Excessive job application questions

[Geraldgee]

NC as to not be linked back to other threads for those who know me IRL!

I am currently on a FTC and job hunting...have done a few civil service applications which requires essay answers to 3 questions as part of the application process, fine. Not much time taken. However...

Just been applying for a local council job. Have spent ages manually completing my employment history and education history details as no CVS allowed, only to then reach a page in which they are asking for 1000 word responses for each of the 24 items listed in the JD/PS, all separate responses required to fully demonstrate how each singular specification is met.

For context this is a role below management level. AIBU to think that this is absolutely excessive for lower level roles? Frustrating as well knowing the figures around women not applying to roles if they feel they don't meet every single specification.

I understand having to demonstrate you have the skills but 1000 words on 24 topics? Is this the norm now? My current public sector organisation requires a CV and that is it.

OP, I was working at a local authority on a FTC having been recruited via an agency. The role (also at officer level) was made permanent and I was invited to apply. I have never seen such a dense application before - it is incredibly similar to what you are describing. I recall there were 23 specifications and I had to demonstrate how I met each one. My first draft missed a few as I felt they were incredibly similar and it was only because I asked a colleague for help and was guided through the application that I knew I had to follow things to the letter. It took hours to do and was easily the most laborious application I have ever had to do. Never again.

@daimbarsatemydogsbone our business manager recently advertised for an entry level admin, 5 competencies, one post had over 1000 applications, all have to be sifted and scored. Three quarters had no relevant skills or experience, many could barely string a sentence together when the vacancy stipulated a particular level of qualification in English. It's a waste of time and resources. We are not allowed to just dismiss applications without scoring, if we could a lot would go straight in the bin.
For practitioner level we invest a huge amount of time and money to get people job ready, attrition during the first two years of training/qualification has a huge impact on workforce planning and services being available to very vulnerable and also dangerous individuals, it also costs the public please a lot of money. We need to be sure the people we recruit are in it for the right reasons and are willing to put in a lot of hard work. A robust recruitment process weeds out a lot (not all) of those who just won't manage.

In my experience, the more ridiculous the application, the more bureaucratic and micromanaged the work environment

As a (retired) professional recruiter i totally agree

I understand job applications need to filter out suitable candidates, but some of them just seem like pointless busy work

Agree again, but "pointless busy work" is what councils specialise in to prop up too many non-jobs

Are you quite sure this is the kind of place you want to work in, OP?

[quote JurgensCakeBabyJesus]@daimbarsatemydogsbone our business manager recently advertised for an entry level admin, 5 competencies, one post had over 1000 applications, all have to be sifted and scored. Three quarters had no relevant skills or experience, many could barely string a sentence together when the vacancy stipulated a particular level of qualification in English. It's a waste of time and resources. We are not allowed to just dismiss applications without scoring, if we could a lot would go straight in the bin.
For practitioner level we invest a huge amount of time and money to get people job ready, attrition during the first two years of training/qualification has a huge impact on workforce planning and services being available to very vulnerable and also dangerous individuals, it also costs the public please a lot of money. We need to be sure the people we recruit are in it for the right reasons and are willing to put in a lot of hard work. A robust recruitment process weeds out a lot (not all) of those who just won't manage.[/quote]
Are you not able to cap applications?

We cap, review and go back out if the calibre isn't there

@Puzzledandpissedoff

In my experience, the more ridiculous the application, the more bureaucratic and micromanaged the work environment

As a (retired) professional recruiter i totally agree

I understand job applications need to filter out suitable candidates, but some of them just seem like pointless busy work

Agree again, but "pointless busy work" is what councils specialise in to prop up too many non-jobs

Are you quite sure this is the kind of place you want to work in, OP?

