A lot can be said about a company from how it conducts its recruitment processes. For in-demand candidates whom several organizations are constantly courting at a time, a high-quality recruitment experience will likely indicate a positive work environment and experience. Yet many companies seem completely oblivious to this reality and create recruiting experiences that are so negative they go on to become the subject of viral online posts.
Despite the very public layoffs of the tech industry in the past year, tech jobs are still the most in-demand roles worldwide. If you’re a technology professional, your LinkedIn inbox is most likely busy year-round. On the one hand, companies are in a full-throttle race to become digital and future-proof their businesses, and that means filling vital IT positions. The tight labor market, looming recession, and competition efforts are all fueling IT efforts globally. Conventionally, tech experts used to work in tech companies, but now the demand for skilled tech labor has spilled into a much wider range of sectors.
On the other hand, it’s getting increasingly difficult for candidates to screen future employers, as it has become a much broader game. In any professional relationship between a candidate and an organization, the initial courtship phase can provide valuable signals about what working for that company will look like. And this is also where many organizations get it completely wrong.
We looked at some of the worst, yet common recruiting practices that leave a bad impression on candidates and we also analyzed some of the potential consequences.
Duplicated efforts for applications
It’s one of the most frustrating and discouraging situations and yet it happens a lot. Candidates spend considerable time polishing their resumes and LinkedIn profiles, only to be forced by a company to reenter all that information in the proprietary online application form.
This redundancy can signal a lack of respect for the candidate’s time, which is essentially doubled. Since it’s often a manual process, it can lead to errors and typos, as many candidates who are interested enough to go through this process try to do so as quickly as possible. This can lead to misinterpretations about their skills and qualifications.
The unnecessarily long recruiting process
It’s one thing to hire a VP or CIO where a lengthy recruitment process is completely understandable given the strategic impact. But prolonging a candidate’s journey when a junior or mid-range role is involved is both unnecessary and frustrating. It comes back to valuing time and being efficient. A long recruitment process often dims the initial enthusiasm and when the approval for the go-ahead finally comes through, it might be too late.
Lack of transparency regarding application status
Candidates have borrowed a term from romantic relationships to describe this. Ghosting is used to describe a company that goes silent about an application. It’s common sense to see how this can be unprofessional, but it’s also a source of anxiety. When recruiters don’t proactively communicate about the status of an application, it can induce negative changes in how the candidate perceives the company. A lack of clear communication about expected deadlines will almost certainly set the tone for a negative experience. It will also rob the IT professional of valuable feedback that could be used for improvement.
Inappropriate interview questions
Although this seems like a no-brainer, it is sadly a widely-spread occurrence. Inappropriate questions will not only damage a company’s reputation with candidates, it can also trigger legal consequences. For a candidate, being asked personal questions about faith, politics, marital status or sexual orientation can be anywhere from uncomfortable to traumatizing, with no chances of positive feedback.
This is a consequence of organizations neglecting training programs for interviewers at best. The worst case scenario is a company that doesn’t have a policy on diversity and inclusion, nor a respect for personal boundaries. Both are still present in many sectors.
Weird or inauthentic practices
A lot of times interviewers will make the mistake of asking questions they don’t want to hear the real answer to. The cliche example is the question about weaknesses, where the recruiter will expect to hear a rehearsed answer rather than being open to hearing a real one. It’s a situation where both parties can see the elephant in the room, yet one is following an agenda. Candidates, especially seniors, can easily sense inauthenticity and this is a sure way to set the scene for a missed opportunity.
Bait and switch
One of the most disappointing experiences is when a candidate is lured with an inaccurately positive job description. It’s a familiar trap for job hunters, but many still fall for it. They find a job posting that matches suspiciously well with their criteria, they’re greeted by a friendly recruiter and everything seems to be going very well. That is until the actual responsibilities are miles away from the set expectations and just about everything else is a mismatch. Whenever a company uses bait-and-switch tactics it signals a lot of negative things and it usually ends with a short stay for the new hire.
Potential ways a negative candidate experience can hurt a company
Word of mouth remains the most powerful form of advertising, especially in the case of bad publicity. Negative experiences for candidates will almost certainly have repercussions, and sometimes they can be long-lasting. These are just some of the possible outcomes.
Loss of interest from candidates
A streak of low-quality recruiting experiences will likely have echoes in the market, and soon enough, the number of applications might start to drop inexplicably.
Damage to employer brand and reputation
It’s painful and slow to come back from a tarnished reputation, especially if it was triggered by serious events like discrimination.
Increase in cost of hiring
Companies that don’t take the candidate experience seriously may need to increase budgets for hiring and even retaining employees. Making a company attractive again also takes time, which is perhaps a more scarce resource in the context of a market that is racing to become digital.
Decreased employee referrals
Coming back to word of mouth, it can do wonders when top-level employees wholeheartedly recommend their employer to other experts. On the flip side, if word goes out that a company’s hiring process is lackluster at best, the number of referrals might take a steep drop. Reviews on online platforms have similar effects.
Legal and compliance issues
Worst-case scenarios may involve lawsuits. If a candidate’s experience is negative enough to compel them to press charges, it could wreak havoc.
Conclusion
Considering the difficult challenges most companies face, including high inflation, talent scarcity, or adapting to steep changes brought on by technology like AI, it makes absolute sense to ensure a good if not impressive hiring experience. The medium to long-term rewards are substantial. If that isn’t a strong enough reason, these negative consequences should be an equally powerful motivator for companies to invest and train their hiring staff to go the extra mile and deliver a frictionless and transparent recruiting process.
If you want to learn more about a successful recruiting process or want help in hiring the right help, book a 15-minute introductory call with our team.