HR Savvy

Candidate Experience: Good, Bad, or Indifferent

by Monica L. Galante, D.Mgmt, SPHR, SHRM-SCP

February 15, 2019

The application process of the past consisted of a lot more social and face-to-face interaction than what someone could experience today. A candidate, in the past, who presented themselves in professional attire could get at least a minimum 5-minute interaction with a human to discuss possibilities of joining organization. Currently, most employers will use an on-line applicant tracking system that manages the entire talent management process. What is missing from this equation is the human the interaction. One can search the Internet only to find a variety of perspectives on the candidate experience. In a study conducted by the organization CareerArc Group, LLC (2018) shared the following statistics:

  • 60% of the candidates had a poor experience – interesting point, it appeared that the larger the company, the more positive the experience
  • Candidates spend 3-4 hours completing the application however employers only spend an average of 15 minutes reviewing the application
  • 65% of candidates rarely, if all, receive ANY kind of follow-up contact and, when they do, 51% received communication 1 month or more after the initial application (CareerArc Group, LLC, 2018, para. 2)

Without understanding the parameters of their research, the statistics despite being alarming they are questionable. Nevertheless, when one reflects over their own experience, it does raise some questions as to what research shares about the candidate the experience.

Applicant Withdraw

During the application process, organizations will experience an occasional withdraw of applicants from a candidate pool for a position and smaller pools limit employer’s choices. In their study, Langer, Konig, and Krause (2017) sought to explore reactions to technology-enhanced tools in the selection process, specifically predictors of applicant withdrawal intentions. Findings centered around three specific areas:

  1. The more engaged an applicant was in the selection process, the less likely they were to withdrawal from the
  2. The more confident the applicant’s perception of a just process, the more likely they would continue being a viable candidate.
  3. If the candidate believe they were a good fit, they will remain an active (Langer et al., 2017, p. 167)

Langer, et al. (2017) believe that by creating a more psychologically engaging selection methods, organizations can create larger pools of candidates to select from, ultimately strengthening the usefulness of the method.

Finally, the employment process for most organizations can appear too secretive. When contacting the organization for a status of an application, the caller will often receive a canned response. When an applicant is not hired, the applicant begins to question why, and when a justifiable reason cannot be found, they question the fairness of the process. By being as transparent as possible and consistent with each applicant, choose selection methods with high validity, treating applicants with respect and dignity during all encounters – both digitally and face-to-face, and provide applicants with multiple opportunities to demonstrate the knowledge, skills, abilities, and fit for the organization are all ways to increase trust in the selection process (Langer, et al., 2017).

The Future of Candidate Interaction 

As human resource departments become leaner and the recruiting market expands across the globe, digital interviews are becoming a viable and cost-effective approach. Langer, Konig, and Krause (2017) examined applicant reactions as well as the effects on organizational attractiveness. The conclusion to the study was limited in discussion considering the depth of the study; however, it was apparent it was more to establish a foundation for direction of future studies. What was indicated in the data was the following:

  1. Weak to moderate sense of creepiness
  1. Moderate privacy concerns
  2. Permitting less two-way communication
  3. Poor interpersonal treatment
  1. Little to no effect on organizational attractiveness

In general, Langer et al. (2017) “found that using digital interviews can be detrimental for (a) affective, (b) privacy-related, and (c) interpersonal aspects of applicant reactions compared to using video conferences” (p. 376).

Summary and Conclusions

When someone is asked to compose an analysis of a topic, they often draw on their own experiences to create a starting point. This article is no different. Being a member of the Baby-Boomer generation, I can recall experiences from filling out applications on site, participating in a face-to-face screening interview, as well as complete any job-related assessments. Additionally, an applicant might have a good chance to gain some insight as to why they were not hired. Nowadays, because of the possible litigious activities that could result from sharing too much information, none is shared whatsoever, often leaving applicants bewildered and wondering what they could do to improve their chances.

Technology and the global marketplace have changed the recruiting landscape. Companies are looking for ways to improve upon the processes, ensuring the recruit and retain top talent. As Giumetti and Raymark (2017) shared, part of the challenge is the candidate withdrawal which is prompted by a disengaged and secret process.  The study supports the claims by CareerArc Group, LLC (2018) that 60% of those they surveyed shared having negative experiences. Langer, Konig, and Krause (2017) takes things a step further and explored the reactions of individuals to digital interviews. One would think digital interviews would be viable with people face-timing and skyping on a regular basis; however, Langer, et al. (2017) found otherwise citing privacy concerns and poor interpersonal treatment. Interestingly, the digital interviews did not affect the perception of the organization. The landscape could not be any clearer that despite the advances in the workplace, simple old-fashion personable approaches can go a long way in creating a viable application pool and selection and retaining top talent.

 

References

 

CareerArc Group, LLC. (2018). The state of the candidate experience: What candidates expect and what employers deliver in the application process. Retrieved February 15, 2019, from http://web.careerarc.com/candidate-experience-study.html

Giumetti, G. W., & Raymark, P. H. (2017). Engagement, procedural fairness, and perceived fit as predictors. International Journal of Selection and Placement, 25, 161-170. doi:10.1111/ijsa.12169

Langer, M., Konig, C. J., & Krause, K. (2017). Examining digital interviews for personnel selection: Applicant reactions and interviewer ratings. Journal of Selection and Placement, 25, 371-382. doi:10.1111/ijsa.12191