⭐️ Dialogue with a Recruiter (part 1)
Alex Kouchev
AI is changing the world - I am here to supercharge that change | Connecting HR and Tech | 12+ Years Leading People & Product Initiatives | opinions expressed are my own
These a new series of content centred on Talent Acquisition. Recently, I talked with a Recruiter specializing in hiring Tech talent for the Finance sector.
☝️ I hope this content will either make you cry or grin, help someone get a job more quickly, or get hired in a place that is a better fit for them.
The interview proved to be lengthy and will be released in three parts. For privacy reasons, my interlocutor asked me not to say his name so that he would be referred to as "Recruiter" in the dialogue.
I started the interview with a straightforward inquiry that, despite its apparent simplicity, manages to irritate and confound a good number of candidates: Why do recruiters frequently cease replying and disappear at any moment during the hiring process?
Hello there, Recruiter 😎 ! I made a couple of notes (once or twice) on my account about how I see the hiring process from the candidate's point of view. You only agreed on some topics. I hope to get your perspective as an employer and a recruiter from this discussion. And first, how does the process look "from the employer's point of view" when an applicant is selected, and how come recruiters occasionally vanish without providing feedback to the applicants they interviewed?
Recruiter: Well, sometimes recruiters are cordial one minute and mysteriously vanish the next.
There are numerous explanations for this. The first is that talent acquisition is a job that involves a lot of repetitive tasks that usually take up the entire day.
As an example: scrap through a job board and select X applicants who match the job description; navigate through responses to published; send N initial messages with the job description; make M phone calls to prospects; respond to K emails or conversations; write a cover letter for each prospect with whom you spoke and send it to the hiring manager; contact hiring managers for feedback; remind candidates and interviewers of today's meetings; select a time slot that works for both; produce an offer letter; discuss the requirements with the leaders, and so on 🤯🤯.
In other words, a great deal of work must be done, but each task is relatively straightforward and can be efficiently planned. That's why it's so simple to forget to do something. The daily chores for a recruiter can be pretty numerous, and "reject James Smith" is just one of them. And there's always the possibility that you could miss it. ATS (applicant tracking systems) or CRMs are used to store data about applicants. Excel is sometimes used, but the basic idea is the same: it's a Kanban board where each card represents a candidate and progresses through the hiring funnel. Unfortunately, these solutions can only partially safeguard you from losing some tasks. The more robust your process 💪💪, the more occasional you'll have such hiccups.
The second reason is that you need to know that "turning down a candidate" is a very low-priority task. Even if you do it, it won't get you closer to your objective. What is the recruiter's target? Select a candidate who will pass all of the stages and be hired. Devoting your time to a candidate who does not pass is less critical than prioritising time for those who still have a chance. The last stages of the funnel should drive priorities, just as Goldratt taught us.
Could you elaborate on Goldratt's funnel 🤔?
R: Finding and hiring candidates for an open position is known as the "recruitment funnel."
Schematically, the funnel is made of the following:
- Everyone who met the conditions of the job posting on a job board.
- Everyone who consented to an interview with a recruiter.
- Everyone who attended the interview. In this case, you must note that conversion is not 💯% - candidates do not always turn up.
- Next, we have everyone who passed the screening filter after the interview.
- Everyone who passed through N stages with the hiring manager.
- Everyone who has received an offer.
- Everyone who accepted the offer.
- Everyone who showed up for work.
- As well as everyone who completed their probationary period.
I plan my day in the morning ☀️. At this point, the candidates are at different stages of the funnel. The closer we get to the end of the funnel, the fewer candidates there are. In most cases, progress between phases can be considered linear, with one step eventually leading to the next. There is a 2% probability that a candidate who has consented to engage with the recruiter would ultimately be hired. These odds increase to 70% after reaching the final stage interview with the hiring manager. Thus, a candidate's importance grows toward the end of the funnel.
Let's say we have a few prospects who are only one stage away from being hired. As a Recruiter, I am obligated to focus the first several hours of my day on them. When I look at the remaining tasks for the day, I start from the end. I usually look at each step of the process and ask myself, "How can I help here?" If something needs to be done, I add it to my plan. And in this manner, I advance to the beginning of the funnel. If I realise at the end of the day that I need more time to finish some low-priority tasks, I shift them to the next day.
Why do we always start at the funnel's end? Let's think mathematically.
Let's do it.
R: You have two lottery tickets 🎰. The first lottery ticket costs 15 minutes of your time and has a 50% chance of winning. The second lottery ticket also costs 15 minutes (to simplify) and has a 1% chance of winning. Their payout is identical. What lottery ticket will you buy?
