Comments on: ‘Apply with LinkedIn’ Is a Double-Edged Sword

By: Jeb Blostleib

Jeb Blostleib — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 23:10:21 +0000

It’s interesting that nobody can provide examples…

By: Lior Shamir

Lior Shamir — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:42:53 +0000

@Jeb – I have personally come across this with SmartRecruiters and Jobvite but I would be surprised if any ATS serving SMBs does not provide this level of flexibility.

By: Jeb Blostleib

Jeb Blostleib — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:32:28 +0000

@Lior – can you provide an example!?

People talk about these solutions, but then don’t provide any real examples…

By: Lior Shamir

Lior Shamir — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 02:57:02 +0000

@Ryan – I love this approach and I have seen it in action.

By: Jeb Blostleib

Jeb Blostleib — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:35:44 +0000

@Ryan – can you show us an example?

By: Ryan Kohler

Ryan Kohler — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:06:13 +0000

We just integrated Apply with Linkedin with ApplicantPRO, and took a different approach to solve the problem talked about here. We work with employers, not recruiters, so they have some different issues that have to be addressed here. #1 is collection of race/gender. Your LinkedIn profile doesn’t have this information, and employers over 100 employees who need to be eeo/ofccp compliant or have an affirmative action plan need to collect that on all applicants who apply for a job. #2 our employers ask job screening question of their applicants based on the job being applied for, and this information is not in the LinkedIn profile. So we simply made the “apply with LinkedIn” the first step in a multistage process. It saves the job seeker time by automatically inserting their information from LinkedIn into all of the appropriate fields, and creating a “resume on the fly” for them, but the job seeker stills needs to answer the other questions such as screening questions and race/gender for eeo. Certainly reduces the time it takes for someone to apply (to under 60 seconds in most cases), but gives our employers the information they need to auto screen or filter applicants and to stay compliant.

By: Chris Heron

Chris Heron — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 16:57:41 +0000

We embed recruitment videos directly into adverts so that candidates watch the footage as part of their application, be this a LI apply button or full registration via our site. This way you retain the one click advantage of the LI button but also ask the candidate to self select based on an effortless filtration system.

By: Steven Yeong

Steven Yeong — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 09:13:57 +0000

In time to come, there could be a feature that would red-flag candidates who apply for jobs which are a wrong fit for them based on certain parameters. Specific to the 1-click feature, I think that’s why firms pay recruiters to filter out the millions AND millions of candidates!! (Sorry, been watching re-runs of The ROCK on WWE). To me, its a great feature.

By: Sylvia Dahlby

Sylvia Dahlby — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 00:37:11 +0000

I’m mostly in agreement with Martin on this. We added the “apply with LinkedIn” capability to SmartSearch and find it’s not much different than the Monster shared-apply or integration we offer with CareerBuilder and Indeed where candidate have already stored their resumes/profiles. A lot of LinkedIn users (like me) have NO CURRENT RESUME so it’s just plain convenient. And since our customers are posting/promoting jobs on LinkedIn, it makes sense for those with profiles to use them in lieu of a resume. I have not heard anyone complain the Apply With LinkedIn option has resulted in more quantity and less quality. I am of the opinion that anything that makes it easier for a candidate to apply is a good thing. And as Keith notes, it’s easy enough to take in the resume/profile and then filter candidates via online screening mechanisms & auto-acknowledgement or auto-reject once they click thru.

By: Keith Halperin

Keith Halperin — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 18:37:12 +0000

Thanks, Lauren. I think you’re right on-target. Making the job search and application process longer and harder will not improve the quality- it will reduce the quantity and increase the number of desperate and/or compliant candidates, unless that’s part of the goal… I suggest a way of maximizing both quality AND quantity would be to work very carefully with the hiring managers to create 5 or 6 pull-down menu, multiple-choice questions which clearly relate to the requirements in a non-discriminatory way and can be answered instantly. If the potential applicant passes, then there is a one-click application process. If they don’t, they get a nice “Thank you, look for other positions” Message. This has the advantages of both maximizing the ease and speed of a very broad based (potential) application approach, while maximizing the quality of actual applicants- only pre-qualified individuals can actually apply.

