At this week’s TruLeeds unconference we will be leading a track debating the candidate experience. It’s certainly a subject that has filled many blogs and discussion groups over the last couple of years, with the immediacy and transparency of social media giving more jobseekers an outlet through which to voice their frustrations.

The consequences of giving applicants a poor experience during the hiring process can be far reaching. Last summer a survey from SHL showed that poor treatment of rejected candidates can damage not just a brand image but the bottom line too with 20% withdrawing their custom following a bad experience. Alarmingly for many businesses this figure rose to almost 30% in the all-important consumer age group of 25 – 34.

A recent initiative in the US aims to acknowledge businesses who give a great candidate experience with special awards at the 2011 HR Technology Conference.  Previewing this, leading US HR blogger China Gorman said:

“Paying attention to the candidate experience is the logical next step as organizations confront the looming talent shortages in many geographic and skill areas.  Thought leaders in the recruiting field are suggesting that automated ATS replies to job candidates and the all-too-common resume “black hole” are negatively impacting many organizations’ ability to attract top flight talent and begin creating relationships with them – relationships that end with employment.”

In the UK many businesses have struggled to cope with processing large numbers of applications. Commenting last year on the results of his company’s survey, the SHL Chief Executive said:

“Many businesses are simply not equipped to deal with the current surge in applications and unfortunately this means processes that may once have been standard are now being neglected. This is having a direct impact on employer brand and it appears candidates are voting with their feet. A bad recruitment experience is at least as damaging as a bad consumer experience in store. It’s about giving those applicants a good experience and managing people so if they are rejected they can still have a pleasurable experience.”

Unsurprisingly, the two biggest complaints are not being told if the application is successful, and not getting any feedback on the reason. Anecdotal evidence from jobseekers visiting our various comment and discussion forums would suggest that lack of feedback following an interview is also a major problem.

So what can hiring managers do?

Certainly they need to look at their processes for dealing with the key interactions of application, processing and selection. If rejected candidates are inclined to take their custom elsewhere then businesses surely need to invest in this area else risk losing sales in future.

The majority of processes seem fall down on the three ‘C’s – Clarity, Communication and Closure. In an ideal world applicants should expect:

Clarity

About the role, selection criteria, interview process,  timescale for a decision and some indication of where they stand.

Communication

An acknowledgement e-mail should be a bare minimum and a follow up if the candidate has been unsuccessful. For those selected for interview then there should be clear dialogue with the business, and a workable timescale with phone calls made precisely when they are promised even if there is no definite news to convey.

Closure

For candidates who are taken through an interview process, but ultimately rejected, there should contact with someone from the business who they met during the process. Certainly they should expect to be told what went wrong, why it went wrong, receive some constructive feedback, and find out if either there may be an opportunity in another part of the business, or if it would be worth applying in future should another position arise.

The extent to which businesses and recruitment teams are able to satisfy all people who show an interest in working for their businesses may certainly be a discerning factor in attracting future talent. As the promoters of the US awards said, they intend to “recognize those organizations whose processes show that attending to candidates in a more respectful way has a positive impact on their ability to build talent communities and to actually hire the talent they need”

We’ll be putting these questions to recruiters and candidates over the next few days and will report back on the discussion.

In the meantime, let us know about your experiences.

If you are a hiring manager, what do you do to keep candidates up to date on where they are in the hiring process?

If you’re a jobseeker, is the ‘experience’ important to you? Would you stop being a consumer of a business that didn’t provide a positive one?

Related posts:

1. Debating the Candidate Experience at TruLondon5 One of the issues increasingly discussed at recruitment events is...
2. Checking Candidates on Social Networking Sites   There was a lot of discussion at TruLondon5 around...