Candidate Care - Bring back an old trend!

[HRPerspectives]

There is one step that the majority of HR people seem to be passing over and that is the task of contacting unsuccessful candidates. It appears that with electronic applications now the norm, having any personal contact with those "not preferred" and "unsuccessful" candidates is a thing of the past. Can we bring back an old trend? Time to "suck it up" take a big breath and telephone all of the unsuccessful interviewed candidates - and thank them for their participation in the process. Yes - it is the worst part in a HR recruiters job! But hey you say - no one in my degree course trained me in how to give bad news on any day. It never gets easier - but you know, without all of those unsuccessful candidates you would never be able to conduct an interview. They've done their part. Time for you to do yours! Finish the job off. Hundreds of candidates are treated so badly by inconsiderate internal HR recruiters (who should know better because after all they have policies and procedures and best practice) and recruitment agencies who depend on those resumes to make a living. It would appear that there is a large cavern of opportunity available to brave HR'ers. It is amazing that for all of the recruitment processes listed here, no one has thought to include "Candidate Care".

[Moz]

When I was in the recruitment industry our consultants used to respond to every single applicant, by post, with a letter signed by the consultant.

As far as I am concerned it's just a common courtesy, but this practice used to win us a lot of friends, because many of our competitors didn't let people know that they had been unsuccessful.

Now that it's easier than ever to let people know with an email, but many companies do nothing, this includes both employers and recruiters.

Some companies actually say in their adverts "unsuccessful candidates will not be contacted". This isn't a case of policy failure, they have actually thought about it and are broadcasting their obvious disdain for job seekers.

[Tiger]

Interesting! Every interviewed candidate has always received a person email from me and every unsuccessful short listed candidate, a phone call.

Clearly you've had some poor experiences. But to be fair, where bulk recruitment occurs, ie many candidates interviewed - it would be hard to respond in the above manner - unless you are using a recruitment system like "Page Up" which automatically does that for you.

[desbrooker]

As the instigator of both bulk recruitment and individual jobs with the company I currently work for and previous companies, I have made it a practice to email all applications received with an acknowledgement regardless of the Seek generated one, email all unsuccessful candidates who weren't selected for interviews, and speak to all those that were interviewed with the good and/or bad news.

[NicoleAnita]

I totally agree with Tiger - do you realise that when you advertise a generic low skill job you get hundereds if not thousands of applications? Yes I am an internal HR Manager and believe in the end to end recruitment. I always contact those that where shortlisted and personally phone those who attended an interview and yes with Feedback! As for recruitment consultants, being on both ends in a HR environment, unless you are contacted by the consultant you NEVER get a response and if you do, its at least 3 months later! As for the obvious line of "unsuccessful candidates will not be contacted", this again depends on the amount of applications and I stress this was only done for those roles with a low skill set and I word mine differently, for example, "only those that meet the selection criteria and possess the necessary qualifications will be invited for an interview". I am also sure that every internal HR person has received at least one if not more applications from someone overseas - do you expect a HR manager or any other internal HR person to ring overseas and speak to that person directly? I think "HRPerspectives" comments and or views are a little ambitious as there is a lot more than recruitment involved in Human Resources especially for an Internal HR Professional. From a company point of view, hiring the right person and ensuring they have a thorough induction into the organisation surely must be a priority?

[Moz]

...do you expect a HR manager or any other internal HR person to ring overseas and speak to that person directly?

Not at all. With the way the world operates today I believe a polite rejection note by email is sufficient for anyone who is not interviewed. They have applied by email so a response by email is appropriate in my view, even if it is a standard letter.That's not hard to do with the technology we have today.

The one situation where I don't believe applicants deserve a response is where the job ad specifies minimum requirements and the candidate is nowhere near the mark and has obviously completely ignored the requirements.

Oh, and of course the applications where they haven't bothered to adjust their standard covering letter and it's addressed to someone else!

Part of problem are the job board which enable candidates to store their resume on the job board's system and apply with the click of a button. No effort replied.


As for recruitment consultants, being on both ends in a HR environment, unless you are contacted by the consultant you NEVER get a response and if you do, its at least 3 months later!

These generalisations are unfair. While I am sure there are many agency consultants who don't respond, not all agencies/consultants are so discourteous. I know this for a fact, because I have worked for two recruitment companies who made a point of responding to every applicant.

[NicoleAnita]

Not at all. With the way the world operates today I believe a polite rejection note by email is sufficient for anyone who is not interviewed. They have applied by email so a response by email is appropriate in my view, even if it is a standard letter.That's not hard to do with the technology we have today.

The one situation where I don't believe applicants deserve a response is where the job ad specifies minimum requirements and the candidate is nowhere near the mark and has obviously completely ignored the requirements.

Oh, and of course the applications where they haven't bothered to adjust their standard covering letter and it's addressed to someone else!

Part of problem are the job board which enable candidates to store their resume on the job board's system and apply with the click of a button. No effort replied.



