Part 6: We can fix this if we decide to care

By now, hopefully you agree that, “Yes, the candidate experience sucks.” And, as you can very clearly see, “No, I will not shut up about it.” If you made it through Parts 1–5, bravo! (and thank you). But I didn’t write all this just to word-vomit all over Medium. I wrote it because we need change, and we’re not going to get it by sitting around reading essays like this one. Here’s what we should do:

Someone needs to “own” the candidate experience

Just as there is a person at many tech companies who cares a lot about “user” experience, there should be someone who cares about candidate experience. Right now, there isn’t such a person, but if we’re serious about creating a better hiring process, there needs to be.

Job descriptions should actually describe the job

Job descriptions should be written with more detail about exactly what a person might be doing if they are hired, and what’s in it for them. And everyone would really benefit from omitting terms like “dynamic” and “multi-tasking” and similar jargon-riddled BS. Just explain the job as you would to a person if you were speaking directly to them. Really, it’s as simple as that. 

One item that’s often left out is how much the company is willing to pay in salary and other benefits. Does anyone really believe that the company hasn’t approved a budget for making this hire in advance of posting the job? Of course they have. A person accepting a job at your company is trading their time/effort/ability/etc for the compensation you give them. But it’s pretty hard to judge the attractiveness of your job without knowing important details like how much you might get paid to do it. 

Ditch the requirements

The requirements for the job should be obvious: that you can do the job! So rather than spending a bunch of time on “must have 5 years of experience in X and a degree in Y”, just tell someone what the job entails and give them a way to show you if they can do it or not. If they can prove to you that they can do the job, but they don’t meet the requirements you came up with, maybe that’s a good indicator to YOU that your so-called “requirements” weren’t nearly as essential as you thought they were.

Give candidates an assignment to demonstrate their talents as the first step in the hiring process… and make it anonymous

As I just mentioned, it’s important to give candidates a way to show you if they can do the job or not. And not just some candidates. It’s important to give all candidates an equal opportunity to demonstrate their skills.

Don’t screen people out. Let them screen themselves out by whether or not they do the assignment for the job. This concept is utterly simple, yet amazingly profound. Right now, most employers seem to believe that they can accurately judge a candidate by spending 6 seconds reviewing a resume or LinkedIn profile. Therein lies the problem: As employers, we’re casting judgement and making assumptions about what someone can do, instead of letting that person show us what they can do.

If you’ve read all this, I hope I’ve impressed upon you why the candidate experience sucks, and why the fact that is sucks matters so much. If you found yourself scoffing at times or wondering why I’m making such a fuss, consider this: besides the person(s) we choose to spend our life with, the work we choose to spend our life on is one of the most important decisions a human being makes. 

Besides the person(s) we choose to spend our life with, the work we choose to spend our life on is one of the most important decisions a human being makes.

For better or worse, what we do defines who we are. The tragedy playing out every day across America (and across the world really) is that what we’d like to do is being partially dictated to us by what other people deem us capable of doing. They get to screen us in or out. They get to tell us we don’t have enough experience and reject us for it. They get to decide our fate without so much as giving us a chance to prove them wrong.

And I for one have had enough of it!

Ladies and gentlemen, we’re at an inflection point. We can either rise to the occasion and fix this problem, or shrink from the challenge and fail to. I get it, change is hard. Doing something new implies risk and risk invites failure. It’s much safer to default to what we’ve always done. 

But if we just have the courage to try we really can make this a lot better. We just need to start.

This article (and my efforts to build Varsidee) is my way of starting. I really believe in this, but I wrote this article not as a call to attention but as a call to action.

No amount of writing will solve this problem. Change comes from doing. It comes from adding up 1,000’s of tiny efforts. The first of those tiny efforts you can make right now is to share this article. The second one you can make is to commit to making your company’s hiring process better for candidates along the lines I’ve outlined above.

Part 5: Failure to communicate

One of my favorite terms to use when describing the candidate experience is the resume black hole. Whoever thought of it, A+ on that one. In three short words, it conveys so much that a candidate feels.

