DEBATE: ARE RUDE RECRUITERS TRASHING THEIR COMPANY’S REPUTATION?
If you apply for a job at a well-known company and they never reply, does it make you think less of that brand? If you travel miles to an assessment day (paying your own travel expenses) – and then they reject you without any proper feedback, how do you feel? Will the graduate made to dance at his Currys interview rush to buy his new TV there? It seems unlikely.
Graduate Fog often hears from applicants who are underwhelmed by the way they have been treated by once-favourite brands. And it seems businesses could be alienating thousands of customers through poor recruitment practices which leave candidates feeling rejected, taken advantage of – or simply ignored.
A new survey by Monster.co.uk found that 84% of jobseekers said that the job application process “often or sometimes” negatively impacts their view of the company. Of those affected by poor recruitment, 82 per cent of respondents felt this way because they had not received a response to their application and 68 per cent because they had not received constructive feedback. Other top complaints were poorly written job adverts, a lack of information about the company and unfriendly or unhelpful staff.
Of those affected by bad recruitment practices, 63% said it would make them less likely to use the company’s products and services in future. And disgruntled applicants like to spread the word – more than two thirds (68%) said they would let friends and family know about their negative experiences. A fifth said they would share their gripes about the brand via social media. Sinead Bunting, Head of Marketing at Monster.co.uk, says:
“It is worrying that so many employers still don’t realise the potential impact of a poor recruitment process on their brand. Job seekers are also consumers and by failing to respond, acknowledge or engage with them, employers could be losing out on valuable custom.”
And it seems the reverse is true – a good candidate experience increases a jobseeker’s positive feelings about that brand. Jobseekers are most impressed by a timely response to their application, receiving constructive feedback, the ability to apply online and well-written job adverts.
Following positive recruitment experiences, 65 per cent of those affected said they would tell friends and family about their experiences and 51 per cent would be more likely to use a company’s products or services.
What do you think? Have you ever had a poor experience with a big-name brand? What happened – and did it make you feel differently about them? Did you slag them off to your friends and family – or do you tweet your disappointment? If you’ve been lucky so far, would a disappointing candidate experience made you less likely to buy that brand’s products or services in future? Would you like to see all employers treating jobseekers with a bit more care, courtesy and respect? Tell us what you think below!
I’ve had a few bad experiences of employers not having the decency to give feedback after an interview or application. It’s bad manners and definitely makes me think less of them as a company and as people. It’s hard in this climate, employers don’t know how lucky they’ve got it.
@LHoward90
What happened when you asked them, did they just say no?
I’m still amazed how many employers don’t bother responding at all if they do not continue with your application.
Employers say they are too busy to respond to every applicant – but I have also heard (from job boards and good employers – yes, they do exist!) that there is now so much software available to send hundreds of thanks-but-no-thanks responses that there really is no excuse for not getting back to you at all.
Just saying ‘If you don’t hear from us, we’re not interested’ seems so lazy – and beyond rude!
I definitely think less of a brand/company after a bad candidate experience. You can tell a lot about an organisation by how they treat their applicants. If someone is applying to be pat of a publication/organisation, it’s safe to assume they are also users/readers of the brand, not to mention people who’ve most likely spent hours on an application.
We’re living in a time when it couldn’t be easier to respond to multiple people at once – even something as simple as mail merge. They use it for their newsletter or to tell people there’s cake in the break room, why can’t they throw one together for their unsuccessful applicants? Because it would take them five, possible TEN whole minutes, and unsuccessful applicants aren’t worth the courtesy. Who are they anyway?
Shocking behaviour.
Once I interviewed for a job, they said they’d get back to me in two weeks. I spent six weeks chasing them – for a rejection. I’m done with that brand. Once I was called in for a ‘trial’, did a week of free work, and was never ever contacted again. I’m done with that brand.
When I’m treated well but rejected anyway, I may grunt “Hmpf” when I see them but I’ll continue to use the brand as I did before.
I too have had poor experiences when waiting on a response from an application or an interview, with one company taking 6 months to get back to me. It shows a lack of common decency on the employer’s part, especially with the increasingly large number of applicants per job role.
These companies should be more mindful when putting out adverts for job roles if this is how they treat applicants, because each person is an individual in their own right as opposed to being faceless or anonymous.
