Their current solution? Make it electronic. Use a web-based application system to weed out anyone who is unqualified, weed through the remaining pile with a cursory glance over the resumes, narrow down the list further with phone screens, then finally deliver the top handful of candidates to the hiring manager, who will interview them and decide on the best person.
So what's wrong with this system? Where do I begin. While it is certainly understandable that there is a need to more efficiently work through an overabundance of candidates (some which may be qualified, some not), it can't work the same way with human beings as in other situations because humans are not cookie-cutter. If I want a pair of shoes on Zappos, all I have to do is specify search criteria for the things that I want (e.g. Women's, boots, casual style, size 9, black, less than a 2-inch heel, knee-high, and less than $100), and boom! I have a small set of boots to choose from, making my decision much easier than if I had scrolled through all the thousands of shoes Zappos has available.
Online application systems were designed to basically filter humans in a similar way that Zappos does with shoes. Want a candidate with 5 years experience, a college degree, experience designing webpages and running search engine analytics? Sure, you can filter that. Also want someone who lives less than 10 miles away, enjoys fly-fishing, and has blonde hair? No problem. Okay, some of that is an exaggeration, but the point is that this system of turning people into data takes advantage of the idea that the hiring company has the advantage of infinite possibilities, and can have whatever they want, so the filter criteria can get a little outrageous. This kind of system hurts both job applicants and hiring companies, and I fear that a lot of times the companies are not aware of the ways it hurts them. You see, people are not data. People are not made from cookie-cutters. They will never fit molds because their lives have infinite possibilities, and the value of their potential contribution cannot be evaluated by a series of data that are created by a seemingly arbitrary lists of demands the hiring manager provides. Some of the most hard-working, dedicated, and intelligent people I have known in my past work experiences were those who did not have a college degree, or whose background was otherwise outside of what is "typical" for the work that they do. Those gems are easily missed through this process, but the search criteria has gotten so crazy that even folks who are extremely qualified are lost through the cracks, never to even be noticed by a human being.
Missing out on qualified candidates is a big loss for the hiring company. But this system also creates other problems. Candidates are becoming more and more aware of the downfalls of this system, so they do what they can to get around it so that they can be noticed. They flood their resumes and applications with keywords and buzzwords, as many as they can, so that their application will land in the "keep" pile. They make more calls and emails to HR and the hiring manager, hoping that it will get them noticed. They send out applications to EVEN MORE companies than they would have before, even applying to positions that they know they are unqualified for, just thinking that maybe luck is in numbers. The result? HR has to filter through even MORE correspondence and applications than they would have in the first place, basically shooting them in the foot by making a problem larger that they were trying to solve in the first place.
This problem, of course, begets more problems--HR managers become frustrated, creating even stricter search criteria to plow through the masses, which brings the problem back to the beginning in a downward spiral, making HR managers grumpy and overworked, and job candidates frustrated, weary, and confidence-shot.
Oh, what to do, what to do. I give advice to others all the time on how to conduct an effective job hunt. This time I'll give some tips to HR departments that might help ease their headaches and not miss the best candidates:
You can filter--but keep it real
Of course, it would be unreasonable to say that you should stop filtering candidates altogether based on their online profiles. After all, there are only so many hours in the day, and so many of you to get the work done. But you have got to be reasonable. Have really good communication with the hiring manager to get to know what he/she needs and what that particular area of expertise is like. Decide on the dealbreakers (must-have qualifications) and the desireables (things you think a good candidate would have, but you might hire someone without). Note: most things will (and should) fall into the "desireable" camp rather than the "dealbreaker" camp. Think really hard about filtering by 5-7 years experience, for example. Is it really out of the question that someone with more or less years could shine at the job and work harder than anyone else to get it? In this case, maybe it makes sense to ask for 5-7 years experience in the description, but perhaps filter by 3-10 years and look at the results in more detail to see if the details make those people an interesting candidate. Remember, "years" of experience do not lead to quality of experience, and people with any number of backgrounds could contribute something to your company. You just have to figure out which is the best. Don't rule out those gems who went against the grain.
Don't be so negative
By this, I mean the attitude or culture you maintain in the way you approach a pool of candidates. A negative approach would be to go into a resume review or a phone screen looking for ways to "weed out" a candidate. The goal is to get down to a handful to interview in person, so the more you can get rid of, the better. It's almost a "pass the buck" attitude--like, "my job is just to get down to a small group of candidates, then the hiring manager can worry about picking one." What about picking the best candidate? With a positive attitude, instead of focusing on weeding out candidates, the focus is to find out who can make the best contribution. This involves experience and background partly, yes, but it's also in listening to their ideas and let them explain why they are the best and why they want the job. The people who want it the most and have the best ideas will work the hardest and do the best work, not necessarily the ones with the most credentials who have the most "checkmarks" on your list of things you're looking for. That simple attitude change does not mean more work for you, just a shift in the questions you ask, the way you ask them, and the way you listen to the answers.
Fix the online application
Oy, there are so many issues here. This is almost always outsourced, and if busy HR managers aren't careful checking the outsourced work, they may not notice all the potential problems that could be in their very own online applications. As someone who has worked with data all my career, I cannot stress enough how important it is to get it right. When it comes to data collection, it's garbage in, garbage out! That is to say, if the method for collecting data (or, in this case, information on job applicants) is not precise, the information you get back will not be usable to your standards. Let me offer up a few examples based on what I've personally seen in real-life online applications:
- A couple of companies had drop-down lists of countries (to either indicate residence, or past work). But a couple of them were not in alphabetical order, or the United States was not even listed!
- Sometimes there was other kinds of menus, either for how you heard about the job, or what industry your past work was in, but the menu does not list all options, and there is no option for "other." What is an applicant to do? And you might filter them out if they interpret their industry differently than you do, or if you don't even list theirs. Bad data....
- Asking for salary history. This is an entirely different blog post, so I'll try to hold myself back from launching into it. What it boils down to, though, is that of course it's helpful to you in getting the best deal when you make an offer. However, asking for salary history should not be used as a proxy to evaluate the potential contribution of a candidate, and it turns a lot of candidates off if you ask for it prematurely (or ever). Don't scare away your best candidates. If you ask for this, at least make it optional.
Be respectful
There is no way to put this delicately. Yes, it's a "buyer's market" in the hiring market, meaning that there are more applicants for each open position. But that does not give you license to be rude. Don't set up applicants to fail by giving them no notice to prepare for interviews, or blowing off meetings, or not apologizing when you mess up. Remember that the applicants are interviewing the company as much as you are interviewing them. They are trying to figure out if the company is a good fit for them, and you are often the first contact they have. Please remember your manners and treat them as you would like to be treated. This kind of thing should go without saying.
I know you're overworked. I know it's tough to do it all. Just please do what you can.
And candidates, good luck. It's tough out there.
No comments:
Post a Comment