If you work in corporate recruiting, third-party vendors are an integral part of life. Sometimes welcome, sometimes not, I have my fair share of dealings with vendors, a good number of whom I believe generally understand the recruiting field.
Vendor offerings in a host of buckets from niche job boards to automated reference checking systems use a similar pitch as part of their marketing strategy: help make recruiters more effective and efficient.
While I am a fan of progress and anything that makes life simpler and easier for all involved in recruiting, I offer caution against “over-automation” of the recruiting process, especially when it comes to technology. Sometimes, too much of a good thing is detrimental to success.
An example of how this could happen came to mind recently when I attended a vendor presentation at a recent conference. I was listening in the back of the room as the vendor representative extolled the virtues of his company’s applicant tracking system.
His closing comment was this: “Our system is so efficient that it practically eliminates the need for you to have to speak to anyone.”
In my mind, I immediately questioned this vendor’s true understanding of the recruiting space beyond the mechanics of process and technology. I couldn’t imagine why he would make such a statement to a group of people whose very essence of their jobs is talking to people!
I couldn’t resist asking a clarifying question about what he meant by the comment. He went on to explain that “the system could do the talking” when it comes to all candidate notifications, particularly notifications of non-selection where conversations are sometimes awkward and difficult. He then used an example of how difficult it is for some hiring managers, or even recruiters, to deliver “bad” news to a candidate that he/she didn’t get the job.
“So our system does it for you, with our customizable electronic form letter templates. No more difficult conversations!” he said proudly.
What I thought I heard was what I heard. Interesting that this vendor, who claimed to understand even the most subtle nuances of recruiting, prides himself and his company on how to let a system replace the good-old-fashioned courtesy of picking up the phone and notifying an interviewed candidate that he/she would not be moving on.
While the form-letter templates within applicant tracking systems are critical and valuable tools to help manage enormous loads of incoming resumes and job applicants, I draw the line when it comes to “automated rejection letters” for every candidate who interviews for a position but doesn’t get the job.
Here are two examples to illustrate why automated rejection letters aren’t the best:
Scenario 1: One of the hiring manager’s own employees is a candidate for an open position in the department. The employee turns out not to be the successful candidate. To handle this situation with the grace and sensitivity it warrants, a carefully choreographed sequence of communications must be executed to ensure the employee hears the “right” message from the right person the right way (i.e., person to person).
Imagine this employee getting a system-generated form letter that says, “Thank you for interviewing for the Financial Analyst position. We’ve selected another candidate whose skills and qualifications more closely match those sought for this opportunity. Please continue to apply to future positions with ABC Company.”
I know how I’d react. I also don’t think the hiring manager would be too appreciative. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if the employee walked into the manager’s office, carrying a print-out of the “efficient” form letter in hand, asking for an explanation, and expressing her opinion on the process.
Scenario 2: There are two top candidates for just one position. After much discussion and debate, the hiring manager finally makes a decision and instructs the recruiter to reiterate to the non-selected candidate how interested Company ABC remains in her and plans to consider her for the next opening in the department, which is expected to become available within 60 days.
Instead, the candidate gets the “Thank you for interviewing for the Financial Analyst position?” rejection letter. Not knowing just how close she came, when the next position opens up, that candidate is long gone as she’s turned her attention elsewhere to other companies. She might even end up at one of Company ABC’s competitors.
It’s in situations such as these where the live conversation, whether by phone or in person, is invaluable. Instead of feeling the sting of a cold (yet efficient!) rejection form letter, the candidate walks away in both scenarios with an understanding of the context of the outcome, a sense of where he/she stands, and how much the company wants to make an opportunity happen in the future.
As I continued to listen to this vendor pitch in that session, an analogy came to mind. Think about a time when you’ve gone to the doctor and the doctor recommends you take a certain test. You show up for your scheduled appointment, complete the test, and nod on your way out as the technician says, “Someone will get back to you with the results in a week.”
A few weeks later, a report arrives in the mail with a series of numbers and medical jargon, which leaves you wondering if life is good or you are one step away from your deathbed. Not able to get an appointment with your doctor for several weeks, you began to search WebMD to figure out for yourself where you stand, and will probably draw an incorrect conclusion.
Replay. You receive a call from your doctor one week after the test, who says you will be getting your report from the lab in a few days, but she wants to talk through the results to make sure you are clear on your state of well-being. The results may be in the mail but you are already in a “good place” because you’ve had the benefit of the discussion in understanding what’s happened to you and why.
The key to being both efficient and effective in today’s recruiting race is the art of integrating technology with the human touch in the right places throughout the process.
In our perennial quests to be productive, and vendors’ perennial pitches on solutions to do more with less and be all things to all candidates, remember that sometimes the most efficient process isn’t always the most effective.
Relying too much on a host of technologies and services will not necessarily deliver the promise of an effective, efficient, and personalized experience for all involved.