The Flip Side of the Candidate Experience

In this business we spend a lot of time worrying about the candidateís experience.

We want to get inside their heads and figure out their motivations and intents. Armed with insight on what they want to do, and why they want to do it, we feel we can smooth out the path through the hiring process for them. Itís a rational thing for us to do when, for many of us, they are half the solution to our incomes.

There are, however, occasions when we should not worry about the candidateís experience. Or maybe just worry a bit less. After all, our experience, and the experience of our clients are just as valid as the candidateís. Sometimes these experiences clash.

Taken to its extreme you could say that blind obedience to the orthodoxy of candidate engagement can lead to a politically correct environment that makes candidates the be all and end all of our existence.

Luckily, it never gets that far.

Reasons To Be Fearful
The obvious occasion when our focus should be on something other than the candidates is when they do not meet the minimum requirements for any position that we are ever likely to have. Call me selfish, but applicants do not become candidates in my book until there is something of interest for me. I work for a client and if I canít see anything for them I canít see anything for me. In many countries you are obliged by law to keep the records of candidate applications but there is usually no requirement to establish and maintain a relationship with them.

Less attention is due to candidates when you work in a market where there are 1,000ís of applicants for every job and you are a small to medium sized company. In such a market it makes sense that these kinds of companies would not have the time, technology or resources to reply to each and every candidate. An Applicant Tracking System will allow them to reply to each and every one cheaply but this is not necessarily the answer either.

In China we get an applicant suitability of around 2-4% for all jobs across all industries. In many cases it is less. Replying to the remaining 97% does not make sense because it only encourages them to apply to another 20 positions. This is validation for validationís sake, and no value accrues to companies who do it.

Specific things can also rule out engagement with candidates. Typical of the kind of horror story that I have experienced or heard of would have to include:

Candidates who do things like milking the client for a free trip overseas. On their return it is clear that they were not really interested in the position. Suddenly they are busy and not available. If they do it once they will do it again so cut them off.

Candidates who call daily asking for information about their application and will not get the message that their calls are not productive. After repeated calls they are not even welcome. (My own experience is that this kind of behavior is a red flag. It so often seems to turn out that people like this fail a reference check. Desperation is the source of their follow up behavior, not genuine interest in the job.)

Candidates whoís application or Resume contains any form of major discrepancy. A little finessing is ok but if it is major it is a lie.

Candidates who hint or actually offer some financial inducement to move their application forward.

Candidates that you have interviewed and who you believe would never qualify for any position in any company. If you have a reasonably good hiring process and they managed to get this far they must qualify as professional interviewees. Really good ones too.

Candidates who fail a reference check, or a background check. In this case we need to red flag this fact and ensure that no one in our organization, or client organization, ever contacts them again.

A new danger has to be the opportunity for candidates to blog about their experiences during the hiring process. In this case they they pose a risk to the client or to your company. So if you get even the slightest sense that they have a conspiratorial mindset and are likely to blog about their íbad hiring experienceí, shut them out. Especially if they are likely to become a little famous, or is that notorious?.

I realise that you are going to tell me how generally we all do a bad job when it comes to the candidate experience, and I agree. And I agree that our focus should be on improving the candidate experience. My point is just that not all professionals are worth a deep conversation. (Try talking to me before my caffeine infusion in the morning.)

In the end the daily focus in my job is still on improving the candidateís experience, but the time spent thinking about why we should not do this was worth the effort. Candidates are only one side in the hiring process.

All sides deserve a good experience and ending the conversation with some candidates may improve yours.

Comments to: frank.mulligan@recruit-china.com