My company recently began a search for two managers and set up a nifty Gmail account to house the responses. In a short period of time, hundreds of resumes came pouring in. Our vice president, who wrote and posted the ad, spent hours reviewing the submittals, setting up interviews, and meeting with perspective employees. She sent me her final two candidates, neither of which was suitable. In an emotional meeting, she stated that her workload did not allow her to repeat the frustrating and time consuming process, complained about the quality of the applicants, and seemed nearly certain that one of them was a murder suspect she had seen on the television news. I offered to take over the search for the two managers. Having personally hired hundreds of people over the past 28 years, I approached the task with confidence.
By the time I accessed the swelling gmail account, there were 921 responses. It was daunting to make that first click and absolutely overwhelming to consider such a large number of applicants. After my first session, a handful of resumes were saved in a folder and approximately 215 were reviewed and discarded. Hours later, I was down to 700 applicants. I found myself looking for any excuse to avoid the process completely, willing to spend time doing anything but throwing myself into the black hole of click after click on resumes that included air conditioning techs, hospital clerks, cashiers, sushi chefs and journalists. Not one included a cover letter stating why, despite their lack of related experience, they were applying for a community manager position and what special talents they could bring to my company. It was clear that a lot of clicking was going on from their end, utilizing software that allowed their resumes to be blasted to any and every job posting on the site. The old adage about throwing spaghetti against the wall and seeing what sticks came to mind.
Many of the responses were barely in the form of resumes. My favorite so far is:
"Worked in a high paced,large volumes of wealthy and distinguished clientel! Professional attititude and conduct is what i am all about, I work very hard and thoroughly ,i am an efficiency expert!I am creatative ,outgoing very articulate, a team player!"
Finally I went to my folder and selected one candidate and dialed his number. He was overqualified for the job but his resume was beautifully done and his vast experience was at least indirectly related to our industry. We spoke on the phone for nearly 40 minutes and he was an impressive candidate. I reiterated, as was stated in the ad, that it was an entry level management position with tremendous potential for rapid growth within the company. While I knew he was overqualified, we would have to both agree to take a chance on the other and see if we were a good match. He said he had enjoyed every minute of our discussion and we scheduled an interview at my office. I recklessly stopped looking at the resumes after that, feeling confident I had found my manager.
During the interview, I offered the job at the high end of the salary range posted in the ad to which he had responded. He seemed shocked at the number and it completely changed the tone of the interview. It suddenly dawned on me that he had no idea which job he was applying for because he had forwarded his resume so many times by repeated box clicking. For a moment I drifted off in my mind to the days when resumes were received in the US mail with beautifully drafted cover letters and crisp, well organized resumes for consideration or dropped off in person by people dressed in business clothes with briefcases or leather notebooks under their arms. A good response was maybe 30 applicants with direct experience and the hard part was which qualified candidate was the best fit. He asked if he could think about it overnight and promised to get back to me this morning. I think it's even money as to whether he can even imagine coming to work for that kind of money when he made so much more in a position that no longer exists in today's economy.
All I know is that it seems backwards to me that the employer has to do all the work in the hiring process and the job seekers have only to click, click, click to circulate their resumes anywhere and everywhere, sometimes without even reading the entire job description. It dilutes the process for both sides which is a real shame with unemployment being what it is today.
I honestly feel that I would seriously considered any applicant, literally, who takes the time to write a personalized cover letter to my job posting showing at least minimal interest in my needs. But so far, not one resume has included such a letter. What seems perfectly clear to me is that resumes flying around internet space does not a legitimate job search make. A small effort to make yourself stand out to an employer would be worth it. And don't worry, you won't have to leave your computer to do it.
We know that recruiting involves a pro-active, multi-pronged strategic, approach. Your boss was right, typically people whose jobs are not recruiting do not have this kind of time, that's why they pay recruiters.
This article doesn't mention one word about networking, which has proven to be 80% of how job matches are made. Networking includes online/social networking and in person networking, which takes as much time from a candidate as it does an employer. It also doesn't take into consideration how much time a candidate really needs to spend tailoring cover letters and resumes to specific job postings before actually submitting an application. I coach my clients to never just respond randomly to an abundance of postings "i.e. click, click click...." I let them know that any quality job search needs to be strategic and targeted as does a company's candidate search for an employee.
Posting a job ad and expecting to find your ultimate candidate is not strategic or targeted. It is akin to throwing spaghetti against a wall and expecting it to stick.
But would you actually have had the time to read hundreds of personalized cover letters?
