"Only successful applicants will be contacted": the delights of the recruitment process.

Thanks to those that responded to this week's survey, "what's the most brutal rejection you've received from an employer?"

Linkedin-Merchant (definition #11)

NOUN

1. A 'Linkfluencer' that preaches the best interview skills and questions to ask when being interviewed knowing full well that the company they work for does not do in-person interviews until the 64th stage of the recruitment process.

• Average Recruitment Consultant: Benjamin Franklin said "If you fail to prepare then prepare to fail" Wise words to live by. Here are some of my top interview tips for interview success. #preparationiskey #interviewtips #recruitment #candidate #hiringmanagers #jobseekers

(This is from an actual Linkedin post!)

Dear Network,

This week, we're back to the classic line that comes with Officially Unemployed: bitter and potentially unwarranted resentment towards the corporate world. I have to say though, the feedback I got on my last post was really great and I'd like to thank everyone who took the time to indulge my self-obsessed foray into travel writing as it was good fun to get my thoughts down. Onwards.

Whilst we juggle our final year commitments, be it essays, exams, group projects, and maintaining some level of sanity, social life, and financial freedom or even just trying to enjoy life, there is nothing better than receiving the odd rejection email to keep your spirits up. I'm sure that many of you can relate when, after going through several stages of a recruitment process, compromising sleep, lecture attendance, and deadline stress, an email popping into your inbox that reads something like this is the precise little pick-up that you need:

Subject: [Job Title] Application Status

Dear [Your Name],

Thank you for your interest in the [Job Title] position at [Company Name]. We appreciate the time and effort you invested in the application process.

After a thorough review of all applications, we regret to inform you that we have chosen to move forward with candidates whose qualifications more closely align with the specific needs of the role. The competition was strong, and we were impressed by the calibre of applicants.

We genuinely value your interest in joining [Company Name] and encourage you to keep an eye on our career portal for future opportunities that match your skills and experience.

We wish you the best in your job search and appreciate your understanding.

Sincerely,

[Your Name] [Your Title] [Company Name]

I felt it to be particularly appropriate to use ChatGPT to generate this kind of response as I imagine this is one of the most classic uses of generative AI to handle this soulless process but definitely not the only one. However, before I again adopt the character of the smartphone-phobic, AI-hating company stalwart that believes he can only read emails when they're printed off, I recognise that however you dress it up, any kind of rejection is not nice and is in fact a reality of job hunting. That being said, I want to go through the types of things we experience/ language we encounter during these recruitment processes and, if nothing else, complain about them so at least we all know we're in the same boat. Let's get into it.

The "Workplace Aptitude Tests"

Marriott Hotels, this one is for you. Four times I have failed your aptitude tests and I cannot understand why, nor have I received any feedback on what the issues are. I have held down 3 other hospitality jobs so what exactly is my (or your) problem?

One of the most mysterious elements to the recruitment process often presents itself before you even have a chance to laboriously compose a cover letter that no one reads. A series of multiple-choice questions that relate to your ability to judge certain hypothetical situations and give an appropriate response to scenarios you will allegedly meet day to day when working in the job in question. There are also basic maths and English tests similar to the CAT/PIPS tests we took in school to check the levels are appropriate for the given roles. Away from ranking the effectiveness of different solutions and digging out your year 11 scientific calculator though, what is the point of these tests?

The following explanation comes from the Civil Service website. Given that this is a huge graduate employer and I have actually done these tests myself, (to great frustration and panic) it seemed like a good example.

The rationale and apparent benefits here do seem logical, eliminating bias and introducing objective criteria is an important aim that should be fulfilled. However, what is critical here is found the first line "alongside other assessment methods (such as application forms, evidence of technical skills, and interviews).". All too often, recruitment processes are completely automated and there is something completely and utterly disheartening about being rejected from a role without speaking to a real person and, unfortunately, that is all too common.

In many cases, these tests feel like a formality and slightly ridiculous. Questions with multiple choice answers as to the actions you should take either all feel right or all feel wrong and you can never come away with any impression of how you've done. Feeling you are super qualified and compatible for a particular role can be quickly replaced with being completely disheartened and worried about applying for more roles in case you are rejected. In my case, this led to me applying to jobs I really did not want simply to try and practice the process and to me, this is ridiculous. I'm sure plenty of people feel the same when I think that if I could just get in a room with the hiring manager, I'd have a much better chance than ranking the importance of completely fictitious tasks in a scenario that would never arise in a real working environment.

Despite being such a commonly utilised step in the recruitment process and apparently for good reason, these do feel somewhat sterile and irrelevant to a job role and in getting to understand a candidate and I wonder how much insight employers actually get from them, particularly given that, if you practice them enough, you will give the answer that you know to be correct, rather than the one you would actually do when faced with any given scenario. Despite the obvious resource constraints, a more human element to the process wouldn't go amiss.

The "ONLINE ASSESSMENT CENTRE"

Everybody's least favourite reason to miss a lecture (or indeed lectures) and waste a day. This feels like a good one to segue into.

Ah yes, the complete falsification of a working environment. There really is nothing like locking yourself in your mouldy bedroom of your shared house hoping that your lead tenant remembered to pay the Wi-Fi bill and that no one decides to fire up the Bluetooth speaker or Nutribullet for the next 4-6 hours and that your text into the group chat didn't seem too passive-aggressive. You sit there dressed to the nines from the waist up, mic-muted, webcam on and trying to act "professional" whilst others from across the country wait to battle it out for the attention of a company that frankly appears as if they couldn't care less.

