|
BostonWorks, NEHRA - The Voice of
HR, 1/10/2005
(Download
PDF)
What HR recruiter or hiring manager doesn't know this
scenario first -hand: using your favorite Internet
career site, you advertise an opening for, say, an
experienced commercial loan manager, or a networking
services programmer, or a vice president of marketing.
The results are all the same: hundreds of applicants
for the job. The vast majority of them should have
no business submitting a resume. Despite the obvious
and overwhelming mismatch, typically as many as 90%
of job applicants lack the required skills, experience,
and other qualifications spelled out in the job ad.
Yet there they are. And why not? The Internet and
related technologies have had the effect of encouraging
both job seekers and employers to apply to jobs more
freely than in the pre -Internet days.
And for good reason: the broad reach and relative
anonymity of the Internet, the sophisticated capabilities
of data processing tools, and the marginal cost of
making more contacts make it almost irresistible for
many job seekers to submit a resume, even when they
know their chances of being hired are slim -to-none.
"What do I have to lose?" is a common refrain.
For employers, the brave new world of online recruiting
has become a mixed blessing: a vastly wider pool of
job seekers, dramatically lower job advertising costs
compared with print media expenses, flexibility to
pinpoint the job ad to targeted applicant markets,
and shorter time-to-hire.
Left unchecked, this virtual flood of applicant information
has become an issue for virtually every company, regardless
of its size and capacity for managing exploding volumes
of data.
Evolving federal regulations
Were information overload their only headache,
corporate recruiters and IT pros might still sleep
better at night if they didn't also have to contend
with evolving government regulations. For example,
as Internet recruiting skyrocketed in the late 1990s,
it quickly became clear that existing Federal guidance
on mandatory recordkeeping regarding race, gender,
and ethnicity of job applicants did not adequately
address online recruiting issues. These guidelines,
the province of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) and set forth in the Uniform Guidelines
on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), clearly
needed clarification both to relieve employers of
onerous recordkeeping requirements and to protect
the rights of applicants.
Who is an 'applicant'?
Since the reporting guidelines focus on the term
"applicant," it seemed reasonable to clarify
just who is an applicant in today's online recruiting
environment.
After more than three years of studying the matter,
the government published the new rules. Simply stated,
in order for an individual to be considered an applicant,
and thus subject the employer to EEOC recordkeeping
requirements, the following must have occurred:
The employer has acted to fill a particular position;
The individual has followed the employer's standard
procedures for submitting applications; and
The individual has indicated an interest in the particular
position.
In addition to clarifying who is an applicant, the
action specifies who isn't. For example, none of these
is considered an applicant: people who simply post
resumes in job boards, job banks or personal websites;
people who merely express interest in particular types
of jobs; and people who submit a resume to a company's
general resume database.
But if you're surfing job boards, see a job that interests
you, click the "Apply Now" button, and complete
the required application steps (e.g., creating a profile
and submitting a resume), you can consider yourself
an applicant.
Tools for simplifying life: applicant screening systems
Remember our unrealistically ambitious job seekers
from above? If you're an employer, such undesirable
applicants must figure in your EEOC recordkeeping.
Yet from a process efficiency point of view, they
may be seriously undermining your cause.
Virtually all such unsuitable applicants will be weeded
out through the normal recruiting process based on
minimum qualifications. Still, the presence of so
many unqualified applicants can seriously skew the
company's EEOC statistics and add significantly to
the cost of managing what amounts to mountains of
unwanted information.
Ideally you'd like to legitimately reduce the number
of individuals who apply, thereby cutting the employer's
EEOC reporting tasks and, oh, by the way, improving
the average quality of the applicant pool.
Applicant tracking systems (ATS) were the first generation
of computer -based systems developed to automate the
most laborious parts of the recruiting function. An
ATS is equivalent to a printed one-size-fits-all application
form that was handed out to people when they walked
into the HR department.
Applicant screening systems are the next generation
of technology-based solutions that allow job-specific,
pre-screening questions to be made part of the job
application. Screening systems are very different
in the way they are set up from an ATS that "adds
on" a questionnaire. An applicant screening system
presents applicants with a customized application
for each job posted by the company. For recruiters,
question libraries are presented based on the job
description. Based on applicants' responses to the
questions, their resume is routed differently. Questions
can be weighted and applicants ranked or screened
out based on must-have qualifications.
Today's more advanced online applicant screening systems
can deliver a multi-level dose of recruiting productivity:
fewer unqualified and a higher proportion of qualified
applicants; less applicant information to manage;
fewer applicants to count; and more time for recruiters
and hiring managers to devote to qualified, desirable
candidates.
For instance, a simple online applicant questionnaire
can effectively identify qualified, motivated applicants
while discouraging unsuitable job seekers from even
applying.
Applicant questionnaires focus on the requirements
spelled out in the job description. Since job seekers
are confronted with the questionnaire before they
have a chance to complete the application process,
the individual can self-select into or out of the
applicant pool before the EEOC guidelines kick in.
This step, which is added between applicant outreach
- typically through job boards and employers' own
career sites - and job interviews, lets technology
speedily and effectively sort and rank applicants,
a tedious chore normally handled by recruiters and
hiring managers.
For job seekers who do "qualify" for the
job, i.e., those who possess the minimum job requirements
and desired applicant qualifications, a system of
this kind confirms that they're "on the right
plane" and can encourage them to pursue the job
with vigor.
On the other hand, upon seeing the questionnaire for
the first time, the vast majority of unqualified job
seekers - those who are under-qualified, over-qualified,
or simply not motivated to apply -quickly walk away.
The mere presence of this recruiting hurdle, coupled
with questions that address must-have or preferred
applicant qualifications, often is enough to dissuade
candidates from wasting time on the current job in
favor of jobs that better match their professional
profiles.
A win-win-win solution
As a recruiter or hiring manager, could this scenario
be any more pleasing? First, this approach automatically
generates a shortlist of qualified, self-selected
applicants - people who possess the minimum job qualifications
and have expressed interest in your company. In short,
people you're most likely to consider. Second, it
enables you to avoid dealing with the stacks of unwanted
resumes that online career sites often generate. Third,
fewer applicants lessens your EEOC bookkeeping chores
and the legal risks that come with the territory.
In today's recruitment environment, applicant screening
systems are worth a close look, as they provide a
win-win-win proposition for recruiters, job seekers
- and the government. Naray Viswanathan, Ph.D., is
CEO of the Interview Exchange and is also a NEHRA
member. He can be reached at naray@interviewexchange.com.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
Federal Register Notice dated March 4, 2004
Rocket-Hire
Much has been written in support of new Federal
guidelines on employee selection procedures as they
relate to the Internet. Among others, Charles Handler,
Ph.D., has written thoughtfully on the new EEOC guidelines.
Handler is President and Founder of Rocket Hire, a
source of expert, objective information about the
online screening and assessment marketplace. Read
Rocket-Hire's EEOC opinion.
EASI Consult
Michael Harris, Ph.D., is Vice President of Litigation
Support Services at EASI*Consult, LLC, a management
consulting firm that provides expert assessment solutions
and litigation support. Harris recently wrote on the
possible adverse impacts of the new guidelines, particularly
in the area of applicant tracking.
|