See who is already coming to #socialrecruiting summit in November!

Blog Network

Gen Y'd

Gen Y'd is the always interesting, frequently random, often unfiltered, sometimes goofy, occasionally genius and never apologetic – random thoughts of my brain today on topics from recruiting to social media to whatever else I care about.

Does our industry really care about candidate experience? #EREExpo follow this blog post

posted by on Sept. 15, 2009

I had an interesting conversation with someone following ERE about the lack of innovation in our industry in terms of Candidate Experience.  He suggested that if a vendor really cared - they would have someone on staff solely focused on making the technology easier for candidates.  After just 1 solid rebuttel's, he stopped the conversation.  Cold.  Seriously people - you should know by know that I enjoy a good Debate - I learn, you learn, we all win.  Anyway...It got me thinking about the conference and the space and asking the question if we really do care about candidate experience.

If you look at the agenda for the ERE Expo and any other conference that I am scheduled to attend this fall - the answer is no.   There are no sessions on candidate experience or applicant retention strategies or quite honestly even on talent pooling (yes, super old term - but I still believe in it!).  Candidate Experience was brought up in a few sessions - but other than Adidas & Walmart  - no one really seemed to have a company strategy built around it.   It is nice to talk about.  It is nice to think about.  It makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside - but we don't really seem to care if we are doing it or not.  Well, not really.  You see, it is one of those hidden things in our industry that is championed and talked about by large companies (that may or may not actually do it) and agreed upon and validated by smaller companies (that rarely actually do it).  Another way I know we don't really care  - no one really tweeted about it beyond Fogarty's custom built interview rooms with the ugly table.

So, since there weren't a lot of session - I will give you the Sarah White break down on Candidate Experience that will work for any size company.  How do I know it will work for any size company?  My mind is always thinking in terms of scalability ;-)

1.  Don't have bad job postings.  A job description and a job posting are not the same thing.  One is HR.  One is Marketing.  That means one is boring and one is fun.  (Ok, maybe that was too far...)  I think it was Shally who said to explain what it is like you were talking to his Nana.  Give your value add - what makes you better than everyone else.

2.  Make it easy to apply. The higher level the candidate the easier the application process should be.  If you have people that have resume's applying for your positions use a solution like HRM (yes, I am partial) that allows for a direct email submission - nothing to fill out, no log in to create - just send in the resume and make the software work.  If you use another solution - make it easy for them to submit - less than 3 mins MAX.  (Pharma companies please listen - your apps are WAAAYYY to long - good people won't do it.)

3.  Make it easy to get information.  Connect with them on twitter, facebook, blogs (if you can do it right), linkedin, etc.  Do a newsletter for candidates you haven't hired that sit in your database.  Create a website that has RELEVANT information on it - things they really care about - not a bullet point list about your company benefits.  Let them feel comfortable with you.

4. Follow up.  This is really simple if you have a good ATS.  Pretty simple if you have an OK ATS.  Regardless, it needs to be done.  Especially if you are in a consumer sales organization where every candidate is a potential buyer.  Believe it or not, a candidate would much rather hear a "sorry, you aren't a fit" than nothing at all.  For many people, the fear of the unknown is far worse than their fear of reality.  So - send an email (automatic message) that keeps them updated on where they are or are not at in the process.

Ok, so it isn't rocket science.  But if it is so simple  - why isn't our industry norm if it isn't that we just don't really care.

3 more ERE post's this week before I shift my love to #Recruitfest09! Cause I gotta feeling....

 

 

Cross posted from www.hrtechnologyblog.com

candidate experience ere ereexpo recruitfest
| 18 comments | flag

18 comments

Log in or register to post a reply.

  • 1 point 59 days ago

    Jessica,

    To respond to your devil's advocate (and this likely isn't popular) but I could really care less about the person who is out of work still after a year and doesn't care about my employment brand.

    A brand is built for many, many reasons - and for most of us, the ideal candidate is someone currently employed taht we have to entice over...

     

  • 1 point 59 days ago

    Your last sentence makes an incredibly important point.

    One of the challenges, especially now with candidate flow at such a high level, is that there isn't always time to carefully review the candidate pool and determine who merits high-touch treatment instead of a form letter.

    To Gerry's point, I think part of the business case for good candidate experience will be that some of what we qualify as chaff is actually wheat, if not for the job they applied for, then for another we need in the future. A lot can change in a few years and that is well within the scope of candidates' memories. A company that treats its applicants humanely in these times will bank a lot of goodwill to draw from when things improve.

  • 1 point 2 months ago

    There is absolutely no reason to treat a candidate poorly, ie, lack of follow up and honesty when it comes to feedback. Yes, I have had candidates who do not handle rejection well at all, no matter how diplomatic you are about delivering the news.  Sometimes it is down right scarey to see or hear some of the reactions. 

  • 1 point 2 months ago

    Hi Jessica!  Have you ever heard the phrase "going postal?"  Candidates REALLY care about how they are treated, it can make or break a person in certain circumstances.  Most well adjusted candidates don't like being treated poorly or being misled, but they can handle it.  There are a few who simply can't handle rejection.

  • 1 point 2 months ago

    I think your article is great and these are fantastic and simple ways to make the process a more pleasant.

    But just to play devils advocate...

    How much does a candidate (especially one who has been out of work for a while) really care about candidate experience?

  • 1 point 2 months ago

    Great post.  Get rid of those websites that force candidates to "join" and receive passwords.  They are just plain annoying.

  • 1 point 2 months ago

    Great post.  Getting rid of those application processes that makes a candidate "join" and receive a password are just plain annoying.  Let them just apply.

