Tag Archive for Candidate experience

The UK Candidate Experience. Part 4. #CandE’s UK

This is part 4 in the series looking at the data behind the candidate experience awards in the UK. This research gives a unique insight in to what actually happens when people apply for jobs, and the picture is not all that great.

You can get a copy of the official report HERE, and apply to take part in the next round of research. It is free to take part.

Candidate evaluation and selection.

The lack of information indicated in the pre-application stage means a high volumes of applications for most jobs, with unqualified applications are at an all time high. This makes automation in the selection process essential, with a heavy reliance on the ATS to do the work. Only 8.4% of applicants responding had any kind of selection conversation before applying. It may well be that these conversations are the result of the direct approaches reported in the winners interviews as being increasingly adopted. Of all the candidates applying, only 11.6% completed a structured interview, with the majority of candidates being discounted before this stage. Questions should be asked as to why such a large volume of unqualified candidates feel an application is worthwhile, and if the minimum qualifications are made clear to potential candidates at the pre-application stage. Hiring companies should look closely at the information and content they are making accessible to potential candidates, and if the driver in their recruitment marketing efforts is geared to increasing the volume of applications rather than encouraging opt-out from those who are either unqualified, or don’t have a culture or values match.

A reliance on the ATS for selection means much of the messaging will be automated as notifications or rejections on “do not reply” mails rather than personal feedback. With the importance of the ATS in the process, hiring companies need to collect on-going feedback from applying candidates to ensure that the application process is user friendly, intuitive, relevant and as short as possible, with clear instructions and on-line help.

Preliminary screening resources.

For the most part, the ATS is used to present screening questions of varying detail and complexity, from the yes/no qualifiers through to those requiring a more detailed response. Due to volumes of response, the process for the most part is designed for deselection in order to present recruiters with a manageable short-list of candidates for selection and interview. Selection within the ATS is based on qualifiers like eligibility to work, experience etc, with more detailed questions over aspirations, and confirmation of the information submitted at interview stage. Due to volumes, hiring companies have been increasing the amount of questions asked, and the time it takes to complete an application. This has been evidenced by increased abandonment rates during the process.

This is an important figure for hiring companies to monitor, in order to identify if there are particular stages where candidates are bailing out, soliciting feedback at the point of leaving to identify the reasons behind it and adjusting the process accordingly. Examples of best practice within the survey included limiting the application process to seven clicks, CV parsing for speed and convenience, issuing clear and simple instructions at every stage and the opportunity to engage with recruiters throughout the process.

The objective now for hiring companies should be to reduce the volume of applications by greater transparency and access to information at the pre-application stage, encouraging opt-out from those unqualified or a poor values or culture match. In demand candidates will have less tolerance for a lengthy, complicated or confusing application process, the more likely they will abandon it. Hiring companies should be concerned with who is abandoning their application, as well as the volume.A lengthy application process presents real problems for the increasing number of candidates looking to apply by mobile.

The job interview.

The technology application process and telephone interview (averaging 35 per job) is designed to deliver a short list of 10 – 12 candidates to interview on a face to face basis. 75% of responding companies conduct telephone interviews to arrive at the short-list. A number of the winners commented at interview that they are now replacing the telephone interview with automated video selection (17%), in order to improve efficiency. What is clear is that employers are looking for more than the ATS to shortlist candidates for interview. All of the winners train their recruiters in interview techniques, and most extend this training to the hiring manager. The interviewer, whether recruiter or hiring manager is the face of the company with the candidate, impacts candidate experience in that the applicant is looking to be given a fair chance to present their case and the relationship formed with the hiring manager at interview plays a big part in their decision making when it comes to offer. 25% of employers conduct 5 or more interviews (including phone interviews), Each of these touch points present an opportunity to select candidates and to create a positive impression, by the same token each touch point throws up the risk of creating a poor impression by poor delivery.

Process and training for everyone involved in the hiring process, from recruiter to hiring manager is a critical factor in candidate experience, as evidenced by the practices of the winners. It is also worth noting the practice of giving feedback in a method that matches the mode of screening, once voice communication is initiated, feedback by voice is expected. Candidates are expected to invest an increasing amount of time and effort into applying and going through selection. The time and effort committed to feedback on each stage by the hiring company needs to reflect this.