I think it's a mix of well if the application is this lengthy it must be competitive to get into/a good place to work, and on the other hand 'is this just their general way of working?' which is off putting

Ive applied to NHS jobs that have been like this

[quote JurgensCakeBabyJesus]@daimbarsatemydogsbone our business manager recently advertised for an entry level admin, 5 competencies, one post had over 1000 applications, all have to be sifted and scored. Three quarters had no relevant skills or experience, many could barely string a sentence together when the vacancy stipulated a particular level of qualification in English. It's a waste of time and resources. We are not allowed to just dismiss applications without scoring, if we could a lot would go straight in the bin.
For practitioner level we invest a huge amount of time and money to get people job ready, attrition during the first two years of training/qualification has a huge impact on workforce planning and services being available to very vulnerable and also dangerous individuals, it also costs the public please a lot of money. We need to be sure the people we recruit are in it for the right reasons and are willing to put in a lot of hard work. A robust recruitment process weeds out a lot (not all) of those who just won't manage.[/quote]
I completely agree with you. I have had applicants to an entry-level job who have spouted all sorts of nonsense, appeared fab for the job and they were crap. Some said they were fully trained/capable, turned out they weren't, others said they were willing to do XYZ, once in the role they whinged about having to do XYZ. It wasted a lot of our time.
I then recruited in a way that seemed a bit overboard for the level of the job and guess what? All of the above never applied and the ones that did and were successful were actually up to the job.
I have since been through a rigorous recruitment process myself and I actually got coached through the process, from learning what I did and comparing my experience of the process compared to those who didn't get the coaching I can now see why the processes seem overboard. They really test peoples desire for the role, it really tests their competence levels against what they want, simply just ticking the box/saying you can do it was not enough, the examples you used needed to be good enough where when probed in an interview you could talk about them thoroughly for 5-10 mins if you couldn't then they weren't strong enough.
The coaching was a real eye-opener. I spoke to people at the end of the process who wasn't successful ( I was) and I asked how they found the process. They described how they couldn't understand why they failed but the examples that were used in the form and interview etc were much weaker than what I had learned during the coaching I'd received. The sad thing was they could have probably done much better if they knew how much more was needed from them, they just thought that saying they'd don't it before was enough or they hadn't elaborated enough or linked it into what the employer wanted, etc.
I can see why It's infuriating but having been an employer and having gone through coaching for a very competitive process I now get why.
On another note OP, I know what you mean about the civil service jobs, but I know people who work for them and the feedback isn't great, but that's a whole different post. I wasn't keen on their process, even for entry jobs, just not rigorous enough.

I do think expectations are sometimes stupid. (Why ask for a CV and then expect an application form that duplicates 50% of info on CV?)

The user-friendly application process was a big plus at my current firm. It just gave a very good impression of the company culture and made me keen to work there. Whereas my old organisation had actually made the application process longer and application numbers have really taken a hit. HR professionals take note.....

@CorrBlimeyGG

Either there has been a typo or you've misread. Contact them before wasting your time, no one is going to read 24,000 words.

with that I disagree, you.May be right but in my view if a company requests the answers and wants the best person for the role, then they should study the applicants responses.

@ECLT

Similar story to a person I know, wanted a position that they were throught the role would be easy, and instead of building a detailed profile of information to help with the application and to assist with any questions the company asked, instead they thought they would just make it up on the spot, then afterwards they did not get the role and one of the questions they said they were puzzled why it was asked, yet when I read the key responsibility list in the job description, it stated the reason they were asking that particular question.

Basically seemed like they wanted the role, but did not want to put any time of effort into achieving it.

I'm in the middle of writing an application for a public services CEO role which is entirely a form with 3 'freeform' longer answers. Salary 125k. I'm giving it a lot of thought but it sounds like yours is worse OP.

[quote JurgensCakeBabyJesus]@daimbarsatemydogsbone our business manager recently advertised for an entry level admin, 5 competencies, one post had over 1000 applications, all have to be sifted and scored. Three quarters had no relevant skills or experience, many could barely string a sentence together when the vacancy stipulated a particular level of qualification in English. It's a waste of time and resources. We are not allowed to just dismiss applications without scoring, if we could a lot would go straight in the bin.
For practitioner level we invest a huge amount of time and money to get people job ready, attrition during the first two years of training/qualification has a huge impact on workforce planning and services being available to very vulnerable and also dangerous individuals, it also costs the public please a lot of money. We need to be sure the people we recruit are in it for the right reasons and are willing to put in a lot of hard work. A robust recruitment process weeds out a lot (not all) of those who just won't manage.[/quote]
And making them write war and peace in an application is a reliable indicator of a good recruit? OK then.
I did have a wry smile - the two responses that have tried to justify this crazy approach are unusually verbose.
I suppose ultimately the process does screen out people unwilling or unable to provide ridiculously verbose responses, which appears to be a requirement for some jobs, as opposed to doing actual work.