But why do we have that term in the first place? That’s an easy one. It’s because employers as a group have a lousy track record of getting back to and keeping up with a candidate who has applied. Sure, the candidate might get one of those lovely auto-responses that tell them their resume has been received. Ok, great, now what? They wait. And wait. With little or no ability to get in touch with anyone at the company.

This is no accident. Most hiring software attempts to insulate talent managers and hiring managers from the multitude of candidates who send in a resume because the makers of said software know that these people (their customers) don’t want to be bombarded with over-communication from applicants (we’re back to our “defense” metaphor from Part 4).

Even when communication does happen, it’s often sporadic with lengthy gaps between messages. Meanwhile candidates are in the dark (hence the black hole metaphor) about what’s going on internally. And if you’ve ever been a candidate in this situation (and I have) you know how utterly frustrating this is.

Transparency? What Transparency?

Let’s think about it from a candidate’s view for a moment. First, you see a job posted and decide you’re interested in the opportunity. Awesome! Now you think about applying or trying to connect with someone about the opportunity. But before you do so, a thought enters your head: how many other people have applied? That’s kind of an important data point, right? It influences the likelihood of getting the job, or even just getting to the next step in the process. On that note, where is the company in the process? Have several people been interviewed? Has someone gotten an offer? Or is the process just getting started? Looking at the job description, you have absolutely no idea about any of this! These would be quick questions to ask. But who do you ask? And where do you go to ask them?

Do we really believe that’s effective communication? Really?!? Even people buying lottery tickets are told what the odds of winning are. People applying to colleges can get a rough idea of the odds of being accepted from the school’s published acceptance metrics. Yet, for this process called “job search” candidates are kept completely in the dark, and given few if any means of asking questions until after they’ve been able to connect with someone directly, which may or may not happen at all. #WTF

It’s 2016. We live in a hyper-connected world of near ubiquitous communication. Look at your smartphone. I’ll bet if you counted them up, you’d have a dozen or more separate apps that allow communication. Yet, for this one area of human activity, it’s like we’ve forgotten everything we know. We’ve made it unnecessarily difficult to do simple things like ask questions, get answers and have a real dialogue between two human beings. Is this really the best we’re capable of? Is it really?!?

I think we can do a lot better

Part 4: Bouncer syndrome

Think of the last time you went to a crowded bar or club. If it was crowded, in all likelihood, you waited in line to get in. When you got up to the front of the line, you dutifully handed over your ID and stood there quietly awaiting confirmation from the bouncer that you could proceed. In that moment, the bouncer was the gatekeeper. He had the power to allow you to enter and have a great night inside said bar/club, or to deny your entry for any reason he wanted — legitimate or not.

In our current hiring model, talent managers or screeners or whomever is serving as the entry point for an applicant has a similar power, and low and behold they’re demonstrating all the same characteristics as bouncers.

Can you spell POWER TRIP?

The person that receives inbound resumes or connects with candidates online is often the first line of defense for a given job. Notice what I just said there, “the first line of defense!” This is how employers casually refer to the screening function: In terms of “defense!” It’s as if they have an existential fear of some horde of barbarians/candidates massing at the gate, poised to breach the walls. To the rescue comes the resume screener who will beat back this horde by only letting certain candidates proceed and rejecting the others. Heroic, isn’t she?

I’m overdoing it on this metaphor, but the idea behind it is true enough: a person, generally called a screener or a recruiter or a talent manager, has the power of the gatekeeper just like a bouncer does. And just like a bouncer can choose to deny you entry for wearing shorts or a hat, the screener can deny your resume for similarly arbitrary reasons. Whether they do so because you don’t appear to have enough experience, didn’t go to the right college, or haven’t worked at a well-known employer, all of the screener’s decisions to accept/reject your resume are made based on a litany of personal biases and preferences.

These biases, which we should be talking more about, are unconscious and part of human nature, so no amount of screeners saying “I would never do that” matters. They are doing it. They just don’t realize it. And these biases are harmful because they rarely have anything to do with someone’s ability to do the job.