Interview preparation

Interview structure and format should not come as a surprise to the candidate. Candidates want to prepare for interview by researching the company, the opportunity and the people conducting the interview. 29.9% of the candidate respondents received an agenda of what to expect before the interview, and 10.2% at the interview. 63% were given the names of the interviewers before the interview. This means 60% went in to the interview blind without any agenda, and 37% had no opportunity to research their interviewer before the event.

Giving the candidates the opportunity to prepare is essential for candidate experience. The candidates need to feel that the hiring company gave them the best opportunity to present their case in the best way. They don’t expect to always get the job, but they do expect the chance. 51.1% of candidates report being required to attend a panel interview as part of the selection process. This experience can be nerve racking enough for a candidate looking to make a positive impression, but the pressure is intensified when the panel comes as a surprise. Candidates do not expect to get a job, but they do expect to be given the opportunity to present themselves in the best light. The opportunity to prepare is a big part of this.

The survey results indicate that few candidates were advised that a panel interview was going to take place, and the negative impression this can create on the candidate. 54% of candidates were advised on the next step, time-scales and expectations, which means 46% were left in the dark. Co-ordinating candidates in a timely and informed way should be an essential part of the selection process. Care and attention paid to the candidate at the critical selection stages, indicates the care and attention that will be paid to the candidate if they transition to being employees. The attention to detail in the selection process can play a big factor in the candidates decision making process when it comes to the offer stage. Hiring companies should be mindful of this when designing their hiring process.

If you have stuck with this series, which concludes tomorrow, I hope you are getting the picture of what really happens when people look for jobs.I urge anyone involved in the recruiting process to get involved in this years research and awards. It’s free to take part, and will get you a free benchmark report on how you are doing. I ask my fellow bloggers in the space to help promote this far and wide. It is important, and through real research we can make a difference.

Bill

 

 

The Candidate Experience In The UK #CandE UK

This is part 3 of the Candidate Experience, based on the research conducted as part of the judging process. You can get a free copy of the official report HERE.

Assessments and testing questions

Candidate experience is greatly  impacted by how well the individual is briefed and prepared for what is going to happen in the hiring process, and what they are going to be asked to do, from questionnaires to detailed behavioural assessments. 38% of the candidates were presented with no explanation of what will be expected of them. Hiring companies need to consider how well they are communicating process and types of questions/assessments, with clear guidelines over time and method of completion. The next step instructions can be included in all on-line content, and as a pop up whilst completing each stage of the on-line application process.

Applicant feedback on the application stage

The majority of candidates are not being asked for feedback until much later in the process. 55% of candidates were not asked, and it is clear from earlier answers that where feedback is solicited, this comes by way of questions from the recruiter, rather than data collection during the process. The respondents to the questionnaire paint a picture a great reliance on recruiters for communication and feedback, whilst time available to do this is restricted due to volumes. A candidate who has been successful at this stage and is further in to the recruitment process before being asked will probably have a more positive view than a candidate who has failed at this stage. Only soliciting successful candidates later in the process may well hide problems in the process. Feedback needs to be collected in a consistent way, and in real time at every stage of the process to bring about improvement in candidate experience. Without meaningful feedback and data, companies can only work on gut feel and guess work.

The evolution of the black hole.

Unqualified candidates either receive no feedback (notified at application by a cut off date: “If you haven’t heard from us by …..”, an automated rejection notice triggered by the ATS, or 33% of respondents are required to give direct feedback. 39% give automated or no feedback to unqualified candidates. The rule of thumb amongst the distinction winners was that voice contact was instigated, then feedback should be by voice.The “black hole” experienced by many candidates can be avoided by setting clear K.P.I.’s and expectation for recruiters, and line managers at every stage in the process, as well as making progress visible on-line, so that a candidate can check in and monitor their progress at any time.
The volume of unqualified candidates creates communication challenges for companies in rejecting candidates at point of application, hence the increase in use of “killer questions” and automated rejection. The solution to this lies in transparency of minimum requirement pre-application, to make it easier for people to opt out if they are unqualified, reducing volumes and improving efficiency, a key to improving candidate experience.

Feedback to qualified candidates on progress.

