To think employers want applicants to bend over backwards

[jobhunter25]

During the recruitment process? I'm currently searching for a new job and can't believe how many hoops some companies expect people to jump through, for shitty pay/benefits might I add. I left my last role around a month ago (unhappy for years, toxic environment) and luckily I had some savings I was able to live off but I'm now ready to get back into work. I've applied for around 15-20 jobs and I've realised that employers don't just invite candidates in for an interview if they like their C.V anymore. It's so long winded. For example, a role that I applied for (pay is between 18-22k btw) wanted me to take a 45 minute test, and if I passed they would call me for a pre-screen chat and if they thought I was suitable they'd invite me in for an interview. I actually emailed them back this morning saying I'd been offered another job as I really couldn't be arsed with the hassle, not for 22k anyway. I understand companies being more thorough with a high paying role though. AIBU?

@Neededanewuserhandle why?

To give the view of someone currently recruiting one role. We have had 199 applications just via LinkedIn, in addition to that the role is being applied for directly through our company website and recruitment sites like Indeed.

70% do not meet the minimum requirements as per the job spec or disqualifying criteria which are made clear up front.

The application process has multiple part specifically to try to reduce the stupidly high number of applications to a reasonable number that a person can actually review properly.

A lot of people seem to be going for a splattergun approach of applying for any job they see.

Because it should be automated.

Yes -my last few jobs have been at least a 4-5 stage application process - application form, online tests, phone interview, assessment day and then face to face interview but at least they have been for full time professional jobs -my sister had a 4 stage application to be a part time sales person in topshop when she was at uni.

Also annoying is the request to send copies (or in one case they wanted me to send my actual passport!) of your various certificates, ID etc or bring them with you for interview, then either they never ask to.see them or they take them and then ask you to bring it all in again on your first day! I spent ages going through boxes because I was moving house trying to find my bloody gcse4 certificates because they were adamant they wanted to see proof of ALL my qualifications despite having a post grad at this point, then when I got there they couldn't care less!

In fact any application form that asks you to list all your qualifications when they are irrelevant to the job with a special place in hell for those that ask you to input every single one individually.

I do wonder if a lot of the early stage is to weed out the ones who aren't fully committed

As a manager of many years I'd say yes; I thoroughly agree that there are faults in some recruitment processes and that streamlining's important, but there has to be some way of identifying the timewasters and initial applications aren't it when they can so easily be done by someone else

@Neededanewuserhandle

That just isn’t possible in some places. It’s ideal, yes, but various factors mean some processes require sone manual bollocks.

It doesn’t need to be hours every day, but a 20 min task each day might be entirely appropriate.

I did find it interesting that people are using ChatGP for cover letters etc, considering many companies now use software to screen applicants it's in some cases going to be bot to bot essentially. I wonder if the screening will favour bot generated ones though.

So you've advertised on several of the most widely used platforms in the world and are surprised so many people have applied?

And 70% are unsuitable but you're narrowing it down by using the applicants to do that work?

The funny thing is, research shows that recruitment processes are terrible at choosing good candidates.

Which means a lot of people who have choices about where they work because they are skilled hard workers, totally ignore these jobs.

A lot of people seem to be going for a splattergun approach of applying for any job they see

As PPs have said, sadly that's often down to the DWP and the obligation to apply for any number of jobs no matter how unsuitable

What are the stages though? Are they do you possess x qualification (tick box) or are they long and arduous? To be honest just as some applicants might be doing a scattergun approach so do some employers in where they list and then wonder why they get so many applicants!

Processes that "require some manual bollocks" to fartarse about with numbers in a spreadsheet are shit processes.

I agree. My husband recently changed careers from teaching so took a big paycut. But he found even for entry level/junior jobs some companies wanted a phone interview, two online tests and then an in person interview. He didn't even have to do that for his teaching job!

@Neededanewuserhandle whatevs.

I think the point is that employers think demand is high and haven't moved with the times.

For some roles demand will be high, but not all, or even most.

70% are unsuitable but you're narrowing it down by using the applicants to do that work?

You missed the crucial bit about the "job spec or disqualifying criteria which are made clear up front", Neededanewuserhandle

As suggested, I quite agree some of these endless "stages" can become ridiculous, but it would also help if fewer applied for jobs they're patently unsuitable for in the first place - or in some cases just learned to read properly

And asking people to fill in application forms and answer detailed questions is just nonsense. It's all creative and exaggeration. An HR person who thinks it's all true is hopelessly naive!

As for asking "why do you want this job" erm - to earn money like everyone else.

Realistic recruiters get better candidates!

I don't disagree with that, but not as the very first stage. As I said above, people want to know if they want to work with you. Even a quick 20 minute Zoom will allow a candidate to form an impression of whether the firm or their prospective boss is one they want to work for/with.

Way back in the day I had to do a test for an interview. I spent hours preparing the test, and then within 30 seconds of meeting the interviewer, I thought there is no way I can work here. It was a formulaic, 90 minute, public sector interview and all the time I spent preparing. What a waste of their time and mine!

If I'd had a call first, or a quick 30 minute interview, before doing the test and the more detailed interview, it would have been much more efficient.

*I changed careers a few years ago and some of the recruitment processes were ridiculous. On several occassions it would include sending in an application + cover letter, followed by literacy, numeracy, and psychometric tests, a recorded video interview, a group day interview, and then a final panel interview.

All for entry level roles.*

I went through this same process (although first interview was face to face not a video) back in 2000 for my first role. So it's definitely not a new thing for entry level roles

I'd like to encourage job-hunters to keep their morale and keep plugging away. I spent ages looking for a permanent role when I was a contractor and I've pretty much seen it all.

I went through four interviews with a company who ghosted me. In an interview with a company I asked if they would provide me with feedback if I wasn't hired. They assured me they would do so. I never heard from them, even after sending an email to follow up asking for feedback. With other companies I went through two interviews, did tasks and never heard back.

But I was lucky (well, I also kept applying for jobs so maybe it was just a matter of time). My current company made the application easy, although I had a series of interviews and are fabulous to work for.

I wouldn't apply for it if I couldn't do the basic parts of it.

For example, I wouldn't apply for an accounting role (or indeed a role that needed expert use of Excel to use the pp's example) because I don't have those skills. Neither would I apply for any legal job outside my specialist areas.

Although despite not being an accountant, I can write a letter and I know what an accrual is. So maybe employers should look more at transferable skills?

Why not?

1. If the applicant is not suitable they shouldn't have applied.
2. The applicant would have to do work anyway whether it was either answering a test electronically, or a quick zoom call, or multiple interviews.

It makes good sense. I'd prefer a pre-screen chat then final interview to two full length interviews. Aptitude/personality testing is fairly common and there has been something like that in every interview I have been in since the 80s, the only difference is technology allows that to happen remotely rather than bringing people in to fill in paper forms.

I am not in HR, but we have company processes for recruitment. We tried to fill a role recently, over 100 applied each round and after the initial stages 0 were anywhere near suitable for interview in the first two rounds. So many people apply for jobs and don't meet even the basic criteria. I don't mean they were not qualified, they just didn't have the qualifications or the experience we specifically and clearly asked for. Thankfully we didn't waste days interviewing in person.

I am not well paid. I would never apply for a job with a multi stage application process of more than 2 stages. Because my experience companies with many stages of recruitment for lower paid jobs are shit employers. They are either very bureaucratic, or incompetent and hide behind procedures.

@Blanketpolicy DWP repeatedly tell people to apply for jobs if they can meet two thirds of the criteria. Women are told men do this all the time and get the job. People are only following the shit advice they get via the government.