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?

I have a full copilot licence and have trained it to stop using that bloody mdash!

Im really not against AI. But if people use AI to showcase their own experience and skills for a job they are presumably suitable for, and use it to match up their skills to the job advert which isnt too taxing IMO, it does make me wonder if they would be competent and could understand information.

Although it probably would depend on the role actually, entry level admin etc then id expect them to learn there's a time and a place for AI as they develop but it would still be a no unless there werent many other suitable applicants. A senior role then it would definitely be an instant delete - if they cant write their own CV, literally their own info contained in their own brain, then it would be worrying they require help with that.

Ironically our recruitment software, that has an AI auto shortlist function, also flags up the liklihood of AI being used in the application which does make me look more closely and yep, 9/10 you can tell.

Not explaining it well I know but im hungover 😵‍💫

An older friend once gave me the following advice, which has meant I’ve been interviewed for every role I’ve applied for since I started using the advice. And got the job offer in almspt
every case.

The employer has a problem: they have a vacancy and therefore no one there to do the job. The applicant has to prove they’re the solution to that problem.

Now that I’m in the position of having recruited to multiple posts I can see how many applicants don’t do this. I made the mistake in the past and being too woffly, so covering the points in the job spec but in too long-winded a way.

Cut out any unnecessary information. They don’t want to know you’ve got grade 5 on the recorder or like skiing holidays. But it might be relevant for some roles if you don’t have direct work experience of something to use an example from your social life or hobbies. Eg in my sector it’s hard to get experience managing a budget without having a job that involves managing a budget, but you can’t get the job without the experience. However, someone
who demonstrates they managed the budget for their recorder group’s trip to the national championships (or manages the PTA or Scout group budget) ticks that box.

And cover everything in the person spec. If it says Maths and English GCSE include a sentence confirming you have those. Don’t assume it’s implied by having a degree or similar.

I was recently involved in recruiting for a couple of positions at my company and was shocked at how some of the candidates were at interview when on paper they sounded great.
Not dressing smartly for a first stage Teams interview, (why wouldn't you just stick a shirt on, or a blouse and jacket?), not knowing anything about the company (one couldnt even remember which company we were 😆), and these were candidates with strong degree level qualifications.
I hated the whole process, it was much harder than I thought it would be.

I agree @Shudacudawuda Ive been interviewing this week and whilst the candidates looked great on paper, on Teams they were disappointing in numerous ways, including being late to the call, on the call but yawning, on the call but wearing a faded band T-shirt, on the call but driving, on the call but unable to elaborate on most aspects of their current role, on the call but monologuing.

It feels as if we’re in dire need of interview training up and down the country and this was for a mid-range role circa £50k.

the intriguing aspect is how many of your current staff , if they had to reinterview for their role how many of them would actually be good at the interview itself ?

99% of them I suspect. They’re professional in every respect.

"Candidates not accepting they havent made the shortlist and demanding feedback"

You should be willing to give feedback imo.

It’s just not possible when every job has 300+ candidates.

and the problem with assuming ?

just because they seem professional and maybe they are, but it would be an intriguing psychology experiment if they all needed to interview for their roles and how they would answer the questions etc

Yes, I always offer feedback for candidates I’ve interviewed. Only about a quarter ever follow up and ask
though.

I wouldn’t for anyone who didn’t make the interview shortlist, as that would be in the 100s.

Definitely.

See also recruiters who have already found an internal candidate, but make external candidates travel to interviews they are destined not to get, wasting their time completely.

And if we wanted to complain about recruiters we'd be here forever...

But you (general you recruiters, not you personally) except a high amount of effort by the candidate e.g. tailoring the CV and not just sending their generic CV in.

I have always asked and quite often been given BS replies. Only once or twice been given honest replies.

It's the tyranny of choice. Back in the old days you applied for a handful of jobs from the local paper, and probably even recognised the firms.

These days you apply for loads online via Reed etc often unaware of what the company is called,

But sometimes it is as simple as, you weren't as good as the other person on the day.

That's not a fault with you particularly. Maybe the other person smiled more and came across more confidently, they gave a better answer for a question and got an extra point.

At application stage? Thats rather unrealistic tbh.

Yes, but the recruiters here are expecting a huge amount of effort from the candidates for each role. Most of the time recruiters don't even answer candidates who don't go through to interview stage e.g. 'only successful candidates will be contacted'.

Thanks for the womansplaining.

Thats how job hunting works. It requires effort (shouldn't be huge amounts though, if it is its probably not the right role).

If 100% of applicants carefully read the job description and person specification, ensured that they met the essential criteria and took the time to write a tailored application to demonstrate their suitability for the role, then I would gladly find the time to give each one of them individualised feedback. But when the vast majority are just timewasters who can't be arsed to put the effort in, I don't feel that I owe them anything.

If you've applied after having understood the job description and identified that you're genuinely suitable for the job, and you've done a good application tailored to the role, then it's highly likely that you'll get an interview. And I always provide detailed and honest feedback to interview candidates.

If you get rejected at the shortlisting stage, it's likely that you haven't understood what the job entails and/or you haven't made an effort with the application, so you will get some automated feedback from our recruitment system which will tell you that you didn't adequately demonstrate how you met the essential criteria for the role. Because that is proportionate to the effort that you've invested.

The vast majority of candidates aren’t tailoring their cv. Or answering basic questions asked in the application.

So?

If a company has 5 job adverts on the go and 300+ applicants for each ... who is going to be providing feedback for the 1500+ people...what meaningful feedback do you think they could give?

Agree absolutely no chance im giving individual feedback to hundreds of applicants. A lot of them wouldnt accept "no" anyway taking up even more time. I get enough push back as it is which makes it tempting to not even bother letting candidates know they didnt make the shortlist.

"If you get rejected at the shortlisting stage, it's likely that you haven't understood what the job entails and/or you haven't made an effort with the application"

Or maybe you have, but there were even better candidates and you just didn't make the cut?