30% of rejected candidates received an automated “do not reply” e-mail to close off the process. Whilst this is better than nothing, it has little value to the individual candidate who will have already committed considerable time and effort into the process. 24% received a call from the recruiter to give feedback, reaffirming the belief that once voice contact has been instigated, then feedback should be by voice.
It was interesting to note that when hiring managers had received training in giving feedback, and were required to give feedback to the candidate directly within an agreed time-scale, attention at interview, selection and feedback, the quality of the whole experience greatly improvedThe more involved and accountable for candidate experience the hiring manager is, from start to finish, the better the candidate experience. Whilst the number of candidates receiving a call from the hiring manager with feedback, 3.2% of candidate respondents, this demonstrates a move in thinking as to who should be responsible for delivering in person feedback.
Qualified candidates go through a series of assessments before being called in for face to face meetings, which range from telephone interviews, video screening (commonly referred to as video interviewing), to tests and assessments. This is the second vetting stage after the application, requiring additional commitment. 50% of the company respondents had measures in place to make recruiters or line managers available for feedback if required. A concerning result from the candidate respondents is that the majority received standard, non-specific feedback notifying them that they were no longer being considered. Some notification is better than the 11% who heard nothing and were left to assume they had been unsuccessful, but given the effort, time and commitment candidates are expected to make getting to the interview stage, do they not deserve more specific feedback for next time?
As more hiring companies move from transactional recruiting based on one job, and move towards continuing relationships with candidates through talent networks, (as operated by all of the distinction winners), and talent communities, extra attention will need to be paid to how the rejection message is delivered. The message should be “Not not right, just not right now.”

Active listening before the finalist stage.

A continuing theme throughout the research was the lack of measurement and feedback at each stage of the hiring process. 76% of candidates were not asked for feedback after they had been rejected, This misses a real opportunity to get a real understanding of how well the process is working and the feedback is being received. As companies look to maintain relationships with candidates beyond the job stage, revisiting their skills, experience and qualifications for future opportunities, then managing rejection in a positive way will be critical for on-going relationships. Without feedback and data, this critical stage is left to chance, with no real opportunity to evaluate and improve on candidate experience.

Candidate disposition before the final stage.

According to the responding candidates, this is the critical stage for candidate experience where they report being less satisfied. 43.6% reported a negative experience at this stage, and 38.5% reported a neutral experience, neither good nor bad. Candidates clearly have an expectation of better (or more personal) feedback at this stage, having invested time and effort in the process. The lack of feedback and data collection at this stage means that most hiring companies will be in the dark as to this sentiment, and the reasoning behind it, a good illustration of the need for a formal feedback process, as hiring and feedback procedure is clearly not in line with candidate expectation.

The real candidate experience in the UK #CandE’s UK

I was honoured to be asked to be a judge in the UK version of the Candidate Experience Awards this year. I’m a big fan of the essential work Gerry Crispin and his team are doing in this area.
As part of the judging, I got to see all of the data that came back from the candidate and client surveys. I like these awards because they recognise and benchmark best practice, are free to take part and are not a “first place” competition. They are free to take part, and its not a prize for the best company to buy a table, or belong to this or that trade association, organisation or group.It is not a prize for who has the best PR company. The results are data and research based, on the real candidate experience. It is open to every company who wants to take part and get a benchmark report, and it is free. I see no reason why any company should not want to take part, unless they are not really bothered about candidate experience. Please sign up for 2013!
Over the next 5 days I’m going to be publishing my thoughts on the public data. This is not the official report or comments. You can register for a free copy of the full report HERE. These are my learning points from having been involved in this process.

War for talent. (Engagement)

The term “war for talent” is a commonly used term to describe the competition for great potential employees. Universum describe this perhaps more accurately as the “battle for brain power,”The survey results suggest that the war for talent is in fact a war for other peoples talent. If we accept that this war is being waged on a daily basis, the results suggest that for 50% of the candidate respondents, poor process, untargeted talent attraction tactics, and poor use of technology results in many employers shooting themselves in the foot. Where a candidate has more than one potential employer, engagement and experience is critical in their decision making.

On line and traditional communication methods

It is encouraging to see employers experimenting with a wide range of methods to communicate pre-hire. The career site is unsurprisingly the primary source of communication. Mobile apps and text messaging received the second and third highest “do not use” response. Given the significant growth in Smartphone usage for web access, I would have expected greater experimentation in this area. This will become critical in candidate experience, as an increasing number of potential employees move from desktop access to mobile device, Traditional methods like career fairs and career sites dominate communication. This might make sense for active job seekers, but ignores the passive browsers. Employer communication is still largely broadcast, rather than engaging, with little or no use of features like live chat.

