Ivo is a Social Media enthusiast with a cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural background. He previously lead two candidate experience tracks at TruMadrid and TruGeneva. Within the last 2 years, he analyzed different Applicant Tracking Systems and focused on the use of HR and Social Media from an applicant’s perspective. He currently works at Small-Improvements, an award winning start up that provides a modern approach towards performance and peer reviews. Besides Human Resources and Social Media, he also passionate about International Relations/International Politics. Ivo will be leading the candidate experience track at #trulondon on 6th – 7th March. In this post he proposes a controversial fix for the broken candidate experience.
The candidate experience has been playing an important part for me for a while. Going through the application and candidate processes for start ups and bigger organiations in Europe and the US, I gained a lot of insights. For the candidate experience track at TruLondon, I would like to discuss these three issues:
1. Technology as an enabler and barrier for applicants
2. How to make ATS more efficient (and applicant friendly)
3. Application fees: A win-win situation
1. Technology as an enabler and barrier for applicants
Bill Boorman recently posted in a blog post about the candidate experience arguing
that “Technology is used as a barrier rather than an enabler,” and I could not agree more with him. While thinking of technologies catered to HR, I guess Applicant Tracking Systems is often the first thing that comes to one’s mind. Companies have found ways to manage and deal with hundreds or even thousands of applications for one vacant position. And applicants have figured out ways to write ATS applications and use the autofill function of their browser. Also, sourcing techniques and tools for recruiters are now available as new technologies are used, but applicants are aware of these and the world-wide web is full of blog posts on keyword doping for LinkedIn and resumes. So there are various ways to use technology as an enabler or barrier. During the candidate experience track at TruLondon, I will discuss these tools from an applicant perspective, and will share new technologies and techniques for using them. For example, applicants can use sales software (like yesware.com) to track their applications or use a gmail add-on (rapportive.com) to source email addresses of HR managers.
2. How to make ATS more efficient (and applicant friendly)
Applicant Tracking Systems are a great way to manage incoming applications. Nonetheless, for most applicants they are a nightmare, because applicants are not aware about what happens with the information after submitting, they are all different and take too long to fill out. And, in worst cases, applicants will never hear back or receive any feedback. Often job postings are not clear enough, and don’t highlight the “killer questions” or requirements with enough clarity. It is understandable that while working with an ATS, the sky is the limit with the number of applications because they are easy to filter out. But my impression is that companies do not really care about the time and effort applicants put into an application. An indicator that a job posting might be not good enough is when most of the applicants are not matching the filters before a company considers reading through the application. The goal of each company should be to receive a limited number of highly qualified applications rather than a huge number of less qualified ones.
Also, why not leave the cover letter or motivational letter out for the first initial screening (ATS)?. I always found it a pain to fill out ATS and submit a cover letter while knowing that most likely no one will ever read this letter when they filter me out because of a ATS category. It would be a fair gesture towards applicants to openly say that you need the ATS to pre filter because you receive too many applications, but also let the applicants know that after passing ATS, they must then submit a cover letter. This way the cover letter will be more specific to the needs of the company and position in question, which fits the interest of both parties. In the end, the applicant and the company looking for someone will benefit from this. And it shows that the company respects the time of their prospective employees.
3. Application fees: a win-win situation
Lastly, I wanted to share an idea and would love to hear some comments on paying for applications. When prospective students apply for universities, they are required to pay an administrative fee, e.g. a non-refundable application fee of $70 for New York University. Why not do the same for job applications? Of course it sounds crazy and unfair but here are my points:
- There still has to be a non-paid option. The paid option is a consideration service that guarantees a recruiter will take a look at my application.
- With a paid option, applicants will take more time to read the job description before applying and choosing to use or not to use the paid option.
- Applicants who are convinced that they are a great fit will take the risk and pay; e.g. offer a “I’m convinced I’m a really good fit application option,” for $50.
- The fee collected will be only used to improve the hiring process and to evaluate the application.
- This process has to be as transparent as possible to avoid unhappy applicants and fraud.
I understand that it is impossible and unfair to let all applicants pay for this; it might seem like fraud or scam. But what about having the option of a “pro” application that costs $50, which means that an application passes the ATS black box and applicants are aware that a HR manager will directly look at the application? In this case, I think of the fee as paying for a consideration service by the company. ATS is a barrier especially for unconventional backgrounds, so why not offer a refundable “pro” application fee that an applicant receives if he/she is invited for an interview. This way, companies can decrease the number of desperate applicants who apply for every job generically, and bring more qualified candidates into the hiring process. I think it will lead to an overall win-win situation; what do you think?”
