Posted on 07/20/2004 9:28:43 AM PDT by Mini-14
JULY 19, 2004
What employers may forget is that nameless, faceless applicants also buy their products and their services. One day they even may be in positions at other companies where they have to decide whether to buy those employers' products or services. Job seekers are a growing constituency, and while it's easy to cast them away now, employers should be cautious in how they do so. Obviously, rejecting applicants is expected, but candidates who felt humiliated or tortured in the process will remember the experience.
After a demeaning experience applying for work at a New York state college, I decided to never enroll my kids there. Not only were the title and description of the job vague, but it had also apparently been posted on the school's Web site indefinitely. And the representative with the college's human resources department was so inept, I couldn't get a straight answer on whether the position was open. Follow-up calls and e-mails to the hiring manager went unanswered. I consider the HR department -- and the hiring manager -- a reflection of the institution and decided I didn't want anything to do with it. Based on my conversations with other job seekers, my experience was not unique.
Here's a list of my pet peeves about today's hiring practices. Hopefully, HR managers and employers reading this know to treat job seekers with respect. But the following steps should benefit those who don't -- and their companies -- as much as job seekers.
1. "Only applicants selected for an interview will be contacted."
The time is long past when employers have to print and mail 200 copies of rejection letters. When you fill a position, send a brief e-mail notice to each applicant. Let them cross the potential opening off their lists instead of waiting for a call that won't come. These notifications also will free your staff from answering inquiries.
2. The "stealth" job.
For some job hunters, classified ads for "stealth" jobs are particularly hated. These ads usually include a brief and murky job description, no company name, and possibly a fax number for resume submissions. This causes problems on several fronts. If the job description is vague -- for instance, if it doesn't specify if the opening is entry-level or professional -- employers have to sift through twice as many resumes as they would if a particular category had been specified. And when no company name is provided, you appear to be building a marketing database, not soliciting candidates. Write ads that make sense for jobs that actually exist.
3. "No phone calls accepted."
These words often appear in job postings. They really mean, "We don't want you to call us. As a job seeker, you aren't important enough for us to talk to. Send your resume like everyone else, and we'll call you if we feel like it."
Please recognize this is only one of the many disadvantages heaped upon job seekers. Isn't it obvious that someone who takes the initiative to call is worth interviewing? If you don't want every Tom, Dick and Harry calling, don't provide a phone number in the ad. But don't say, "No phone calls." Give the job seekers who genuinely want to work for you the ability to call your office and chat with someone who knows about the position.
4. "Site last updated May 2003."
Let's be clear on something that seems so basic it shouldn't be mentioned: Company recruitment pages should be current.
Too often the notice appears: "Site last updated May 2003." When you fill a position, take the job posting down from your site and any other sites where it's published. It wastes job seekers' time to apply for positions that don't exist, and processing useless applications is a waste your staff's time. It also makes your company appear disorganized, thus generating a ton of ill will among candidates.
5. "Click Apply Now!"
Job seekers understand that the odds are stacked against them, and they know they must apply for as many positions in the shortest amount of time possible. But complicated online applications that require entering the same information repeatedly are frustrating and time-consuming. Then, after all this aggravation, candidates might receive only a "thank you for your application" message -- and perhaps junk e-mail from spammers that secured their contact information.
Don't ask applicants to retype their resumes line for line in online applications. Keep these forms simple and to one page in length. Then allow applicants to attach their resumes and cover letters as PDF or Word files.
6. "I'm sorry, you don't have an appointment."
Employers don't realize how the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, affected job seekers. Buildings -- especially in large metropolitan areas -- maintain tight security, and the days of "pounding the pavement" are all but gone. It's practically impossible to show up unannounced and meet with someone. Some employers don't have a procedure for security guards to follow if a job seeker does arrive unannounced. Security or no, when job seekers visit your reception desk, they don't deserve to be treated as if they're handing out business cards at a funeral.
Provide security guards and receptionists with steps to follow if candidates do show up. Even if you can't let them into the building (or send someone to talk with them), at least request copies of their resumes. Why make it unpleasant for candidates who demonstrate initiative? One job seeker told me he felt humiliated when a security guard at one company gave him a slip of paper listing the employer's recruitment Web site address. Any company that can afford a security guard can do better than that.
Here's the bottom line: Treat job seekers with respect and dignity, or be prepared to see a difference in the bottom line. At minimum, consider how you'd like to be treated if you were unemployed, and make sure your company meets those standards. After all, you might be on the other side of the counter someday.
