In the politically correct recruiting world, there are three subjects that are unmentionable. To break the taboo can result in replacing cooperation, professional courtesy and friendship with polarized rhetoric, unwavering bias and strife. Of course the forbidden trio of subjects are: religion, politics and the candidate experience. The reason that there is so much disagreement on the subject of the “candidate experience†is that those words mean different things to different people and most who proclaim its importance are really only giving it lip service. I am a passionate candidate advocate and care about improving the experience of those interviewing for a job, but passion without action is wasted. Maybe it is time to cast a public vote rather than walk a tightrope to avoid the arrows of contention.
Ironically, the managers, HR professionals and recruiters who control the process of creating a favorable experience for job applicants have been on the other side of the “experience†at one time or another. Most have been subjected to some kind of bad behavior toward them as candidates and shrugged it off with no real power to complain under job seeker circumstances. How quickly we forget. It reminds me of the childless couple commenting on some unruly brat in a public place, “If we ever have kids they certainly won’t act like that!†Well, when the shoe is on the other foot they are more tolerant of such situations. After we get that job in management, our long term memory gets a little fuzzy when we have problems to solve involving time, politics and budgets. There is also a psychological conditioning somewhat akin to fraternity hazing: “I had to endure the pains of a job search so why shouldn’t everyone else?†I have also heard the arrogance of some managers saying that “If they are serious about a job with us they will put up with a ten-interview per day schedule.†So one problem associated with improving the situation is to remind unconscious unbelievers that there really is a problem.
In business, proof of concept is usually the return on an investment. In companies where everybody claims to be so candidate oriented, why do most programs still fall short? Several years ago, I worked with a client who formed an ad hoc team to review the candidate experience, study the cause and effect, and propose solutions to management. The survey conducted with recent hires and former candidates uncovered a list of negative impressions based on their treatment before, during and after the interview. In the latter phases of the project, politics intervened, people shuffled around and budgets were cut. Like most studies with more talk than substance it ended up on the shelf gathering dust. Two years later, an identical study was launched for the same purpose. This originated in a different division, however the survey that was conducted found the same universally true problems as before. Tying the two studies together prevented totally re-inventing the wheel, but the survey disturbingly showed that in two years this caring company had not changed their model. Ironically, this is a company that is known for being a good employer in a major market.
I attended Recruitfest in Boston last October and this was one of the hottest topics on the agenda. Participants commented that the conversation could have taken up the whole day. One corollary I heard added to the theorem of candidate care is that they deserve a bill of rights. I don’t think so. Candidate turnover is much higher than recruiter turnover, so the candidate is not the problem. Granting them “rights†when there is nobody charged to honor them, enforce them, or even remember them in the long term makes this another smoke screen destined for the dusty shelf. People, not policy makes the difference and it is really all about managing expectations. I try to coach job seekers to think like a recruiter in order to give them a mental edge in the process. Most are clueless as to the other side of the process and of course it varies from company to company. Telling them that they can expect the normal process to actually be a wide spectrum of alternatives doesn’t make them feel warm and fuzzy. They don’t understand the process in the first place, and since the practices differ from one company to another is there any wonder that they are confused. To make matters worse, there is fear of making matters worse by asking the what, when and where of the process…so they remain silent. Perhaps recruiters should be made to apply through their own careers website to get a taste of the complexity of the application process and understand one aspect of the other side of the issue. It is OUR job to give candidates realistic expectations and then be as good as our word.
I have been a follower of the godfather of the Candidate Experience, Gerry Crispin, and his work with Mark Mehler studying this phenomenon through CareerXroads. Required reading for all recruiters should be their Whitepaper on Staffing Strategy and Process and another study the Mystery Jobseeker Report where various people were engaged to apply to companies to see which would actually respond and how. If you have not read this, the results are startling. Perhaps the next step in publicizing the enormity of the problem is to establish a clear yardstick for the candidate experience and reward the companies that get it right. Gerry has been instrumental in the formation of The Talent Board, a non-profit organization which emphasizes the quality candidate experience. They have announced the first competition to recognize the best companies (deadline for submission for First Annual North American Candidate Experience Awards* “C&E Awards” is July 15) and the awards are to be presented at 2011 HR Technology Conference in Las Vegas in October.
Unfortunately, the reward and punishment model doesn’t train all animals. Lazy recruiters dependent on automation to insulate them from the candidate and know-it-all HR people with a parochial viewpoint and blinders will continue to run the processes. Hiring managers who think they can sniff out talent without following any rules but their own will continue to march to the same tune. Bureaucratic bosses interested more in following a hierarchical chain of command rather than actually communicating with anyone will continue to rule. A good start on the path to improvement is to give the highest visibility to those doing it right and shame those who don’t get it. If this is correct, the punishment for non-conformity will be a hit to the bottom line when negative impressions totally offset corporate employment branding. Money talks.
*There is a stellar panel of independent judges for the competition: Tom Becker, VP of Recruiting at Experis; China Gorman, Former SHRM COO/CEO and human capital management expert; Libby Sartain, former Chief Human Resources Officer at Yahoo and Southwest Airlines; Mark Stelzner, founder of Inflexion Advisors; and Sarah White, HR and talent management technology strategist.