Ticket with a 50% chance of winning.
R: Correct! In this example, the first lottery ticket represents the candidate at the very end of the funnel, and the second one is for the candidate at the very beginning.
As a recruiter, I have 8 hours at my disposal and must prioritise my options. First, I'll resemble the tickets with the highest odds of winning, then the rest with decreasing odds. Yes, the output of my actions decreases as we move through the stages. Still, these actions are also necessary because we need to move the funnel as a whole. If you only move the end of the funnel, it will eventually get stuck. My workday is packed to the brim, so I must first prioritize tasks dealing with potential new hires. "Sending rejection emails" is very far down on my list because it does not move me closer to my objectives ⛔️.
We went on a tangent, but this was my second point.
There is yet another explanation. I can easily "park" you as a candidate. I remember you and don't want to reject you (just yet). So you're stuck somewhere in the funnel while other candidates are nearing the end. And they have a better chance of getting a job. It is more cost-effective to spend time on them. Recruiters anticipate that the hiring managers will ultimately select one of these prospects. If it doesn't work out for them, I'll turn back to you.
Point number four: the hiring manager might be on vacation 🏝️. During the summer, this is extremely usual. After the first interview, it seems like everything went well, and I tell you, "We'll get back to you soon." You keep pinging me, and I respond with "no feedback, no feedback." The hiring manager, meantime, is sipping coconuts 🍹 in Bali.
There's also a psychological dimension. When a recruiter talks to you and realises that you aren't suitable for the job, he says, "Thank you; I need to pass this on to my colleagues. We'll wait for their feedback." It is rarely the case. As a recruiter, I know that you don't meet the requirements but saying "No" is harsh in some situations.
It's simple to reject a candidate because their compensation expectations 💸💸 don't match or if they only want "work remotely." Or when he lives in a different city and needs three months to relocate, while you needed him to start yesterday. With those criteria, it's pretty straightforward to disqualify someone.
And there are times when saying no is more complicated. Both subjective and objective criteria can be used. Still, as a recruiter, I'd rather not be completely transparent with applicants because it makes me feel bad to turn them down. All recruiters are affected by this. In reality, we are charitable 🫶 💕. It doesn't matter how many years of experience you have in Talent Acquisition; declining folks is always tricky. It may be more difficult for novices... Thus, we prefer to deal with rejections via email, which you can easily deprioritize from your to-do list.
Listen, but doesn't this impact the HR brand and the candidate experience? Isn't it critical to remember to say no to protect your HR brand? You promised to provide feedback to someone, but you failed to deliver 🤨 . How does this play on your reputation 🤷?
R: Yes, an HR brand is an extraordinary thing, but you overestimate how much the HR brand could be hurt by not consistently rejecting candidates. In most cases, it does not have any impact. What does a strong HR brand entail in terms of numbers? You will have a higher conversion rate when you launch a recruiting campaign for your open positions 📈. There are two main categories of recruitment campaigns: outbound and inbound. There are also internal ones, but let's ignore them for simplicity. Outbound is when you must actively seek out candidates and initiate contact with them (emails, phone calls). Inbound is when people respond to your job opening on their own.
If your HR brand is solid, candidates will be more inclined to interact with you. Conversions between all process stages will likely increase. If your HR brand is strong, when you tell a candidate, "Congratulations, you made it from stage 4 to stage 5!" they won't say, "I'm tired of your process 🤢," and drop out.
The same is true for inbound recruiting campaigns: your job posting will generate more responses, decreasing the likelihood of your offers being rejected. Ultimately, when your HR brand is strong, it's easier to retain your new hires.
Some organizations also think that a company with a strong HR brand can hire people for less money. It could be because their name looks good on a CV, and you'll gain some kudos by working for them. But it's questionable. The market is competitive, and contesting businesses are poaching people. A worker in a well-known company can take the extra cash if it's offered. You cannot pay any less. If you are a big business, you want the best applicants. ☝️And the best always seek more money than the average.
The lack of candidate feedback does not significantly harm your HR brand. You failed to tell the person that they are unsuitable for the position, which is a minor incident 🤒. Websites like Glassdoor allow job seekers to provide comments on their interview experiences. It is becoming increasingly popular in the United States and Europe. Still, because this behaviour is so widespread, it is unlikely that the individual you have rejected will spread the news to others.
Most of the next-generation ATS help automate rejection emails and other low-priority tasks. But remember, if you had an excellent line of communication with a candidate you rejected in the past, reaching out to them again with your new opening will likely be productive✌️✌️.