That sounds ridiculous! Also civil service, also involved in recruiting/sifting forms sometimes. In my department we can specify a maximum of three essential criteria and two desirable criteria, and candidates are expected to write a maximum of three hundred words for each. So no more than 1500 words in total (other than name, contact details and current employer/job title). Much more reasonable, and still a nightmare to sift /provide meaningful feedback if you get a lot of applications.

@JurgensCakeBabyJesus oh and as soon as a candidate scores 0 for a criteria we stop marking. It makes it much easier!

On the one hand it is cheeky, presumptive and just plain taking the piss.

On the other hand, I started my first public sector job (at 50) last September having begrudgingly stayed up to midnight the night before the deadline filling a similar form in.

Admittedly I hope you are typing this form, and not getting writers cramp with a biro :)

Of course it does sometimes happen that ignoring a very basic, clear instruction gets you ditched immediately ie write in blue ink when it clearly states black, use cursive script when it says block capitals. Blanks to any questions etc. Therefore it is probably wise to answer all questions however irritating and time-consuming it may be!

@Clarinet1

Of course it does sometimes happen that ignoring a very basic, clear instruction gets you ditched immediately ie write in blue ink when it clearly states black, use cursive script when it says block capitals. Blanks to any questions etc. Therefore it is probably wise to answer all questions however irritating and time-consuming it may be!

I hope the zillions of words applications don't require block caps

@Puzzledandpissedoff

In my experience, the more ridiculous the application, the more bureaucratic and micromanaged the work environment

As a (retired) professional recruiter i totally agree

I understand job applications need to filter out suitable candidates, but some of them just seem like pointless busy work

Agree again, but "pointless busy work" is what councils specialise in to prop up too many non-jobs

Are you quite sure this is the kind of place you want to work in, OP?

This with bells on! I have public and private sector experience and could not agree more.

Yeah, the days of firing off a quick CV seem to be mostly gone, from my experience anyway.

Just wait till you get to the excessive interview rounds for some jobs...

That would send me decking mad. Especially as many council jobs are already earmarked to go to an internal person but they have to go through the motions of advertising it

@lap90

Yeah, the days of firing off a quick CV seem to be mostly gone, from my experience anyway.

Just wait till you get to the excessive interview rounds for some jobs...

Maybe in the public sector, but in small to medium private companies, CVs are still alive and well. I don't mind if they ask for a more detailed covering letter, but I would never apply in the first place for any job with such a ridiculous application form. For some reason, Mumsnet seems to have an over-representation of public sector workers which doesn't reflect most of the people I know in real life.

I also think that in terms of your employment history, linear application forms are very unfair as they are really designed for people with a "solid" work history, and more or less impossible to fill in for anyone who's done a lot of temp work or had multiple overlapping part-time jobs, or employment mixed in with self-employment etc. And if you really need to be "coached" to get through someone's recruitment process, there is something very wrong with that. That's why a CV and more detailed cover letter are fairer for both sides, because it means people can present their work history in a more appropriate way, while also telling the employer what they want to know in the cover letter.

@Carinattheliqorstore1

That would send me decking mad. Especially as many council jobs are already earmarked to go to an internal person but they have to go through the motions of advertising it

I honestly think there needs to be a change in the law with this one as I read about it so often. In any SME, the job would just be given to the person they were thinking of and that would be that, basically an internal promotion. It really needs to be made illegal to advertise a job that someone else has already been earmarked for.

Not quite the same, but I'm currently in the early stages of the recruitment process with Amazon and it seems there's somewhere in the region of 7-8 interviews during the process .

I'm not sure how this can possibly be a good use of anyone's time.

Given how many jobs I've been rejected from recently, I really couldn't be arsed filling in a form as long as that.

The last job I applied for was public sector and it was 5 x 1000 words, brief education history and one 60min interview. Going in at senior management level. That was plenty!

I understand job applications need to filter out suitable candidates, but some of them just seem like pointless busy work

I always thought that job application forms were used to filter out unsuitable candidates - but the process described here seems to also be designed to filter out most of the suitable candidates too, the best of whom probably have a choice of jobs at the moment.