With such power to screen people out, we shouldn’t be surprised that screeners, recruiters and talent managers demonstrate some of the worst elements of bouncer syndrome. It’s not the power that’s the problem. It’s them knowing they have it. When people know they have such a large amount of power, they often choose to wield it in harmful ways simply because they can.

So if the problem is too much power, is the solution to have less? Yes and no. I submit that the best solution would be for screeners, recruiters and talent managers to focus on attracting candidates, not screening them. As we’ve said previously, a complaint of talent managers at some companies is not having enough candidates or there being too many “passive” candidates. So why not focus more effort on attracting candidates instead of dissuading them? Those who they attract should be directed to an assignment for that job and asked to complete it. This assignment is what should be the screening mechanism, not a human reviewing a resume and acting like a bouncer. Let me repeat that because it’s a key point:

This assignment is what should be the screening mechanism, not a human reviewing a resume and acting like a bouncer.

By asking EVERY candidate to do this assignment, an employer is giving EVERYONE an equal opportunity to prove themselves. (more on this in Part 6)

Part 3: Those who can, network. Those who can’t, apply.

One of the first use cases of the early internet was to move classified listings for employment online. Think Craigslist, early job boards, the careers section of corporate web sites, etc. 

We thought we’d be entering a golden age where everyone was able to find job opportunities online, and easily apply, all without leaving their desk or pickup the phone. However, an unintended consequence of this online growth was more applications. Lot’s more. It turns out when you let everyone easily apply, everyone does. This paradox was best exemplified by a clever ad from The Ladders.

When you let everyone in, the best people can’t stand out.

-The Ladders

Now, let me say this before anything else: I don’t agree with a LOT of the message of this ad. It’s elitist and even mean-spirited in some ways. In my opinion, ANYONE should be able to apply for ANY position they want and have an equal opportunity to get the job. Period. (more on this in Part 6)

That said, I’ll bet there were a lot of talent managers, hiring managers, resume screeners, and recruiters who just watched this ad and said to themselves, “yep, I deal with this EVERY day.”

And the unfortunate truth is this ad is right in an important way: when you let everyone apply, the best people can’t stand out. So what are we to do?

I submit that we need to change our definition for what it means to “apply.” Right now, apply equals sending in a resume, or the equivalent thereof. And that’s too easy to do. And that’s why everyone does it. Instead, if apply meant “complete an assignment to demonstrate your capabilities”, an immediate consequence would be fewer people would apply for each job because they wouldn’t be willing to do the assignment required to apply. But the ones who do complete the assignment would likely be the most interested and capable candidates, and thus best suited for the job. So we’d end up with a system where anyone could apply, but the reality would be most people wouldn’t apply. Equal opportunity? Check. Let the best people stand out? Check.

It’s not what you know, it’s who you know

Since it’s so easy to apply for a job using online job boards, SO many people do. You’ll hear people say, “in order to get 1 job, your need to apply to 100” or “it’s a numbers game” or similar kinds of things. So what happens? A company posts a job, and they get lots of applicants. Now what? How does a talent manager or hiring manager even begin to respond to this flood of people? ANSWER? In most cases, they don’t.

For competitive jobs with lots of applicants, many companies pay little if any attention to candidates that apply online, instead focusing on 1) people they’ve sourced themselves 2) people who they know or are connected to on LinkedIn/Facebook or 3) people that were referred either via another employee or via an outside recruiter.

Translation: If you want to get noticed, you gotta know somebody.

Think on that for a minute… Do we really believe that your personal connection(s) at a company should be more important than how talented or capable or passionate you are? Do we really?!?

That idea sounds a lot like the 1950s to me (heck, maybe even the 1750s), and I for one could not more vehemently disagree with it. TALENT and ABILITY and SKILLS and PASSION FOR THE JOB should always be more important than who you know.

TALENT and ABILITY and SKILLS and PASSION FOR THE JOB should always be more important than who you know.