Unfortunately, job boards have made the job application process a numbers game-- you post your job online and get hundreds of applicants, and job boards have fulfilled their duty.
The problem, as you have noticed, is these candidates aren't exactly relevant to your jobs. But you can't blame the problem on them-- these job seekers are a victim of the job board numbers game too-- they apply to dozens of jobs because many of their applications get lost in the mass. I'm sure of those 900 job applications, there was at least 1 awesome candidate that you overlooked.
I would suggest that you recruit a different way. Start harnessing the power of social media and have conversations with candidates. Create a career twitter handle, and get the name of your brand out there.
These are so many creative ways to attract candidates that go beyond the inefficient numbers game of job boards. Use them!
I have attended countless"job fairs" and met with HR people. While I had my resume with me, no one would even accept a hard copy. Just about all of them told me it was "company policy" to have the job candidates complete the applicant on line on the companies Web Site. As I'm sure you are aware, this is done to for many reasons, and probably none of them for the benefit of the applicant.
I also remember the day, when one could stop in at the reception area of a corporate office and fill out an applicant and leave a resume. Try doing that today, your told to complete the application on line. So, bottom, line, employers set up this system and now they don't like it, because it''s to easy for applicants just to "click" to apply for jobs.
I really don't think any employer will be happy any longer unless they get someone to work for just about nothing, demand totally loyalty,be on call 24/7 and 60 hour work weeks.
Employers changed the ground rules and like everything else it's the "workers" fault?
Why keep the salary range a secret? Are you trying to lo-ball people into working for near slave wages?
Trying to get a good employee for what you can afford is analogous to on-line dating. Sure people lie a lot with on-line dating , BUT the successful couplings are when BOTH sides are straight forward and honest.
I have never understood the whole keep salaries a secret thing, especially now when so much of that information has been exposed by numerous web sites.
Instead of vague ads, be real explicit about what you need, what you would like and what you can pay for it. What you need/want and can pay for may be incompatible and you will need to adjust one of them, but it is far better to force the people to self-select out ahead of time.
Also there are specialized web sites such as the HP, IBM, and Sun Alumni Associations that give you access to very highly qualified candidates. Also LInkedIn
When all else fails create a secret email address and give it only to friends to give to friends .. Network
oops...
Perhaps a good rule of thumb would be to remember to leave the link?
(or getting a raise when you're already working)
But again, the real problem is the high unemployment. As it continues to climb, expect to see even more desperation.
I would certainly not pay to apply to a pay-to-apply job. That sounds like a complete and utter scam.
My suggestion to her, and others who prefer a more personal method of recruiting candidates, would be to specify that she wants to see a cover letter and to request that candidates send resumes via mail (or in person). Then she doesn't even need to look at the flood of applicant emails.
Most prospective employees use those automated systems because that is what the employer wants. Employers do have the option of asking prospective employees what they want.
She had a thousand email resumes, which is, of course, unwieldy. If she only accepted those with cover letters which came in the mail, she would probably only have 50 to a 100 to look through. People wouln't go through the effort and expense of a customized cover letter and mailed application unless they were really serious about the job.
By restricting the way applicants can apply, you could easily be eliminating your best candidate. To assume that a highly qualified applicant, with today’s technology available to them, will go through the trouble of printing their resume, addressing an envelope, buying a stamp and putting it the mail, in my opinion, would be a slippery slope.
Now, you might say “if they really want the job they will” and you’re right. But isn’t the goal here to hire the best candidate you can find?
Applicant tracking software such as AcquireTM gives employers an easy ways to manage the influx of resumes they receive. With position relevant screening questions and definable requirements that require an applicant’s response, our writer could have made short work of the resumes she received. Based upon criteria she defined, an ATS system could have placed the most qualified applicants at the top of her list and even politely notified the unqualified ones that they didn’t meet the positions minimum requirements. And, yes even requested a cover letter.
As for mailed resumes, she still has the problem of keeping the salary a secret. She might discover with her existing process that ALL the top candidates bail out when she mentions the salary. People know what it costs to keep themselves fed, clothed and housed, so unless she meets that requirement, she will either have most decline or a few take the job just long enough to find a job that meets their needs. Turnover is VERY costly and it might be cheaper in the long run to raise the salary.
I would suggest that an employer who wants a cover letter and/or a more traditional resume, such as one sent via snail mail, makes his/her preference known in the ad.
What about: "Cover letter required; resumes will not be accepted without one. Also, applications sent via U.S. mail are invited and will be given preferential consideration."