You can connect with Ivo at:
Ivo is a Social Media enthusiast with a cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural background. He previously lead two candidate experience tracks at TruMadrid and TruGeneva. Within the last 2 years, he analyzed different Applicant Tracking Systems and focused on the use of HR and Social Media from an applicant’s perspective. He currently works at Small-Improvements, an award winning start up that provides a modern approach towards performance and peer reviews. Besides Human Resources and Social Media, he also passionate about International Relations/International Politics.
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/ibottcher Twitter: @ibottcher Personal Website: www.ivobottcher.com
Buy tickets for #trulondon. 10 left.
Related posts:
What impacts on candidate experience? #CandEUK #trulondon
Your candidate experience sucks and you know it. (Want to find out?)
Applicants, Candidates And Content Strategy #truLondon
The Hard Rock Firenze Candidate Experience#SocialRecruiting
Guest Post: Oxfam @#trulondon by @KBMayes
Read this post, slept on and re-read it before writing this. I have great admiration for radical ideas and thinking outside the box and pushing boundaries, and being Bill’s blog that is what I have come to expect. I shall be at TruLondon and will be interested in hearing what Ivo has to say.
However I have to say that the idea of applicant fee is as flawed and unreal as I have ever heard and is in my view testimony to coming from someone who has not been on the other side, sitting within and acting on open roles. You cannot have a ‘fast lane’ and a ‘privilege lane’ just for because money has exchanged hands, it is morally wrong, and it is fostering a culture that send the completely wrong signals.
If I applied this to myself, I would by now and having in the last 6 months applied for roles where I have on paper and in terms of criteria been a 90%+ match I would have paid thousands of $ or £ yet I seriously doubt (on basis of rejections given, what happened to roles (died, changed, filled internally, better more suitable candidate chosen etc.) that I would be any better off or having by now 6 months later have a job!.
Surely it this (the prospects of getting a job) that will drive candidates to wish to bypass any structures that will make them part with their money.
If we lived in the world of 1. complete job description honesty, 2. process transparency , 3. hiring manager and talent acquisition people integrity, and many many more factors that play a role then I could see this with some merit.
Jacob, Thanks so much for your comments. I understand your points and of course you are right that this can happen. Applicants are already paying for headhunters, recruiters or career coaches to take the “fast lane”. My train of thought was inspired by the well-accepted notion that all universities charge an application fee to prospective students.
Unfortunately, I haven’t gained experiences “on the other side” but wouldn’t it be interesting to actually see a case study for this idea? I’m really looking forward to discuss our points further at truLondon!
Ivo, I am sure we can spend many hours on this. As for universities it is not the same as applying for a job. My understanding is that they do this as an ‘administration fee’ and not as a ‘fast track’ to being considered. For that reason you cannot make that comparison and say that if it works in world of academics and education, why then not on a wider scale. You cannot and in my opinion should not create a two tier set up and a ‘if you pay then I will look more closely’ Anyway with most JD’s so badly written and with flaws in every step of a recruitment process I can assure you that unfortunately at least 65% of all JD’s do not reflect the role as it really is. For that reason and as an applicant having nothing other than the JD to react on they will through their interpretation get the wrong idea. Trust me I have spoken with enough applicants in my life to know that perception and reality are two worlds apart and to bridge that gap is something that 80% + of all companies globally have not mastered. For that reason + 10.000 others this is not a viable idea.
I timed out whilst submitting a comment. Damn it was long.
Ivo, thought provoking idea in relation to application fees.
Here in Australia we pay ‘administration application fees’ which is really a fee in relation to ‘commitment’ to sort out those who are truly interested from those time wasters. So I like the idea of an application fee.
It doesnt have to be $50. It could be $5. Money raised could be donated to a charity or association or other company aligned social, community or environmental initiative. You could have a live fund raising ticker, with letters of appreciation or even live feeds as you hand over a donation. What a great little way to ‘make a difference’ whilst also gaining commitment from prospective talent.
From an employers perspective it would also tighten up how we write ads, position descriptions etc. The last three companies I have worked for are all on the right path to position description enlightenment.
I agree with Jacobs comments in relation to creating or discriminating tiers of applicants, however if we applied the ‘never head of it, wont work’ concept then how will we ever get it right. Where will be your ‘point of difference’.
Thanks Ivo. Wish I was attending TruLondon for what will be a very hot topic.