But right now, they aren’t. For a lot of companies, no matter how talented you might be, if you don’t know the right people or can’t get to know them, you are completely invisible, and never even considered even if you apply.

Do you have an “in?”

But wait, there’s more. Because candidates have begun to get wise to the situation I just described, some are going to great lengths to “network” their way to someone at a company in the hopes of getting some “inside track” on the job. They know that NOT knowing someone at the company will likely prevent them from being considered at all, so they take steps to get to know someone.

Ok, fine. Here’s the problem with that: it results in a system that optimizes for one’s ability to network, not their ability to do the job. And, it perpetuates the ‘unfair playing field’ sentiment that many job seekers who didn’t do that end up feeling. Lastly, it puts company employees in an awkward position of having to connect (or not) with so many potential candidates that have done nothing more to demonstrate their interest in the job or capability to do it than click the “connect” button. #FAIL

Now, if ability to network is the key skillset for the job, like in a sales position for example, there’s some legitimate justification for this approach as the activity is a good proxy for the actual work the person would be doing if hired. But those roles are the exception, not the rule. Currently, we’re treating them as the rule, not the exception.

The network > talent reality is troubling in other ways too. By optimizing for ability to network over ability to do the job, many highly talented people are getting missed, many less talented people (who are superior networkers) are getting hired, and many hiring processes are horribly biased, as I’ve written about in the past. These biases perpetuate the sentiment of exclusion that many feel. While this chorus of exclusion is being sung the loudest by women and minorities, I’d argue that the problem is far deeper than race or gender discrimination alone. Whether intentionally or not, what employers are doing is creating a “clubby” type of environment where personal connections and friend status have become more important than talent, ability and passion for the job. 

In perverse ways, this structure is even celebrated in Silicon Valley. People are often described as “ex-Google” or part of the “PayPal Mafia” or some similar company affiliation. People from those groups are seen to be more talented, more capable, and more employable than others irrespective of their actual contributions at their affiliated companies, simply due to the name recognition. On the other hand, non-mafia members — irrespective of actual talent and abilities — are viewed with skepticism or not considered at all. 

If we play all this out, what we’re doing is creating a 2-class system: the connected and the not connected. The not-connected people follow the rules and apply for jobs via online job boards believing that they will be reviewed fairly and equitably. Meanwhile, the connected people know that rules don’t really matter. Rather than “apply” for the job, they “connect” with someone at the company in an effort to network their way to the hiring manager or talent manager. The intention of this activity is to get some sort of preferential insider status and outmaneuver the people who went to the trouble of applying.

I don’t blame the candidates who do this. They’re only acting in their own self interest, and I would do the same thing if I were them because it’s more effective. But as employers, we need to realize a few things. First, by allowing this sort of thing, we’re perpetuating the clubby, exclusive, insiders system of hiring that results in an unequal playing field. Second, candidates are trying to “hack” the hiring process in the first place because the user experience of the current system is so bad. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, this approach does NOT produce the best candidates. It merely produces those candidates that are well-connected.

Part 2: Job descriptions are non-descript

When we started Varsidee, we did a lot of customer development with professionals in an effort to understand the degree of interest a typical job description generated about a company and the opportunity to work there. We asked people, “on a scale of 1–10, how well does the average job description motivate you to want to apply for the position?”

The highest number ANY respondent gave us was 3! 

Note: Several people lobbied for answering with a negative number

When you look at the typical job description, most don’t describe the job at all. They also don’t sufficiently motivate a candidate to want the opportunity. Instead, they’re littered with “requirements” that a talent manager or hiring manager has arbitrarily inserted.

• Must have 5 years of experience building and optimizing marketing campaigns

Does this mean that if I have 4.5 years of experience that I’m incapable of doing the job and shouldn’t apply? What about 4? What about 3.5? If you asked most talent managers that question, you’d often get a “oh, just go ahead and apply anyway” response. If that’s what they’ll tell you, doesn’t that defeat the purpose of listing it as a requirement then?

