Personal responsibility
So why are large organisations particularly susceptible to these sins against candidates? Because parts of the process are almost entirely siloed off to an impersonal HR department rather than the department or work group where the candidate would actually be working. Managers in the work group cull, interview and make decisions, getting to know many of the candidates on paper and a few in person, yet (aside from the interview) all contact with those candidates is made through HR, who can and does treat them like statistics.
There’s a lack of accountability and personal responsibility right at the point it matters most to the candidate — where they come into contact with the organisation and hope they’ll be seen as individuals who have made themselves vulnerable and deserve respect for who they are and what they do.
It’s a bad sign when an organisation handles this difficult and important process with a complete lack of sensitivity. If this is the best they can do to try to attract employees, is this an org that will nurture and take care of its own once they’re on board? When a jobseeker is desperate for a good job, he or she may not be discerning or brave enough to look ahead to the future of what it may actually be like to work there.
Any comments, additional tips or experiences you want to share? I’d love to hear them!
Be the first to like.
