Spitting nails
The rise of candidate resentment
I don’t really care about cars.
For me, they are a mechanism for getting things from one place to another, rather than a badge of my success.
Perhaps that’s one reason why I’ve held onto our tank of a Scenic for so long.
Plus you can’t get a 12-foot slide in a beamer.
But, as our cars have aged, those problems mount up with regular trips to the garage.
And I can’t help but be more and more sceptical of the quality, and truth, of the service we’ll get.
Take our local garage, who are decent and well regarded, but a little careless.
In fixing my wife’s Bugatti La Voiture Noire’s* handbrake, they made it worse but denied their error.
Another garage showed us the problem while ripping us off in other areas.
Of course, caveat emptor means we are accountable for who we go to, but my resentment only increases as we get into a new argument over a repair, when trust has already been broken.
I’m sure we’ve all had our bad experiences with car repair places, so when you do find a good’un, you want to hang on to them.
Such are the parallels between candidate and customer experience, when the expectations are of a bad experience, rather than hoping for a good outcome.
According to SHRM, candidate resentment is on the rise - the consequence of poor candidate experience.
Probably no surprise if you’ve spotted the increasing narrative among candidates, hiring processes, TA folk, and even agencies of the poor experiences to be had.
I saw a post yesterday from an internal recruiter complaining about an agency approach. I’ve no doubt she expected solidarity, but instead got criticism from agency recruiters and candidates.
Ghosting, poor communications, unclear processes, no feedback, low-ball salaries, and a lack of apparent disrespect for job seekers’ times and their situations.
Nothing surprising or new, mainly magnified by a turbulent market.
So what?
Of course, people talk. And someone new to a job search may do their research and be surprised by ‘how bad things are’.
If you give an adequate candidate experience, you’re probably thinking it doesn’t affect you.
Yet, much like my experiences of garages, the default position for many is to expect a poor candidate experience and assume that what they see as a red flag is representative of the employer as a whole.
I know one reader of this newsletter doesn’t advertise salaries as standard. I also know them to be an excellent employer, with a strong brand led by their CEO that is consistent with their values.
The best compliment I can give is that how they come across externally seems to reflect what they are like to work for.
And everything comes together to make their recruitment effective, despite minor issues.
I can also say there are people who will look at their adverts and think - ‘Huh, no salary, despite everything else they’ve said - how’s that for virtue signalling? Hard pass and maybe I’ll tell Greg’.
And they’d be unfair to do so.
I often say to job seekers not to assume a poor process means a bad employer. The truth is many employers haven’t been trained on how to recruit or interview. They do the best they can while having day jobs.
Indeed the best thing a job seeker can do is put themselves in a position where they can decline a job offer if, after they’ve gained full insight into the role, it proves the wrong move.
Rather than be declined, or let assumptions make their mind up for them.
The sad truth is that resentment affects candidates probably more so than the employer.
As Nelson Mandela once said, “Resentment is like drinking poison and then hoping it will kill your enemies”.
For the employer though the point is that you can undermine good work because of the resentment your potential candidates have for recruitment at large.
Their assumptions may mean they never even make an enquiry.
So what can you do?
Accountability is key.
Gain an understanding of all the areas in which resentment may be caused, and look at your own process through that lens.
What can you do differently?
Indeed can you turn those assumptions into moments of delight, by turning their expectation on their heads and giving them something completely different?
It really is as simple as flipping that paragraph above on its head-
No ghosting, good communications, clear processes, feedback, clearly stated salaries (so people who consider them low have agency not to apply), respect for job seekers’ times and their situations.
<image description: replies from candidates who had been declined at CV longlist stage>
These things either directly benefit a recruitment process and lead to a good candidate experience, or they should be straightforward to execute.
Which ATS doesn’t allow automated communications?
Like an adverse situation, Candidate Resentment is an opportunity.
Own the issues others experience, and turn resentment into a positive experience.
Whether or not that turns into advocacy doesn’t really matter, as it’s just a happy bonus.
But it does show what you’re about, and if there are any assumptions to be made it should be that what is seen as a good process reflects a good employer.
Thanks for reading.
Regards,
Greg
p.s. I’m waiting for sign-off on a number of projects this week, but as it stands am available for vacancy filling, resentment flipping, and recruitment improvement projects. Drop me a line and let’s talk.
p.p.s. *Nissan Qashqai