The reality is most so-called “requirements” are irrelevant to someone’s ability to perform the tasks, duties and responsibilities of the job anyway. They appear on job descriptions for no better reason than because someone decided to put them there.

Why would I want to work at your company when I don’t even know what I’ll be doing there if hired?

Put yourself in the role of the professional: via some means they have arrived at your job description and are now reviewing it. The first thing they are thinking is “If I were to make this change in my life, and go work for this company, what would it be like? What would I do during an average day? During an average week? What would you offer to pay me in exchange for me doing these things?” 

The person is trying to visualize themselves in this new job (yours), but they can’t because your job description is pretty non-descript when it comes to explaining such details. “What will my workspace look like? Will I have a Mac or PC? Does this company use Slack, Asana, Jira or something else? Will I build marketing landing pages myself, or does this company have a designer that does that whom I’ll collaborate with? How will my performance be evaluated? What options will there be for getting promoted, and when?”

This list of questions and curiosities could be endless, but the point isn’t to answer ALL of them. It’s to answer MORE of them. Right now, job descriptions answer NONE of them, and as a result, candidates can’t visualize themselves in the job. If a candidate can’t visualize themselves doing your job, should you be surprised that they’re not taking steps to apply for it? I’m certainly not

Part 1: It’s not my job. In fact, it’s no one’s job.

When you think Nordstrom, you think customer service. When you think Zappos, you think customer service. When you think Apple Store, you think customer service. These companies — each in their own way — pride themselves on delivering customer service that is markedly better than their competitors. In fact, I’d go so far to say (and so would they) that customer service is a competitive advantage that each posseses.

Now here’s a thought exercise: Who’s the Nordstrom, Zappos or Apple of candidate experience?

Exactly! You don’t know and neither do I. And the reason neither of us knows is that very, very few companies even think of hiring as an experience at all.

Employers care deeply about user experience, but they don’t give a hoot about candidate experience

Let’s stick with tech companies since that’s what I know best. As product managers & designers, we go to INSANE lengths to rethink a workflow so we can save a single click! We know that each of those clicks we can eliminate, each of those page reloads we can avoid, each of those process steps we can remove, all of that effort makes the difference between a great product and one that’s, well, “meh” or even worse, one that causes user frustration. It may sound trivial to you, but to a product manager or designer, this stuff is religion.

But the candidate experience has no such preacher. No one cares. And the reason no one cares is no has to care. Just as “no one ever got fired for buying IBM”, no one ever got fired for allowing a bad candidate experience to exist. There is no champion focusing her time on making the hiring process better, and if we’re serious about improving the candidate experience, there needs to be.

If all else fails, blame the candidates

If a company designs a product that users find frustrating and choose not to use, the first person who has to answer for the product’s failings is the product manager (yes I’m simplifying this a bit, but stay with me). Applying that logic to hiring, we would assume that the Talent Manager would have to answer for a hiring experience that caused similar frustration and a lack of candidates, right?

Nope! 

Talent managers have managed to convince us that it’s the candidate’s fault that their hiring process produced poor results, referring to these candidates as “passive” candidates. It’s pretty remarkable “spin” when you think about it: rather than accepting blame for a process that isn’t sufficiently engaging potential employees and getting them to apply, find a way to shift the blame to those people by implying that the problems stem from their passivity rather than your system’s lack of appeal.

I wonder what would happen if a sales manager said to the CEO, “gee, it’s not my fault sales are down, there are a lot of “passive customers.”

In fairness to talent managers who are reading this right now and cursing me, the problem isn’t entirely your fault. Many of you have tried to implement change, but haven’t gotten authority to do so from company leadership, or have in other ways been stymied internally. Furthermore, many of you would define passive candidates differently than I just did. You’d say that these people are happily employed at their current companies, and not “actively” looking for something new. Fair enough, but that only accounts for some of them. The research shows that many people are casually looking around to see what else is out there, but choosing not to go to the trouble of applying. It’s these people that I’m referring to, and the reality is that if the experience of applying were better designed, these people would apply. They’re not because it’s not.