Cheers,
Keith keithsrj@sbcglobal.net

By: Hugh Fordham

Hugh Fordham — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:20:44 +0000

This reminds me of the conversations I had over a decade ago, when the move from paper applications to online was going to make it “too easy” to apply so companies would be flooded with unsuitable applications.

My answer then, as it is now, is that you do not select through the arduous nature of your application process but rather by targeted marketing, clear messaging and filtering on things that are actually relevant to the job.

By: Joshua Hensley

Joshua Hensley — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:36:22 +0000

I agree that the one click feature is nice but it will be abused like anything else letting unqualified applicants apply to any and everything. If Linked in can limit the amount of inmails (I rarely use it) then they can obviously limit the amount of jobs you can apply to in a day, week or month. jmo

By: Patrick T

Patrick T — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:15:01 +0000

It is a welcome addition that can facilitate the hiring process but overdependence on a one-click function is not going to better the quality of the process; the value added principle of a cover letter is still important, the tailoring of ones cv also – take a self-employed candidate who is interested in a posting, their one-click application is going to hinder them as they will be seen as having other interests that aren’t well aligned with that of the recruiter. Forwarding a LinkedIn profile is fine for a well cemented specialist looking for work in the same role but if one is searching for real talent then one must look beyond the candidates online branding or at least prioritise more articulate applications.

By: Lauren Smith

Lauren Smith — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 02:34:08 +0000

The theory that a 45-minute application process will naturally weed out unqualified candidates does not hold true. Just because a candidate showed stamina and dedication to apply, doesn’t mean they’re better talent.

The best candidates will not spend the time filling out a 9-step application. Top talent expect to apply in 60-seconds, and then move on.

By: Lior Shamir

Lior Shamir — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 23:30:33 +0000

@Jay – Mere assumptions. LinkedIn is the benchmark. Facebook may get there. I think Indeed is an exciting company (which Fred WIlson invested in).

@Ken – Thanks for sharing. I wish I had more data.

@Derek – The question is, has ‘Apply Now’ functionally increased productivity/success for both recruiters and job seekers?

By: Martin Snyder

Martin Snyder — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 23:10:09 +0000

Jay I sent an email to our product lead about it and he told me they are already working on getting Indeed Apply on the short term roadmap. I was glad to hear it ;-)

By: Jay Silver

Jay Silver — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 18:53:25 +0000

@Martin
“It’s a great way to get a base profile in, but employers will still likely seek a resume shortly into the process.”

Indeed Apply provides a full resume, and more people are using ‘Indeed Apply’ than ‘Apply with LinkedIn’ in all job categories.

See Ziprecruiter’s analysis here: http://blog.ziprecruiter.com/2012/07/18/linkedin-vs-indeed-the-apply-button-smackdown/

By: Martin Snyder

Martin Snyder — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:56:52 +0000

Apply with LinkedIn right now has a strong value for users because they dont normally store documents on their phones, and there is no easy attachment process for docs on mobile devices, plus it saves the entry of the key contact data too. It’s a great way to get a base profile in, but employers will still likely seek a resume shortly into the process.

If Google or FB start just storing personal resumes for account owner’s private use, an “attach google resume” feature to grab a file from the cloud somewhere easily, it would offer the identical value, and they will, sooner or later.

I dont worry too much about LinkedIn because they are always thinking of the short term buck, keeping the most control of the data (for the user’s privacy and protection of course) and generally considering themselves to own the networks they support. Maybe all that will change but it could be in the DNA……

By: Luke Antenialle

Luke Antenialle — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:36:07 +0000

Nice post. What is Indeed? Is it some job board?

By: Derek Dostal

Derek Dostal — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:25:55 +0000

I might be missing something but as you state the one click buttons make passive candidates more likely to apply. That alone affects quality positively.

Now a larger pool certainly does make for more sifting but I do not mind digging through the haystack as long as I know the needle is there!