I’m getting a loose consensus that 10 pre-qualification questions is a good limit and I’ve also heard a suggestion that a 60 sec. application period is ideal for online applications.

I’ve also heard that requiring too much pre-qualification/application from ‘best’/'passive’/'high-level’ candidates might dissuade them from applying. I’d like to ask the group:
What are reasonable requirements that every potential candidate (however ‘best’/'passive’/'high-level’) must
follow to be submitted? (I’m not speaking of general requirements like promptness, civility, following through with commitments, etc.)

Cheers,

When/If the applicants apply to a specific position, there is a second set of assessment questions which are unique and specific to the main-line skill sets (mostly technical) to the positions, or asking for a very, very, very short summary of their experience within an arena, ‘…if not already on their resume.’ (Again, voluntary info)

This gives applicants shorter assessments and questionnaires, breaks up the answer period, and won’t ask them superfilous info that no one needs until they need it.

I would limit pre-qualification questions to ten (10) total – ask the most vital questions per skill sets, and remember, most applicants will already have the most important info already on their resume.

‘… you’ll need to take aim at technology/services that require resumes in order to get a candidate in front of a hiring manager.’

This is precisely a thought I have had. It seems, more often than not, that the only thing a resume does is harbor information that is more likely to make a candidate look flawed than attractive.

But, I’m curious – what effective alternatives are there? Can a sufficiently persuasive recruiter actually convince a manager to set up an interview without seeing a resume at all?

Have any of you had luck with some sort of alternative like a profile sheet or perhaps something based more on a conventional ‘application’?

Do you know of any formal studies which indicate an optimal number of questions which can be asked and answered online or on the phone? For example, most people would answer one question, but that wouldn’t get you much information, and you could ask 100 questions, but very few people would probably complete the questionnaire.

Your thoughts?

Blowing the sucker up is the first step. Working carefully to determine how we put the pieces together is the next.

thanks for some great insights,
Ron

Jim

‘Passive candidates are NOT the best candidates in my opinion because they can be the most flaky and they are in a ’shopping’ mode, typically.’

Oh, absolutely! Very often it seems like the ONLY factor that allows a placement to come together is EXTREME motivation on the part of the applicant. In fact, someone much wiser than me once said that the primary responsibility of a recruiter is to do his or her level best to talk an applicant OUT of taking the job because the only thing worse than not making a placement for a particular job is having the applicant jump ship after three months.

However, judging from the number of ads for entry-level recruiters where they seem to be looking for people with sales background, combined with some of the message traffic on this site, it would appear that the current climate generates a desire for people with the capability to talk candidates who are otherwise quite content with their current positions into being at least discontent enough to consider other opportunities.

‘Resumes are ‘eye catchers’, introductions, a ’snap shot’.’

Actually I once had a client who was so disinterested in ‘active’ candidates he actually said, ‘I want to see resumes from people who are delirously happy with their current positions. No – I take that back. I don’t want to see resumes. Anyone who has taken the time to put together a resume is someone who MIGHT be looking and that’s not the kind of candidate I’m looking for.’

Sometimes I’ve actually entertained that there may be some truth to what that manager said for certain positions. It’s at least possible that a recruiter talented enough to ’shake loose’ an otherwise happily employed candidate should be equally talented enough to market the capabilities of that candidate to a client without resorting to the ‘crutch’ of a resume, which, more often than not, contains information more likely to turn a client off than on.

Of course the Recruiting Model is broken; it always has been. IMHO, recruiting is analogous to the schools: we are asked to do everything- not only provide good people in a timely, cost-effective manner but make sure they perform well and stay around for awhile.

Fundamentally, many recruiters (and I include myself here) make our living through the organizational dysfunction of our clients. I completed a contract with a prestigious employer, widely lauded for its hiring practices. I calculated that on a per-hire basis, the staffing organization of this well-known firm was between 3 and 7 times less efficient in hiring people than I am. (I’m good, but not THAT good.) As far as I could tell, there was no interest in ‘blowing up the sucker’- rather, there was continuous tinkering with minor aspects of the hiring process, because it was designed to reflect the beliefs and prejudices of the founders.

I believe that as long as there is substantial money and promotions to be made and budgets to be increased through decrying the current systems while offering overly-complex solutions to fundamentally simple problems, not much will change.

Secondly, Armstrong would argue that the use of these accounting measures might hand over the decision on whether to proceed with HR initiatives to managers outside the HR function, namely the management accountant. He believes that this loss of control could lead to competition from the management accountancy profession for the actual decision-making element within the traditional HR preserves. His point here is that HR?s reluctance to do the ?spadework? with the metrics means that management accountants, in doing this work, may also look for more influence in the decision making process of the HR department. Again, this would suggest that HR might be wise to learn, develop and utilise the metrics themselves in order to, if not retain, then at least have some say in the decisions process within their department.
There is a wealth of research out there and if anyone is interested I can post my bibliography here to point them in the right direction in terms of the papers / books they can read on this.
***Armstrong, P. (1989). Limits and possibilities for HRM in an age of management accounting. in New perspectives on Human Resource Management. J. Storey (ed). London: Routledge.

