Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Work

Chat with other users about all things related to working life on our Work forum.

Original poster

Soooo disappointed in job applications!

230 replies

SnowfallSnowball · 04/08/2021 10:24

Hi
I am currently shortlisting for a role and the level of applications are so disappointing. I totally understand that nowadays applications are a task in themselves but if you’re not going to take the time to read the application guidance, JD and PS why bother applying at all?

I have already seen a high number of people who have just wrote a cover letter and attached their CV when we specify no CV’s and to write a supporting statement abiding by items on the PS. Many of these applicants are already in a job so they must have applied properly to posts in the past, I don’t get it!

Any other recruiters have these issues?

OP posts:
TheDevils · 04/08/2021 21:43

Sorry.. that was in response to Heyha

azimuth299 · 04/08/2021 22:11

@TheDevils yes but more likely to work than not applying at all, if the process is too arduous!

TheDevils · 04/08/2021 22:13

[quote azimuth299]@TheDevils yes but more likely to work than not applying at all, if the process is too arduous![/quote]
It wouldn't at our place!
We'd go back out to advert. We need to see detailed examples of how you meet the person specification. A CV isn't enough.

RemoteControlledSheep · 04/08/2021 22:18

[quote PegasusReturns]@RemoteControlledSheep

That’s surprising- all lawyers are not of equal ability despite qualifications and experience. Really quite surprised that recruiters think this way

If that’s directed at me you’ve misunderstood my comment which was candidates qualifications and employment history speak for themselves. Of course that doesn’t translate to equal ability across all disciplines and histories.

If I am looking for an IP lawyer and I get a CV from a 5PQE lawyer with a relevant PhD who has worked for a competitor for three years I don’t need them to tell me why they’d be a good at the job. I know they will be.

If I’m lucky enough to get two such CVs the question isn’t who is most qualified, or more experienced the question I need answering is who will fit best? Who has the personality to fit with the organisational values and the existing team.

If I get a CV from a tax litigator for the same job then their CV and employment history is going to tell me they’re not suitable. Regardless of how persuasive they think their cover letter might be.[/quote]
That’s not just law -that’s remarkably specialist law. I think you have been a bit too liberal with your previous requirements and I doubt you would be so general in you your JD.

PizzaCrust · 04/08/2021 22:43

I agree with PPs; your current approach sounds incredibly off putting.

I recently just got promoted to a new role. If I had read the JD and only applied if I 100% met the criteria, I wouldn't have bothered. However, I knew my current skill set was a solid basis and my past experiences had tonnes of transferable skills that were needed in this role.

I applied. I got called for an interview, which I scored very well in. I got the job. When I met my new manager for a casual chat before starting she complimented me on my interview and I said that I had been a little worried that my previous experience was perhaps not exactly what they had been looking for. She said to me that they weren't put off by it at all- the transferable skills I had shown and my personality traits shone very brightly above the other candidates and I had the potential that they were looking for.

You really could be binning a lot of incredibly suitable candidates by doing this. Now, granted, I didn't send information in on my application that wasn't asked for, and I spent days crafting the application so it was as well suited to the JD as possible, but I didn't have every single skill they were asking for. I still applied and they were open minded enough to give me a chance and they are incredibly satisified with their decision.

I think in recruitment, sometimes you do need to think outside the box. Often the best candidates don't have every single skill you want, but they make up for that in other ways and that skills gap that they may have can be easily bridged. The same can go for applications. If you're struggling to find the right person, I really would start looking at their CVs. You might be surprised to see what you find.

RemoteControlledSheep · 04/08/2021 22:51

I think you might be surprised by how few skills applicants process

RemoteControlledSheep · 04/08/2021 22:52

My post was directed at @pizzacrust

Heyha · 04/08/2021 22:57

I think it's usually recommended to target your application at the person spec rather than the JD, isn't it?

RemoteControlledSheep · 04/08/2021 23:02

@Heyha

I think it's usually recommended to target your application at the person spec rather than the JD, isn't it?
Risky strategy IMO
RemoteControlledSheep · 04/08/2021 23:04

However in my experience they don’t tailor anything - they send the same cv to everyone

PieceOfString · 04/08/2021 23:06

I just went through this process and jumped every hoop asked for a lengthy online job application. I was shortlisted and interviewed, great, worth the effort. I was not chosen for the role unfortunately but happily was offered interview feedback which would be so useful as I haven't interviewed in a long time and feedback would be great. The phone call didn't happen. I gently enquired if the offer was still there, which it was, the phone call still didn't happen so I guess I won't know why I was chosen. So I suppose the trouble with recruiting processes is that it is crucial for both parties and yet the rubbish-ness of the humans involved doesn't always reflect it's significance.
Pants isn't it.

TheDevils · 04/08/2021 23:07

Risky strategy IMO

We score applicants against the person spec so it's a risky strategy not to base your application on those specific points.

As an ex careers adviser that would have also been my advice to those I was supporting with their applications..... especially if that is what the application process requested you do.

PieceOfString · 04/08/2021 23:08

Wasn't chosen that should say

Blueskythinking123 · 04/08/2021 23:10

I completed a job application which was exactly the same format as the OP described. It was incredibly time consuming.