These generalisations are unfair. While I am sure there are many agency consultants who don't respond, not all agencies/consultants are so discourteous. I know this for a fact, because I have worked for two recruitment companies who made a point of responding to every applicant.

Perhaps they are generalisations regarding recruitment agencies but that is both my experience and opinion. Maybe you worked for a boutique agency who did care (to be fair there are some out there albiet a very small number) but most if not all do not bother.

I am not disputing responding to every applicant but merely suggesting that it is both impossible in certain circumstances given that most in-house HR Managers have more to do than send every single applicant who was not interviewed a personalised response! Is not "HRPerspectives" generalising when it comes to HR Professionals? Suggesting that is poor company policy is very general!

[NicoleAnita]

Another thought - is it not true that most companies who do not either have in-house HR Managers or who choose to use recruitment agencies expect the chosen agency to deal with the candidates professionally? Would it not be unreasonable for the company to assume a "professional recruiter" is doing their job thoroughly? I have had a candidate referred from an agency ring me personally and complain that the agency did not give them any feedback. This was of course after I had given feedback to the consultant regarding that applicant. I could have (and probably should have) done the whole recruitment process myself given the agency failed to "follow up" with their candidates.

[Moz]

Maybe you worked for a boutique agency who did care

I did, on both occasions. Please bear in mind when tarring the whole industry with the same brush, that there are many hundreds of recruitment companies in Australia, possibly thousands, and tens of thousands of recruiters. My guess is that 20% of them are really professional AND good at what they do. There are others that are professional but just can't cut it in the recruitment world and then there are those who make placements but trash the industry's reputation in the process!

But getting back on topic, my view differs from that of HRPerspectives, in that I do not advocate ringing everyone, and when I am talking about responding to every candidate I never said anything about a personalised response. Yes it should be addresses to the individual (e.g Dear Fred), but a standard message by email is fine. We actually had several standard letters because there are different messages that can be conveyed when rejecting applicants. I should state that we that we were dealing with specialist skilled workers, which is a bit different to recruiting unskilled labour.

But I can tell you without a shadow of doubt, that many job applicants remember who did and who didn't respond to them, and they tell other people. So ultimately this can impact on your brand reputation as an employer or a recruitment agency.

[NicoleAnita]

Exactly my point - as I said I have been both a recruiter and recruitee and I remember who responded when I applied for jobs. Most agencies tend to forget when recruiting HR professionals that they are the very people they will be dealing with in the future so I guess brand reputation is a two way street affecting the recruiter as an agency as well as the company!

[Steve51]

Both common courtesy and common sense apply here. Common courtesy dictates that if someone has gone to the trouble of preparing and submitting an application, good manners require that the aspiring candidate will receive some kind of response, even if it's a simple "thank you but no thank you".
Common sense (based on 40+ yrs experience) says that whilst you may process 100 applications for one position and select the most suitable candidate who becomes the successful candidate, many of those candidates who were shortlisted were also suitable, but unsuccessful this time around; it is foolhardy to offend these potentially suitable candidates, who but for the application by the successful candidate, may themselves have been the successful candidate! Why alienate them unnecessarily?
Standard letters and email make "unsuccessful letters" easy, and any HR practitioner or recruiter who doesn't "complete the job" is an amateur or a cowboy!

[Steve51]

As a 40yr plus veteran I offer the following for consideration.
If an applicant (and they are applicants until such time as you decide that their claims actually make them a candidate) takes the trouble to submit an application, then common courtesy and professionalism dictate that they must get some kind of formal response, even if it is only a standard "thanks but no thanks" letter.
Common sense says that you may receive, for example, 100 applications, decide on a short list of say 20 candidates, interview/assess them and then, subject to the usual checks, select your successful candidate and make an offer. However, of your 20 candidates although only one is successful on the day, many may in fact be suitable, just not the most suitable this time around. That is, s/he is the successful candidate whereas the others are suitable but not successful on this occasion because you have chosen otherwise. Why would a professional seek to offend other suitable candidates who you might like to apply again some time in the future? It makes no sense to do so.
Standard letter formats and emails (Bcc:) make follow-up "letters" easy.
Cheers
Steve

[NicoleAnita]

There is one step that the majority of HR people seem to be passing over and that is the task of contacting unsuccessful candidates. It appears that with electronic applications now the norm, having any personal contact with those "not preferred" and "unsuccessful" candidates is a thing of the past. Can we bring back an old trend? Time to "suck it up" take a big breath and telephone all of the unsuccessful interviewed candidates - and thank them for their participation in the process. Yes - it is the worst part in a HR recruiters job! But hey you say - no one in my degree course trained me in how to give bad news on any day. It never gets easier - but you know, without all of those unsuccessful candidates you would never be able to conduct an interview. They've done their part. Time for you to do yours! Finish the job off. Hundreds of candidates are treated so badly by inconsiderate internal HR recruiters (who should know better because after all they have policies and procedures and best practice) and recruitment agencies who depend on those resumes to make a living. It would appear that there is a large cavern of opportunity available to brave HR'ers. It is amazing that for all of the recruitment processes listed here, no one has thought to include "Candidate Care".


