HRMDirect President Colin Kingsbury writes on the latest in recruiting and technology.

Enjoy the blog? Wait until you try our applicant tracking system. Click for your 30-day free trial.

I just noticed this story on ERE's Inside Recruiting news talking about how company career websites seem designed "to keep human contact to a minimum." This just reinforces the point I made last month in talking about how most ATSs serve as barriers to making contact with high-quality candidates.

The ERE story quotes from a vendor study in which 10 "Michael Jordan" resumes were submitted to 10 companies just to see what would happen. The result?

One of 10 resumes submissions yielded a response, and that response was a form email rejection letter.

Ouch.

This is exactly why we developed our Hotlist Alerts feature which allows you to set up watch lists of critical skills, job titles, or the names of your top competitors, and get notified immediately when a matching candidate applies. We'll actually email a copy of the resume straight to the recruiter so you can move on the candidate without any delay.

There are a lot of other good tips in the article, including this one:

Reassess critical information. To make the process less time-consuming for applicants, determine whether you can shorten the initial application process.

Of course, most ATSs require candidates to complete a lengthy application form and go through a registration process. While this is perhaps useful for dealing with serial jobseekers who apply for every job on the website, it is far more effective at driving away the rare highly-qualified people who you really want. It's worth noting that the average TPR, who makes her living from making placements, will almost never ask candidates to do any more than email a resume.

While it makes some sense to dig up a moat around your castle, most companies and ATS providers forget to put in a drawbridge to go with it.

[ add comment ]   |  [ 0 trackbacks ]
permalink  |   ( 2.9 / 534 ) What most enterprise software companies sound like to the average human being...



I'll take ten of them, in purple!

[ 1 comment ] ( 2037 views )   |  [ 0 trackbacks ]
permalink  |   ( 3 / 554 ) We're growing fast here at HRMDirect and that means we need more people to help us take our renowned loving care of existing clients and assist in bringning new customers on board. This is an exciting position and would provide a great growth opportunity for a recent graduate or for a junior recruiting/HR staff member who'd like to make the switch to the software industry. This is a multi-functional role which will be shaped in large part by the skill set and interests you bring into it.

You can view a full description of the opening at:

http://jobs.hrmdirect.com/employment/view.php?req=1711

This is a work-from-home position, so candidates from around the US are welcome, though we would especially like to meet people in the greater Boston metro area.

Also, we are pleased to offer a $500 referral bonus for this role. If you know a great person, you can send their resume to this address:

1711-CS-563@jobs.hrmdirect.com

All applications are confidential and will be reviewed personally by yours truly. If you have questions, please feel free to call me at 617-938-3801 or send an email to the address above.

[ add comment ]   |  [ 0 trackbacks ]
permalink  |   ( 2.9 / 684 ) Recruiters are supposed to be in the people business. Why, then, do applicant tracking systems erect so many walls between people, companies, and the people whose job it is to get new people excited about working at them?

Why Applicant Tracking Stinks, Part III
One day you're wrapping up a demo with a customer, and you think to yourself, "my, that WebEx is a tasty and delicious product. I wonder if they might have any openings for a salesperson like me." So, you go to their website, find an opening for a Senior Sales Representative in your area, and click the "Apply" button. At which point, you get something like this, which makes a Form 1040 Schedule D look user-friendly and welcoming by comparison.

You can get someone excited in a chocolate chip cookie if you put it in the right kind of box. But the opposite is just as easily accomplished. Think about the message it sends to a candidate when the first step in the recruiting process is to fill out a stack of forms:

This is a test. If you can put up with this counter-productive and bureaucratic application procedure, you just may be enough of a sheep to tolerate working for a company like us.

Forget about the OFCCP, the piles of junk resumes you get from job boards, and all the other inside baseball only HR departments care about, even if they are important. Candidates don't care, and in the end neither do hiring managers. If the company is really lucky, a good candidate will be so sold on your company that he or she will take David Perry's advice and go over and around the HR department and go straight to the hiring manager, making the recruiter look like a do-nothing bureaucrat. Now I don't think that's what you are, but it's not me you need to convince.

But what if you're lucky, and this great candidate actually goes through your whole process anyway? This is where it gets really ugly.

Assuming someone awesome does apply, how long will it be before you actually read it and realize that you'd be crazy if you didn't call this person right away and beg them to come in for an interview? All too often, the same tool which is designed to hold the mongol horde of unqualified applicants at bay also buries those great applicants beneath a pile of process. The result is that it can take weeks before a recruiter even knows this person applied.

It's not that applicant tracking processes don't serve necessary purposes. At some point the i's and t's need to be dotted and crossed. Systems have by and large been designed to deal with these issues and many of them do a serviceble job of it. But the problem is that most applicant tracking systems are too dumb to know when to get out of the way.

Consider the costs. A great candidate is worth tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands more than an average or mediocre one. A req filled next month costs you thousands in lost productivity versus one filled this month. Most companies spend anywhere from $5,000-$50,000 per year on their ATS. If that tool causes you to miss the boat on even one good candidate, it is blowing you and your ROI right out of the water.

What We're Doing About It
A recent survey of HRMDirect clients showed that it was taking them anywhere from two to six days from the time a resume was received to when it was actually read by a recruiter. That includes weekends, so the actual count is probably a bit lower, and I think that's pretty respectable number compared to averages. I'd attribute this to the fact that our system is easy and intuitive to use so it's not a pain to review candidates manually.

But from my perspective, it still was not good enough. I've always said that if a person who worked at one of our competitors sent us a resume, that I would want to know right away. So we came up with a deceptively simple feature that I expect will quickly become a must-have feature: keyword alerts. You define a list of keywords (like the names of competing companies) and when someone applies with any of those keywords in their resume, our system will automatically send you an email alert containing that candidate's whole resume, within one hour, so you can go straight to the phone and show that person some love. It's like having an assistant to read every resume for you as they arrive and make sure the important ones go straight to you right away.

It's not that we don't think that applicant tracking systems can't make you more productive. But sometimes the most productive thing they can do is to disappear. Does yours know when to get out of your way?

Cross-posted to RecruitingBloggers.com

Read parts I and II of Why Applicant Tracking Stinks

[ add comment ]   |  [ 0 trackbacks ]
permalink  |   ( 3 / 91 ) John Sumser starts us off today with a partial riposte to Jeff Hunter's post last week on Talent and Spirituality. Both are very worthy reads, but they also manage to tiptoe around the elephant in the room: rising inequality. While this may seem to be a primarily political issue, inequality today is foremost an economic issue, which means it all starts with the HR department. So in celebration of election day here in the US, I'm going to break a rule and talk some politics, just this once.

In the mid 90s two important and controversial books came out from roughly opposite sides of the political aisle and both came to roughly the same conclusion that the US was becoming a meritocracy, and that barring something unusual, it would become more and more meritocratic with each passing day. For those of us that struggle each day with bumbling management, this does not sound like such a bad thing at first. But writ large, the implications become more ominous.

Read the full post at RecruitingBloggers.com

[ add comment ]   |  [ 0 trackbacks ]
permalink  |   ( 2.9 / 668 )
Back Next