Since the pandemic, these online AC's have all but replaced in-person events and whilst being recruited, you will do at least one. They are supposed to serve as a comprehensive method for evaluating the skills, abilities, and suitability of individuals for specific roles within an organisation, evaluating leadership, teamwork and decision-making to make a prediction regarding your job performance.

Or so they say...

From a candidate's perspective, an assessment centre is 4-6 hours of unrealistic scenarios designed to pit candidates against each other in a bid to 'score points' by saying and doing things that, if done in an actual work environment, might lead to you being sectioned under the Mental Health Act (1983). They typically consist of an individual task or tasks as well as a team task.

As soon as the "team task" starts you can immediately tell who's done one of these before (usually everyone) and it's a race to see who can say the words "okay guys I'll set a timer on my phone to make sure we stay on task". Easy points baby. From then on, you have to make sure you contribute enough, but not too much, come up with novel approaches but making sure you appreciate other candidate's ideas and to show leadership whilst also being a humble yet confident self-starter that perfectly reflects the values of the company. You'd also do well to make sure your communication style is as unnatural as possible because that's what they seem to love.

I simply cannot understand how companies get any usable information from these days of tiresome play-acting. Candidates are often so similar that they are at best splitting hairs and at worst just picking at random. It is incredibly hard not to take numerous failures in these AC's personally but you simply can't. The fact is that the more you do, the more likely you will be to eventually succeed and, as I have said before, it's a numbers game. The reality is, these online assessment centres favour those with better resources, limit interpersonal reaction and authenticity of responses, are almost impossible to standardise, create anxiety for applicants and do not accurately simulate a working environment.

The "Video Interview"

This one is my pet hate.

When an email with the subject line "INTERVIEW" pops into your inbox, you can start to feel some sense of excitement. Finally I'm talking to a real person! That is until you click the link and you are redirected to something you can complete "at any time". You are then given a series of extremely open-ended questions by some poorly-rated app that you have to download and you are given an inordinate amount of time to answer them.

"Oh but Adam you just didn't prepare well enough." Maybe.

Nevertheless, those who have done similar interviews will know that the type of preparation required is ambiguous at best with companies rarely deigning to give you a clue about the types of questions that may come up so you will have to muddle your way through an ambiguous question that no amount of research on company values can help you with for 300 seconds whilst AI relentlessly analyses your body language and facial expressions. Just like a real conversation, right? Wrong.

Firms must be able to see that they will never get the best out of any candidate under this kind of system and talented people will constantly fly under the radar.

The conversation that inspired this post

The "We cannot provide feedback at this time"/ The "Only successful applicants will be contacted"

The two most insulting sentences an applicant can read.

Starting with the latter of the two, let's go back to the AI generated email I created at the start of the blog. From opening ChatGPT to copy and pasting the text into Wix Website editor, it took me precisely 45.7 seconds. If this is the case, why on earth can companies not spend 45.7 seconds to courteously inform a candidate that has spent anywhere from an hour to several hours on their application that they will not be moving forward in the process and no longer keep them on tenterhooks? It is absolutely disgraceful. All these types of responses say to me is that this firm does not value my time and does not appreciate interest in their roles. It can't be news to these people that job hunting is extremely stressful and a process that can last months or even years, and to be treated with even the smallest bit of decency is the least we deserve. When a company has such high expectations of applicants, it really irks me when they cannot even treat them with respect.

In terms of our first statement, why not? You obviously wrote something down to differentiate me from candidates B-Z right? Show me what you wrote. Help me improve. Unless you don't care that is. Oh, you don't? Didn't think so! Time to do this again for the 3rd time this week whilst submitting 3 essays and taking 2 midterms!

(Final year was rough)

"Never receiving a response" was also overwhelmingly popular

The "standard of applicants was particularly high this year"

What a meaningless statement.

This doesn't inspire the same passion as the rest of the items mentioned in today's post but just a little pet peeve to end on. I don't doubt that the standard of applications were high, but this sentence really adds nothing. Just fuels the burning rage of receiving the same number of rejections per week as square meals had in your disgusting uni kitchen.

Takeaways...

I understand that there are massive pragmatic constraints here in terms of resources and it would be unrealistic to demand that everyone is given a 30 minute in-person interview and be permitted to tell their employer their darkest secrets, mother's maiden name and childhood trauma and I'm not sure I can provide an effective solution. The pool has to be cut down somehow, right? Also, rejection is an inevitable part of the process and cannot be taken too personally. However, it seems to be that these processes lack any humanity until the final stages and candidates are often not treated with the respect they deserve when it comes to feedback. This can lead to a real doubting of your abilities and suitability for any given role.

So, after spending 2,000-ish words complaining tirelessly, what's this week's awe-inspiring message?

We are right there with you. Applicants and merchants, keep going and it'll come good. Recruiters, maybe using your humanity to get the best out of your recruiting may mean you are not all replaced by robots after all.

Happy Friday all, get in touch and let me know your thoughts! (Only successful e-mailers will be contacted).

Your favourite LM,

AT