Referral

The awareness, by job seekers, of the opportunity to get referred by a contact within an organisation is low (16%). This is largely because hiring companies are concentrating their efforts (and investment), on the traditional application process. Career site to ATS, rather than promoting, or offering, alternative routes to application. Where a company operates an E.R.P, (employee referral program), these are predominantly dependent on the internal employees making the referral. Making connections within a company visible changes the emphasis, and drives the volume of referrals. Visibility is critical in this, through the use of social plug ins.

Social media in the job search

It is interesting to note that UK job seekers are twice as likely to use social media in the job search than their North American counterparts, whilst North American hiring companies are twice as likely to use social media channels to promote opportunities and employer branding content. It is surprising to note that despite heavy use of social media in the job search, the information provided has little impact on their decision to apply for a job. My feeling is that this is a reflection of the lack of mobile compatibility, (when job seekers are browsing the web in down time), and the redirect from social media to career site to ATS, with little opportunity to complete the whole application process within the channel.
Unsurprisingly, LinkedIn dominates in the areas of candidate engagement and prospecting, with 73.7% of the respondents using the channel in the job search, and Facebook with 44.4%. Google+, despite being a relatively new channel, is being used by nearly a quarter of the respondents, suggesting that this will only grow in importance over the coming year. The other results worth noting are that Twitter is almost non-existent in results, and that review site Glassdoor is making some serious in-roads in the UK with 11.4%. With the launch of a dedicated UK site by Glassdoor during 2013, we can expect this destination to grow in importance over the yeae, with potential applicants seeking reassurance from current employees and previous applicants before hitting the apply button. The absence of Twitter perhaps reflects the move by employers to replicate what they know i:e: the career site, on social pages rather than move to more open forms of engagement like live chat or twitter, where it is harder to control the message.
The LinkedIn result reflects the growing trend amongst direct employers to move to a direct sourcing model via LinkedIn, as reflected in the CandE winners interviews, with direct sourcing being cited as a big factor in improving the candidate experience, where relationships are established early in the process on a one to one basis, where candidates are pre-selected according to their profile.

Transparency

There is a general recognition that all job seeking data indicates that potential employees look to research potential employers on-line in the application,interview and decision making process. In line with talent attraction, LinkedIn dominates the communication channels, with over 70% of responding companies adding content, followed by Facebook pages with 40% and unlike the job seekers, Twitter features with 21%, slightly behind Google+. Smart employers are recognising that individuals have preferred channels to communicate in, and are spreading their content across all of the available channels, whilst others are communicating almost exclusively in LinkedIn, reflecting the dominance of the channel in recruiting terms. Employers continue to communicate through single destination career pages on LinkedIn, Facebook and Google+, replicating the thinking behind single destination career sites. The growth in culture branding, personal brands for recruiters, referral networks, talent networks (like StackOverflow), and mobile will cause some disruption to this thinking, with individuals looking to connect with individuals for authentic communication over corporate marketing content.
The majority of information is made available via the website or through direct contact with a recruiter. Information is least likely to be made available through social media channels, although awareness to why people work for an individual employer, awards and sustainability are the content most likely to be shared in social media. This is perhaps a perception of what content interests candidates in social media channels, with access to more varied information being dependent on access to individual recruiters. Where volumes of candidates are small, this is manageable, but sectors attracting higher volumes make individual one to one communication harder to sustain, impacting on candidate experience. The conversion ratio of applications to interview to hire is a far more effective measure than volume of applicants, though the latter is often the principal measure for talent attraction.

Be great to hear your thoughts,

Bill

Sign up for 2013 HERE

Download the white paper HERE

Guest Post: Ivo Bottcher – Extreme candidate experience #trulondon

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.

 

Applicants, Candidates And Content Strategy #truLondon

image by Oscar Mager

I’ve been thinking quite a lot recently about where jobs fit in with content and content strategy. I crystalized this thinking last week at #truLondon. We know from all the research from the likes of Evenbase, that what potential  applicants want before they hit the apply button is more information on the company and the job. What we are seeing is that job seekers are just bored of the application process, spending time filling in questions and answers. The average time I’m seeing it takes to complete a first time application with a corporate client is 2 hours. That’s right, you read it correctly, 2 hours, and a minimum of 50 clicks and 50 screens. It’s hard and it’s horrible to apply for a job, then what happens next?

