No swimming
Recruitment reflected, pt 3
I mentioned the three conversations I had, in the last reflection, in doing advert reviews.
One of the convos was particularly salient for this series, in that the CEO had initially gotten in touch for some advice in starting his search for a new leadership position.
It was in talking about the various pitfalls of a quiet job search that we looked at the differences between inside-out and outside-in job adverts.
How the former is a sign of a transactional process, while the latter is likely to focus more on candidates and their needs.
He wondered what his adverts were like, so we read through one together.
An eye-opening conversation for us both.
His is a 150ish person manufacturer of industrial machinery, on a drive to make their products more sustainable.
He’s quite removed from the process, other than for senior hires.
Recruitment is handled through their HR team, with the typical mix of direct advertising funnelling into their ATS and agency work.
And their applications required the triple whammy of an up-to-date CV, cover letter and ATS registration that duplicates what was on the CV.
“If you weren’t sure about a role from how it was advertised, would you follow those three requirements?”
Hypothetically, that is, given his role wouldn’t likely be advertised.
But it led to talking about candidate journeys, and why some readers might not choose to apply, even if the actual job were a great move for them.
The market has fluctuated for him massively over the past couple of years, and some roles have gone from easy to fill to impossible, while others have had surprisingly simple outcomes when local ‘competitors’ have made redundancies for instance.
While the market is out of his control, his recruitment process is something that is, and his team can be accountable for.
“How could we look at things differently?”
In one sense it’s quite simple - look at the lessons you’ll learn in looking for work, about how wonky much recruitment is. Then fix those same, wherever you’re leading on recruitment.
A good start is to look at Red Flags.
Those points where even out-of-work job seekers take pause and think - nope.
And often those nopes aren’t necessarily to do with the current vacancy they are considering. Instead, decisions can reflect the worst experiences of the same.
Sometimes it’s not even their own experiences, sometimes it’s from fellow job seekers, or from both helpful career coaches and their unscrupulous counterparts.
Job search advice is a quagmire, and often highly contradictory, such as the classic line
“Ask 10 people for advice on your CV, and you’ll have 11 CVs.”
If there are red flags that prevent a positive decision, and you can straightforwardly do something about it - why wouldn’t you?
Minor steps that benefit both bear and bullshit candidate markets.
£Competitive Salary. Perhaps yours is. But if a good candidate has had their fingers burnt with a lowball offer, it doesn’t just affect them - the news gets out. A simple reason why many great candidates dismiss An Excellent Opportunity.
ATS data duplication. I’ve spoken to many out-of-work jobseekers who refuse to go further in a process if it requires data entry. I have tried to influence them otherwise, on the basis a recruitment process may not be reflective of what the employer is like. But it’s a common assumption.
Problem language. ‘You must be resilient and able to hit the ground running in a fast-paced environment’. I know decent companies who use lines like this. It’s often associated with a toxic culture that lacks training and systems.
Generic language. Look - everyone is a world-leading innovator with a great culture. Innovative and dynamic. Award-winning and cutting edge. And if every company is those things, it doesn’t matter to the reader. Worse than that it can appear you use that language because there isn’t meaning to show. It would be quite a reasonable sentence if no one else used it, but since they do - show why, rather than tell it.
Non-inclusive processes. If DEI is important to you, have you looked at how different steps can preclude candidates from applying? Typos on a CV may represent many things - a lack of care, dyslexia or a life that hasn’t benefited from a good education.
Too many interview stages. Lots of hot debate about what the perfect number of stages is. Of course, it’s contextual. But once you get past four stages, people may relate it to indecision. Especially as they experience more interview stages than you do (agency call, agency interview, application, assessments, presentations, etc).
Radio silence. While things always happen in business to slow down a decision, the silence is deafening for candidates. Easy to mitigate with an update to say no-update, lest they think you’ve already rejected them.
It’s true that those new to looking for work may not be so sceptical, but if you address the issues that are seen as red flags you benefit everyone.
Any red flag, and this is only a small list, is an opportunity to look at how your process is experienced by candidates, and to improve it for all.
A simple way to find them is to read jobseeker posts on LinkedIn.
And turn those reds into greens, to allow your ideal candidates to swim their way to you.
Regards,
Greg
P.s While you are here, if you like the idea of improving how you recruit, lack capacity or need better candidates, and are curious how I can help, these are my services:
- Go-to-Market, operational and technical key hire recruitment
- manage part or all of your recruitment on an individually designed basis for one client. Get access to an expert recruiter without the cost of a full time hire. Save money, save time, hire better candidates.
- recruitment coaching and mentoring
- recruitment strategy setting
- outplacement support
Just hit reply to check if my approach is right for you.