How does recruitment work from the employers side?

[Netcurtainnelly]

A question for employers.
how does recruitment works from the employers side and what challenges do employers face.
We know alot about the jobseekwrs side?

Too many applications.
Applicants that don't tailor their applications to the role.
Those who don't follow instructions.
People way over-qualified or with irrelevant experience.

As a recruiter you'll be lucky if I spend more than 30 seconds reviewing your CV and cover letter in the first round. I'm looking for reasons to reject to trim my list down, so if there are typos, bad formatting, no cover letter as required, you're going straight in the bin.

Recruitment is exhausting and time consuming.

CVs that aren't tailored to the job go in the no pile - I had some recently where the applicant hadn't changed the "why I want to work for you" part and put a completely different place and job down. Attention to detail is important!

Challenges:

Endless applications from people not even remotely suitable

Endless applications from people who live thousands of miles away requiring visa sponsorship

Candidates not accepting they havent made the shortlist and demanding feedback

Calling in to discuss the role instead of applying as per advised process

Wacky CVs produced on Canva, including self-assessed star ratings of their skills

AI applications/CVs - instant delete

Applying for a job at £x salary, interviewing, then asking for £10k more

Applying for roles requiring full time office presence, then insisting they can WFH (as a Receptionist for e.g.).

New starters being upset they are expected to communicate with colleagues and actually work

You start at the first line of each application and read it until you see something you don't like the look of. Straight in the bin 'No' pile.

If you actually get to the end of it, put it in the much smaller 'Maybe' pile. Go through the 'Maybe' pile again and start looking for the things you really do want. They go into a new 'Possible' pile. The rest go into the 'Don't think so' pile.

By this stage you should have half a dozen left in the 'Possible' pile. Hand them to your boss or whoever is interviewing so they can have a read, discard any they don't like the look of, then call the rest for interview.

Exactly as @Megifer said.

i do in-house recruitment and this matches ny experience to a T.

Pre-WFH we interviewed one for a FT payroll role and would have offered her the job there and then as she was ideal. Then she said she couldn't work full-time and demanded to leave at 3 every day to pick her dc up from school, and she was expecting us to accommodate that without question. When we said that actually we needed someone full-time she had a right go at us and told us we were discriminating against single mothers in general and her in particular. No love, it clearly said what we needed on the advert. If she hadn't been quite so stroppy and confrontational we might very well have considered it, but not after that.

Differentiating between:

• totally unsuitable candidates
• borderline ones who overplay their skills on the application
• good ones who aren’t great at tye application process.

Then repeat at interview - whos slick but very thin on substance, vs strong on substance but rubbish at interviews.

When advertising, trying to find a way to describe a job and what you’re looking for in a candidate that doesn’t rule out the none standard career history people whilst not bringing in a load who are totally unsuitable.

Draining isnt it.

Had a call from someone earlier today funnily enough who I rejected and they insisted their experience in managing the office parties and car fleet 5 years ago, and more recently their family/home life using an Excel tracker was transferable into PMing a software implementation project because in both roles they worked with large amounts of data 🫩

Yes, @Megifer has summed it up pretty well.

There are lots of chancers and time wasters.

The ones that annoy me most are those who call up for "informal chats" to ask questions that are already clearly answered in the JD/person spec.

And the ones who ask if essential criteria on the person spec are really essential. Er, yes... that's why they aren't listed as "desirable".

And the ones who apply for a full time office-based/hybrid role, agree at interview that they can comply with these requirements and only say after actually being offered a role that they want part time hours or full wfh. Fucking time wasters.

In house recruitment. We don't use AI to filter job apps, it's done by living human beings and we are losing the will to live. 400 applications recently for a role. The sift to get it down to a reasonable number for interview is so time consuming as we also have to do it as a panel. Which means three experienced members of staff having to stop doing their day job to go through the applications.
Our initial sift is similar to everyone else's. Part of the organisation application process is that you can upload a CV (but it's not mandatory) but you have to remove your name from it. You then tick a box to confirm you have removed your name. A good percentage of applications don't do this. So we reject them. If you can't follow that instruction we don't want you.

Interviews are a killer. Trying to keep the questions sounding fresh. Trying to look encouraging when a person starts flailing. Wondering if you should still be adding notes when the candidate is talking absolutely rubbish that's not relevant or the answer has no substance.

Loads of excellent comments above, but added - people who accept interviews, then just don't turn up. I get it. Life hapoens, but drop me a line, ffs.

Everything already mentioned.

But beyond the recruitment is people who lookk great on paper, highly qualified, interview well and then are a useful as a chocolate teapot. Require a huge amount of hand holding, no initiative and just generally don't 'get' the requirements of the job.

These are not entry level jobs. A bit of initial training, mentoring and induction is to be expected but I'm talking 6 months to a year in a still useless.

The recruitment bit is okay, it’s all my new starters who are grumpy, entitled, and only want to wfh. On a psych ward!

It’s exhausting.

Applicants who dont tailor their CVs or cover e-mail (I’m determined to break into the finance industry).’ Are you? Well go ahead then but we’re the pharma industry!

Applicants who send CVs and cover emails with multiple typos.

People who ring to discuss the role when the job ad stated all applications should be by e-mail.

People getting arsey when they dont make the cut, demanding to know why, even though we’ve given solid, detailed feedback.

Not knowing how to dress for a formal interview for a senior leadership role.

being late for a Teams interview with no apology.

Not knowing anything about the company or products.

not being able to pronounce the name of the Company.

Turning up to a Teams call in a hoody and uncombed hair.

Slouching, scratching and being glum/bored during an interview.

Starting a job thats 9-5 months-fri, based at the office and then 6 weeks later, asking to work from home during school holidays.

I could go on for days.

There are thousands of candidates but they’re all unimpressive.

Yep

Turning up for the interview on the wrong day.

One recent grad brought her mum along, and expected her to be included...

So many familiar sounding points above!
Thankfully, I don't have to recruit to often but can I add summaries or cover letters so obviously written by AI that they all start to sound identical

Yes, the ubiquitous slick but meaningless phrases are everywhere now.

AI which has created their application with buzz words from the job description, except for the crucial part regarding professional qualifications or ignoring the hybrid and asking if they could do the job entirely remotely or both. Imagine a new history graduate applying for a position as a senior manager in a law firm or someone in Nigeria asking if a primary school teacher could WFH.

How do you know a CV or application is AI, I've heard some recruiters use AI to sift through the CVs.

You can generally tell an AI one, it has weird formatting, turns of phrase and the m dash! If there's a single m dash, I'm on high alert and then look back and it's obvious.

Firstly getting the recruitment signed off is exhausting. Then rewriting the job description because the HR version is littered with typos. Then recruitment agents who may or may not even be real see it on LinkedIn and send completely random CVs that suggest they haven't read the job description, or if they have, they have serious comprehension difficulties.

Eventually you do some phone interviews. At least one person will not turn up at all, another one will have terrible signal issues, and at least one candidate will give single word answers to all the questions.

At the end of all this you try to hire the best person for the role. Sometimes you get it right, sometimes it turns out they're an interview expert and hopeless in the real world 😅

Yep. Any cover letter or email with:

"I am excited to apply for...."
"What drew me to this role is....."

Goes straight into the reject stage.

Anything with LinkedIn language goes straight in the bin.

What is LinkedIn language @JustSetFireToIt?