Norris is a freelance writer and adviser specializing in recruitment and career issues. He's based in Stamford, Conn.
Doesn't necessarily mean that the job (or other) data on the site is that old. Many sites work from a database that is constantly updated, but the basic code for the site itself is not changed very often.
I don't hear too many companies bemoaning the fact that they can't find good help. Therefore, I think it is overstated to say that Employers are doing a lousy job at hiring. It is more accurate to say that Employers are getting what they require.
I think what this whiner is really saying is: "I wanted a high-paying job as a web-designer, but no one would hire me. So now I write articles for Computerworld telling everyone how foolish companies are in their hiring practices."
My daughter's boyfriend was told after a phone interview to have his paperwork in by Saturday (on a Monday I believe). He had to work two 12 hour shifts on Tuesday and Wednsday, but sent the stuff in via email, as requested, on Thursday. On Friday the job was filled, and he was told that "we thought you weren't interested when we didn't get your paperwork". As it turns out the lady didn't read her email!.
But the good news is that he did find another job with a small IT company, which he loves.
"Norris is a freelance writer and adviser specializing in recruitment and career issues. He's based in Stamford, Conn."
This is simply the worst article I've ever read concerning finding a job, hiring practices, and life in general I have ever read.
What a loser.
The major objective is to avoid hiring any one over or approaching age 50, from the federal government on down, NO OLD TIMERS NEED APPLY!! Sure, Walmart hires a few, but jobs where you'd use a life time of skills, no way!
All the structure Norris describes is to make the HR folks lives easier by ensuring that no geezers can get past. If the don't exclude older applicants by these mechanisms, they'll have no other means of doing so.
This is only because you have allowed carreer mean that much to you. You are the one who promoted your job to god status.
My number one complaint - HR person contacts you and sets up an interview. You get there and the person you actually have to work for wants to know if you know this, done that, etc. Basically wants to know if you have done stuff that is not on your resume. A waste of everyone's time. HR people - IMO - are extremely ignorant bordering on stupidity people.
Ya know, about the time Detroit started making cars, the horse carriage business went south. The author needs to quit whinning. Job hunting has never been easy. Twenty-five years ago I was told I was a woman so couldn't be a mail carrier, never mind I had the highest test score. Along about that same time I was hired at a state park but two hours after I filled out all the paperwork I got a call from a very upset supervisor who said he'd been hauled over the coals because I was white and where was his token black employee. That job stayed open for several years and was finally pulled because there had never been a black applicant. Job hunting stinks, always has, always will so shut up and get over it.
While there are many, many things I've hated about job search, this article is written by someone who has obviously never done any hiring. Many of the so-called abuses he speaks of, one being the no-call, are necessary. If the company is looking to add staff, they are too busy to answer the telephone.
Companies either have the mindset that it is easier and less costly to go through 2 or 3 employees, firing one or two that do not work out, than it is to conduct a thorough and professional job search. I think to a certain extent, that is true.
The bottom line is is YOU don't get the job, there is something wrong with the process or the company. If YOU do get the job, everything is OK. We need more perspective here that the writer of this article doesn't offer.
The worst part was that when I carefully considered what the headhunter had to offer and gave them permission to submit my resume for the position, I made it painfully clear that no matter what the response was, I wanted to hear back from him/her so I can digest any critique that may have been offered by the hiring manager. I can say that to a person, each headhunter assured me that they would call me back no matter what the response was. And to a person, not one headhunter ever took the time to call me back. It was up to me to track them down, leave messages, etc. before I could get them to tell me that the company "filled the position".
Also, I worked for a smaller company for a few years and was privy to the hiring process. They were looking for programmers last fall and put a listing on Monster.com. That was around 9am. By the end of the day they had over 300 resumes. After two days they had about 450. Obviously, one or two people can not read every resume so they took the top 50 resumes to review and tossed the rest.
What stopped your wife's colleague from asking the question? Nothing. The colleague needs to be better prepared by asking the questions that matter. Especially if it's not specifically stated on the job posting.
BTW, I'm an HR recruiter for a 6500 person organization.
"MUST SPEAK SPANISH"
I went to a job interview and when the interviewer saw my salary requirements on the application, he said the guy who set up the interview should have told me what the job was paying. D'oh. I drove 100 miles RT and spent an hour filling out application. Needless to say, there was no interview.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.