Assumption #1:Are not the the majority of millions who have put up profiles(read resumes)at LinkedIN semi active.They are sending out and accepting invitations.Getting recommended and vice versa.It is the largest almost free job board for recruiters to tap into.Do the max passive candidates not change job every few years at least.

As example many hyper active candidates(resumes splashed all over)have moved to higher positions,got into the 20 best rated company of the state and from family run business onto acorporation.I say this based on my experiences dealing with career enhancement related activities.Let’s not reject them on the basis of a cursory glance but study the resumes looking for potential related to the job.Yes,limit the resumes by posting ads at niche sites,associations local print and other media.

Assumption# 2:Yes,the author is right here again.I would like to add that instead of maintaining huge databases one should have manageble number of contacts who should be updated every now and then in a personalized manner and tapped as well for referrals over the long run.

Assumption# 3:Yes,other than obtaining info from resumes in various ways like questionnaires will certainly help.Infact I feel within the ad it should be asked as to how the person would be able to impact the company and the response be given in the cover letter.It will help eliminate
unnecessary applications as well.

Assumption# 4:Yes,screening is very important to weed out the chaff.Pre interview methods like questionnaires be adopted.At most there be a max of two interviews for even high level jobs.

Assumption# 5:The author has rightly stated that there be direct correlation between interview process and performance.That should be the main yardstick to go by and to some extent the cost per hire at about 3 levels of jobs.Too much stress on cost per hire metrics is inherently flawed as many variables come in like change of hiring manger,departmental heads etc.These changes also lead to change in the environment of a department or the whole company itself.

I am inclined to agree with most all views expressed(5 so far )But bringing six sigma to hiring is something that is beyond my comprehension.As a layman I understand it to mean the removal of defects in the processes and are more and more expensive the higher you go for quality.We are dealing with human beings and not manufacturing.

Kevin,thanks once again for a simple but great article.

Recruiting is an art, a niche, if you are fickled about it, my advice to you is, DON’T do it.

Regulating the recruitment process has been tried with metrics, guidelines, processes and procedures but because of the requirements that non-recruiters have on the deliverables and the ‘mishaps’ that come along the way…….those numbers that they demand are not realistic, subsequently making it not acceptable to them.

So, the Recruiter takes the brunt of the blame. The accountability should rest on all who are part of the process.

Passive candidates are NOT the best candidates in my opinion because they can be the most flaky and they are in a ’shopping’ mode, typically. I would consider a candidate who is currently working (passive) but ambitious (aggressive), my ideal candidate. I like to work for my money.

If a relationship was established in the beginning of your contact with the candidate and maintained (kept warm), I regard that as a long-term relationship well after you make the placement.

Resumes are ‘eye catchers’, introductions, a ’snap shot’. I like developing the relationship by using the majority of the senses that I have (again, developing the relationship).

Ultimately, the candidate should be interviewed, face-to-face, I need the ’see/touch/feel’ aspect (so-to-speak).

By developing the relationship, people tend to drop their guard and open up more, some faster than others.

Bottom line for me is that I develop a relationship with my candidates and show the passion of my craft in my voice and actions.

My recruiting skills did not happen overnight either, nor did I have to take structured courses in learning a craft that I love so dearly. There is an art in communicating and listening. Then you organize that into a process.

Thanks for listening,

Brenda

I recently spoke to a group of 150+ recruiters and asked how many were using a scorable application. Less than five people raised their hands. Yet every hand went up when I asked who put resumes in Yes and No piles. They are scoring resumes with ocular analysis ? I know one when I see one.

One of the worst sources of process waste in staffing is the lack of data capture in a manner that supports analysis. Continued reliance on the resume as the initial source of candidate evaluation will prevent the staffing process from making meaningful strides to document the impact of hiring decisions. Resumes force a hopeful hunt for useful information. A scorable questionnaire or other form of objective candidate evaluation is a laser direct request for useful data.

Blow up the resume first, blow up ATS/CRM systems that do not offer a method for objective candidate evaluation next.

This is a gigantic problem for our profession. Even the companies lauded as best practice leaders have embarassing metrics. Companies stacked to the hilt with six sigma consultants don’t apply any of it in HR. In a meeting not to long ago I remember an executive asking if HR people had the right mental wiring and just didn’t know what to do, or if they were mentally incapable of thinking like a business professional. I’ve met my fare share of both, but throwing stones isn’t going to help the problem. More and more organizations need to give up the FTE allocation for yet another coordinator role in HR and hire some interns in mathematics and finance. The idea of the HR business partner being able to master statistics and process modeling just isn’t working out!

I could not agree more! The traditional model of recruitment is broken and has been broken for many decades. With all the technology that has been developed we have to ask ourselves why there has not been any marked productivity gains in recruiting for the last 50 years. I base this on the fact that 50 years ago a good recruiter could handle between 4 and 18 unique positions at anyone time while consistently following best practices.

Anyone using the traditional model and handling more than that number is letting a number of best practices slip which will hurt them or their company eventually.

I believe the problem is in the fact that so many people have been using the same model for so long that they are afraid to stray off the path let alone think about starting over.

Thank you again for your educated analysis of recruiting!

William
Accolo