The feedback from the Candees (Candidate Experience Awards) delivered by Gerry Crispin at #truLondon is not a lot really. Very little feedback and a never hear again attitude. The upshot of this is that potential applicants want to be 100% sure of 2 things before they hit apply and go in to the process:

1: They have a good chance of getting the job

2: They really want the job

This means that you need to provide enough information to answer both of these questions before they will go through the pain of an application. The traditional copy writers will jump in and say that this is all down to poorly crafted job descriptions that describe nothing but a list of duties. There is a little bit of merit in this argument, but a text document is really one-dimensional and quite boring. Doesn’t matter how well you write it. It’s often not enough to elicit the type of response you really want and need. The ones left in the funnel are the desperate and the unemployable who have the time and the desire to stick with the process. It is a frightening thought. It also reminds me of the track by John Sumser, where he made the point that the talent shortage is actually caused by over-supply. There is so many people in the job market that it becomes hard to reach or find the ones who are right.

My feeling is that the more we think of jobs as content rather than postings, the more likely we are to solve both of these problems. Increasingly I’m seeing that the real benefit of social recruiting is that you lower the volume of response, but increase the quality of those who apply. People who better fit the company and the job, share your values and have chosen to apply for your job rather than any job. This will also help to solve the Sumser theory by reaching the people who are the right fit. Great content also makes it easy for applicants to see if they fit, encouraging them to apply.

In this post I have been speaking about applicants. I took this from Paul Maxin of Unilever’s track where he spoke about separating applicants and candidates, and having a different strategy and approach for each. Applicants are those people who apply, where as candidates are those people who have got past the application stage and are in the recruitment process at any stage. This means thinking about applicant experience and candidate experience as two different things.I hear the old chestnut often that applying for a job shouldn’t be easy. I accept that getting a job shouldn’t be a walk in the park, but should applying for a job really be that hard? My thinking is that being an applicant should be easy. It is really a matter of giving a recruiter access to your details to tell you if you should be proceeding in to the tough job of becoming a candidate or join the talent network for another opportunity. That has got to offer a better applicant experience, rather than treating applicants and candidates when they are clearly not qualified to be one.

From a content point of view this means having different content streams for applicants around the job and the company, and around the candidate process about what happens next, and more detailed specific content the further the candidate goes through the process. I recently looked at the CERN progress chart that enables any candidate to log in at any time and see where they are up to in the process at any time. This is brilliant for the candidate experience.

Applicant content needs to be around the job, the culture and the values. If we view jobs as content, then you can build a content strategy around the job. I’m thinking job spec, video, pictures on a pin board related to the job, blog post and social connections with the people who do the job. I also see a place for a Jobgram type infographic here that shows the job in a different way. All of this content can be used to populate a culture site (as opposed to a career site) that enables people to properly understand the culture and values of the business from the people who work there.

These are some of my thoughts after an excellent #truLondon. Thanks everyone who contributed,

Bill

 

 

 

We Don’t Need #Tru

 

Photo Credit: BlueJake.Com

 

Yesterday, I posted under the title “We don’t need #Recruitfest.”

The post brought some great reaction and comment, not least from Miles and Ashley from Recruitingblogs.Com

. They made some good points on why we need to continue the candidate experience conversation.

What I should have titled the post is “We don’t need Recruitfest to know there is a problem with Candidate Experience.”

To even up the score, I’ve called this post: “We don’t need #tru!”

The reality is, you don’t need #tru to know there is a problem. We have all been talking about it for a long, long time, but that seems to be most of what every event has been doing.

We devote a chunk of time at #tru events to talking candidate experience. We always have done.

The conclusion is always the same:

  • Candidate experience is key to what we all do.
  • The Candidate experience is largely broken.

Anyone that has heard me speak will know that I take the view that in any staffing business, wether recruiting, technology or in a different way direct hiring.

It is the candidates that get hired that earn the fees.

It’s how we earn our money and what we get paid for.

The hiring companies just sign the cheques.

For this reason, I believe that everyone in the chain should be afforded the same professional courtesy and honesty.

What I have realised from the whole friendly exchange is that you don’t need to come to a #tru event either to agree that there is a problem with the candidate experience or that something should have been done about it a long time ago.

I’m going to focus my efforts on highlighting good practice through shared case studies, and tracks about simple solutions. I’m going to call in more job seekers to talk about what they want and need, and work with companies that don’t want to talk about candidate experience, they just want to provide a positive one. That would mean that you really do need to be at #tru.

Lets stop talking about the problem we know exists, and start talking about the solution.

That is what you need from #Tru, #Recruitfest, #ERE and all other events. To talk solutions not problems.

Be the ambassadors for #Brandrecruiter

Please post in comments the best examples of good candidate experience you know of. Those are the people I want to be talking to and sharing.