Anyway had the interview, was told at the end there had been lots of applications, so they would only contact the person who was successful. If I've not heard in three weeks I can assume I've not got the job!

I think it's really rude if you attend an interview for an employer not to send a sorry you were not successful

PegasusReturns · 04/08/2021 23:10

That’s not just law -that’s remarkably specialist law. I think you have been a bit too liberal with your previous requirements and I doubt you would be so general in you your JD

I have no idea what you’re trying to argue - the above doesn’t make sense.

But since you’re objecting to the IP example, you can substitute for any other example: tax, regulatory, digital….

In virtually any legal discipline the correct combination of qualifications and employment history will tell you that a person is capable of doing a particular job.

RemoteControlledSheep · 04/08/2021 23:56

@TheDevils

Risky strategy IMO

We score applicants against the person spec so it's a risky strategy not to base your application on those specific points.

As an ex careers adviser that would have also been my advice to those I was supporting with their applications..... especially if that is what the application process requested you do.

Person spec is of course important but the attitude of assume competence - would explain why be of our friends - a partner in a big law firm was quite surprised at how utterly useless at law a new recruit was.
Flowers500 · 04/08/2021 23:57

An application process that is geared to identifying candidates most amenable to time wasting, boring and unnecessary tasks is going to reward only those who are desperate, have nothing better to do with their time, or genuinely enjoy pointlessness. Very very rarely will it find a brilliant candidate—only if they’re in dire need of work quickly, or if you have something unique to offer.

Places that insist candidates must jump through their time wasting hoops seem to think anybody should be praying to work for them. In reality, the candidates they WANT reject them because of this attitude. If you’re getting all chaff, it’s because the wheat are self-selecting out before finalising the application. Their attitude is “your loss.” Which is entirely the fault of the application process.

RemoteControlledSheep · 04/08/2021 23:59

@Flowers500

An application process that is geared to identifying candidates most amenable to time wasting, boring and unnecessary tasks is going to reward only those who are desperate, have nothing better to do with their time, or genuinely enjoy pointlessness. Very very rarely will it find a brilliant candidate—only if they’re in dire need of work quickly, or if you have something unique to offer.

Places that insist candidates must jump through their time wasting hoops seem to think anybody should be praying to work for them. In reality, the candidates they WANT reject them because of this attitude. If you’re getting all chaff, it’s because the wheat are self-selecting out before finalising the application. Their attitude is “your loss.” Which is entirely the fault of the application process.

What kind of selection process do you recommend?
AnnaSW1 · 05/08/2021 00:17

I find it very useful as a sifting tool!!Grin

Brefugee · 05/08/2021 07:21

What kind of selection process do you recommend?

Make the ad more targeted at the actual role and requirements. 5 paragraphs about your global blah blah and 1 about the role, which is waffly and non-specific and then a huge list of unrealistic requirements for ... salary & compensation package should be clear. It stops me wasting my valuable time applying for a possibly interesting job with shit pay.

And the follow up is important. If someone takes the time to complete the ridiculous process - when you reject people call them. At least email them using their actual name. If they get to shortlist stage you should be giving them feedback about why you didn't take them on. They gave you their time, the least you can do is give some of yours back.

Pretty much every candidate these days, who sees a job ad will go to the company's website. You don't need all the waffle about how diverse and agile you are in your ad.

aubreyii · 05/08/2021 07:33

It's a basic test of comprehension, literacy and problem solving - "here is what we want you to do: read something then write something in response to what you have understood from what you have read".
If I was recruiting for anything other than manual work I'd bin anyone who can't do that first test.

AbsolutelyPatsy · 05/08/2021 07:36

at least it makes your short listing quicker,
bin the applicants who applied by CV if they cannot read basic instructions

Binnaggy · 05/08/2021 07:39

This reply has been deleted

Withdrawn at the user's request

Sunflowergirl1 · 05/08/2021 07:45

@notaladyinred "Sounds like there is a problem with your application process if so many people are getting it "wrong""

I doubt it. It is about a lot of people cannot be arsed to complete them process correctly. I was told after being appointed to a fairly senior role, that the number of extremely poor applications from other applicants was significant. Just sent a CV despite it requiring a statement as to why they were suitable etc.

I found this also when advertising some roles in my team that were new. Reasonably senior administrator/trainer IT roles and the level of compliance with again a streamlined process was just awful. They were from people employed, not just being forced to fire off applications by a DWP a work coach either. Needless to say they were sifted and wanted to know why!

PieceOfString · 05/08/2021 08:00

@Flowers500

An application process that is geared to identifying candidates most amenable to time wasting, boring and unnecessary tasks is going to reward only those who are desperate, have nothing better to do with their time, or genuinely enjoy pointlessness. Very very rarely will it find a brilliant candidate—only if they’re in dire need of work quickly, or if you have something unique to offer.

Places that insist candidates must jump through their time wasting hoops seem to think anybody should be praying to work for them. In reality, the candidates they WANT reject them because of this attitude. If you’re getting all chaff, it’s because the wheat are self-selecting out before finalising the application. Their attitude is “your loss.” Which is entirely the fault of the application process.

This rings true to me