We can debate this for hours on end no doubt! Your experience is obviously a negative one - I would say most In house HR reps do just that - they have specialist in house recruiters doing that job. My argument is the Recruitment "experts" per say. They NEVER get back to you. Being a HR Manager for a global company of 35,000.00 I can tell you we are forever trying to improve our process but our experience with recruitment agencies are negative. They charge over the top rates, want exclusive rights re candidates and don't do what they are paid to do. Do yourself a favor and get on LinkedIn - you will be surprised who and what type of companies seek talent from that source before going on Seek.

[NicoleAnita]

As a 40yr plus veteran I offer the following for consideration.
If an applicant (and they are applicants until such time as you decide that their claims actually make them a candidate) takes the trouble to submit an application, then common courtesy and professionalism dictate that they must get some kind of formal response, even if it is only a standard "thanks but no thanks" letter.
Common sense says that you may receive, for example, 100 applications, decide on a short list of say 20 candidates, interview/assess them and then, subject to the usual checks, select your successful candidate and make an offer. However, of your 20 candidates although only one is successful on the day, many may in fact be suitable, just not the most suitable this time around. That is, s/he is the successful candidate whereas the others are suitable but not successful on this occasion because you have chosen otherwise. Why would a professional seek to offend other suitable candidates who you might like to apply again some time in the future? It makes no sense to do so.
Standard letter formats and emails (Bcc:) make follow-up "letters" easy.
Cheers
Steve

Totally agree - I seem to be repeating myself!! As a global company we keep those who matched our selection criteria on file - many of those are referrals as well so we are obviously a company where people want to work.

[Moz]

My argument is the Recruitment "experts" per say. They NEVER get back to you. Being a HR Manager for a global company of 35,000.00 I can tell you we are forever trying to improve our process but our experience with recruitment agencies are negative. They charge over the top rates, want exclusive rights re candidates and don't do what they are paid to do.

With respect I don't see why you keep taking pot shots at the recruitment industry.

I get it that you don't like recruitment agencies and think they are too expensive, don't do a good job etc. That's your view and you are entitled to it, but there are many organisations who value their relationship with their external recruiters, which is why the recruitment industry exists.

I could tell you some shocking stories about a few HR 'professionals' I have dealt with over the years who use external recruiters to do their bidding. But it wouldn't be representative of the whole HR profession, nor would it be constructive in the context of this thread! :)

[JMcJ]

Very interesting comments and as previously stated there is a marked difference amongst agencies and companies in the level of candidate care and subsequent brand marketing.
In all of my 25 years as an HR professional I have always considered the recruitment process as that vital first moment of truth in the relationship between business and potential employees/customers. Consequently I have always placed an emphasis on some form of reply to all candidates and as technology has improved I have found this process somewhat more straightforward over the years.
This is of more interest to me at the moment as my most recent role of HR Manager was swallowed up in a corporate restructure and centralization process just over 4 weeks ago.
My scorecard so far is 16 direct applications to companies with no response from 11 and 8 applications to agencies with no response from only 3.
As a candidate at a senior level for the first time for many years it is extremely frustrating when genuine expressions of interest end up in that fabled recruitment triangle!

[HRPerspectives]

my view differs from that of HRPerspectives, in that I do not advocate ringing everyone, and when I am talking about responding to every candidate I never said anything about a personalised response.

Just to clarify - that I wrote "telephone all of the unsuccessful interviewed candidates". I am referring to the shortlisted candidates who have been brought in by the recruiter/HR Manager for the interview. I agree that an email response is sufficient for bulk recruitment, and the many hundreds of resumes that are simply flicked across.

[Steve Begg]

Its interesting that this exact topic is being replicated on LinkedIn as we speak.

I think you are all right. We all should be calling un-successful candidates. 30 yrs ago there was no such thing as a rejection letter from a database. They were all sent manually, and I say again ALL! Even the people that were not interviewed.

I think there are many issues causing this situation. Here are a couple

1. Internet job boards. Someone said earlier, that if an applicant puts the time and effort into applying then the recruiter should call them back. That applicant time and effort has gone! Its is now clicking a hyperlink and sending their stored CV (on the job board) with no cover letter. Time taken, 2 minutes if lucky.

2. The Recruiters today haven't been brought up the way we old recruiters were.

3. Technology. Too many people in recruitment (HR, In-House & Agency) depend on their ATS and the database.

4. Workload. I met an internal recruiter the other day that says her workload is 180 open jobs, hence calling me and wanting a new job. There is no way that person can handle that workload and do a good job of it.

The thing that I really don't get is when the HR/Recruitment industry decided to start publicising that they will not be calling candidates back. Seriously, that is unbelievable and a major concern, but it seems more common than not so it will be here to stay.