  • 1 point 2 months ago

    Sarah,

    Great article, you raise some good points.  I have worked with companies, whose follow through was horrible and as a recruiter, I sometimes think, "if I were the candidate, I would want to know details."  On the other hand, I was especially hired by a company for the sole purpose of the candidate experience...to the sweet or bitter end.  In my pharmaceutical experience, I have seen many great scientists, from entry to corporate level take extra pain in filling out those loooong apps, because the company they were applying to were worth their effort and time.  So, in answer to your questions, companies in every industry promote both good and bad candidate experiences.  Thanks for bringing this up, I agree that it needs way more attention than it gets.

  • 1 point 2 months ago

    So, the case for candidate experience is a tough one at best. Especially since a "candidate" has 1/200 chance of ever being hired...assuming 200 apply on average (for the sake of this discussion).

    Even if qualified and lets say 50 of the 200 are, then you have no more than a 1/10 chance of getting in the door as a finalist on a slate- and, in the end, there is only 1 selected and 4 who will tie for second. Almost every firm that claims to offer a great "candidate experience" is really describing those final 5 (not the entire group of people who expressed interest in a specific position- my definition.) 

    Saffing.org once reported that only 25% of surveyed firms even attempted to measure the candidate experience of a new hire's experience! And, not unexpectedly, those firms that did measure it found that 10-15% of the new hires were ticked off before they ever started work. Oh my!

    So, if expressing interest by my definition were used as a measure, it means that your chances of having a meaningful candidate experience are .025.

    Or, another way to say that is- you have a 98.5% likelihood of a) finding a poorly worded description on a poorly designed page barely enhanced by b) an anecdotal video on your career site hyping the corporate brand and the good parts of the job with almost no c) relevant cultural or job demographic data (i.e. how many people like me did you move or promote last year) linked to an e) application that asks the same questions you just answered elsewehere including f) obscure but somehow suspicious knockout quesions with no feedback on how your answers relate to your competitiveness and, finally, an automated, unsigned "thank you" with a "do not reply" in the subject line that fails to g) provide any indication whether you are at least qualified or where to go to learn how to obtain the status of your applicaion.

    Not a single firm in the US with one exception (PNL is the sole exception) defines and promises a specific candidate experience upfront. Companies can be differentiated on the quality of their candidate experience and in a small way I assess that each year. However, I agree with your premise that few care to dig  into the specifics.

    The question, assuming someone really did put it together, is whether the business value can be measured. Theoretically not only would more highly qualified candidates be willing to research, apply and choose you but by having a higher engagement at the beginning of their onboarding, they would reach higher levels of engagement correlated to giher levels of company performance. Theoretcially. Can't measure what doesn't exist.

    Still, as I've spoken at various conferences (over he last few millennia) I have seen small but measurable strides in the right direction. Fortunately, we are patient.

    The good news is we can continue this conversation at RecruitFest 09 next week.

  • 1 point 2 months ago

    As a corporate recruiter I know I get too focused on the acquisition phase and not enough on the follow up and follow through stage. Why do we only care about executive on-boarding and not every candidate experience. I recruit in a small industry and I need to rethink my candidate experience experience!!

  • 1 point 2 months ago

    Great post. The candidate experience definitely needs to be shown more value. Such easy steps make a world of a difference. Particularly enjoyed reading #3 and #4.

  • 1 point 2 months ago

    Whoa, Sarah, super good way to think about the entire recruiting lifecycle. Good article.

  • 1 point 2 months ago

    This is a bandwagon that SonicRecruit has been on for a long time. It is only now that more and more people are unemployed, that it is becoming an issue. If you want to see what one applicant tracking system is doing in the realm of candidate experience, click on this recruiting software video. I think it sums up much of what you are saying.

  • 1 point 2 months ago

     

    It starts at home. 

     

    Recruiters often suck at sharing information and dealing with their clients.

    HR professionals aren't any better.

    SOme of the worst hiring experiences I have seen have been my own while going on HR position interviews.

    Started in the 1980 with my first interview experiences out of my Masters program....

  • 0 points 58 days ago

    Some great points Sarah!

    I'm a 3rd party recruiter and I have to say that candidate experience is so important as it affects perception of both the culture of the business and the employer brand. And news of bad candidate experience spreads!

    Countless times I have spoken to a candidate, enthusing about a great opportunity at a company, only to be told 'Oh, I'm not interested, I know someone who had a bad experience there, they never give any feedback or let you know where you stand' or, even worse 'from what I've heard of the way they treat people who are trying to get in there, I hate to think of what they're like to work for'.

    Unfortunately too many corporate recruitment teams, and RPOs, are targeted and measured on cost per hire, time to hire, ROI on ad spend etc..no-one is targeted on the candidate experience.

    And lets face it, if you wanted to work for a company and they teated you badly, with little concern or respect for your feelings, would you want to buy their products or services?? And would you recommend your friends to buy either??

  • 0 points 2 months ago

    I think your article is great and these are fantastic and simple ways to make the process a more pleasant.

    But just to play devils advocate...

    How much does a candidate (especially one who has been out of work for a while) really care about candidate experience?

  • 1 point 2 months ago

    Those who ask them will see the anger. Data from limited surveys in the US and UK suggests it impacts sales, motivation to work, and much more.

  • 0 points 2 months ago

    Quick thought for additional step between your #3 and #4 is potential of conducting live virtual interview vs. travel as it may improve candidate experience by reducing or eliminating travel-related pitfalls like airport crowds, security lines, flight delays, jet lag, etc., not to mention just being away from the office or home for days.