Since I graduated over 3 years ago I have had a lot of shoddy recruitment experiences from major companies and employment agencies alike (mostly publishing and media-related businesses – no surprises there!)I do find it very surprising that larger companies with HR departments devoted to dealing with candidates are (in my experience) the worst at responding to job applications and providing useful feedback. These days I tend to avoid applying to companies that have the mantra “due to the large volume of applications we will be unable to respond or provide feedback” this is just bone idleness on the part of the business involved. I applied for a marketing role with a small legal publisher in London, 2 years ago. Over 70 candidates applied for the role and the applications were dealt with by 1 person (the manager not a HR department). He also had to organise the interviews, contact the interviewees and make the final decision on who to hire. I made it to the final 12 and although I wasn’t invited to the second interview I was impressed with the way the manager responded and provided feedback. So every time I’ve applied for a job and not received a reply or any feedback I’ve come away with a bad impression of the organisation involved and avoided them.
“If you travel miles to an assessment day (paying your own travel expenses)”
I am surprised that candidates allow themselves to be treat in this way…. if an employer invites a candidate to attend an interview and/or Assessment Session, then they have access to a HR Budget which will cover candidate expenses, and the candidate should be able to claim all expense accrued. Even if We are talking about a Third Sector Organisation, they will have access to an HR Budget which will cover candidate interview expenses…. it is not the job of the candidate to absorb Client Interview Expense.
I am not speaking for the entire UK recruitment profession but lets get a couple of things straight, cos there’s an awful lot of entitlement being bandied about on this page.
1. There is no ‘right’ to feedback. Under the terms of the Data Protection Act you can request to see the documents relating to you. That’s it.
2. There is no ‘right’ to expenses. There never has been.
3. The recruitment policy of not responding has been sanctioned by the CEO – so the issue is institutional, not departmental.
4. Tweet or facebook them if you want their policies changed. Consumers are changing companies attitudes that way.
Good luck. Sincerely, good luck.
@Peter_F
If a candidate, after applying for a vacancy, receives a negative response at any stage of the Recruitment Process, why on earth should they indulge any Personnel Clerk by asking for “Feedback” – if the candidate is capable of doing the job, then the issue as to why the candidate was not offered the job is entirely subjective. And the bottom line is that the candidate may come across some idiot, such as Mr Alan Sugar, who deludes himself with the belief that “he would have to be barmy to recruit any woman of child bearing age”. We may have Anti-Discrimination in Employment Legislation, but a placebo is not really effective in correcting fundamentally flawed attitudes and beliefs.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jul/24/alan-sugar-louise-mensch-twitter
@ Eowyn Rohan
If a candidate, after applying for a vacancy, receives a negative response at any stage of the Recruitment Process, why on earth should they indulge any Personnel Clerk by asking for “Feedback” —
Not sure I understand your question please clarify?
if the candidate is capable of doing the job, then the issue as to why the candidate was not offered the job is entirely subjective.
Not true. Most reputable employment techniques will use objective methods and have measured evidence. Why because they need to prove they weren’t subjective if ever the case was taken to an employment tribunal. Reputable employers work very hard to remove subjectivity and to use objective observable assessment methods, interviews and tests.
And the bottom line is that the candidate may come across some idiot, such as Mr Alan Sugar, who deludes himself with the belief that “he would have to be barmy to recruit any woman of child bearing age”. We may have Anti-Discrimination in Employment Legislation, but a placebo is not really effective in correcting fundamentally flawed attitudes and beliefs.
I cannot comment enough on Alan Sugar, it would appear to be entertainment and far removed from any processes or organisations I have worked with.
“I am surprised that candidates allow themselves to be treat in this way”
@Eowyn Rohan:
In what way can a candidate or small group of them stop themselves being treated this way, when if they refuse to pay their own travel expenses to an interview plenty of others will be able and willing to pay to attend?
And doing so is generally the only way of having of chance of entering certain competitive jobs or industries. (And almost everything is very competitive today, naturally).
Obviously candidates fighting off job offers with skills considered scarce and highly valued may be able to say no to this type of treatment, but that isn’t what we’re talking about mostly. And as Peter F states, companies and recruiters are within the law in these cases.
I don’t think it even occurs to most young adults to ask for expenses for job interviews. I’d never even heard of interview expenses until my mother asked me about it.
@Catherine: Indeed, employers have been very successful in getting young people to lower their expectations.
I’d never heard of interview expenses either until I started hearing well-off executives (exactly the kind of people who could travel to interviews without them) talk about them on recruitment sites.
@Tanya de Grunwald
Sorry just seen your reply, I asked and they said they would pass on my details to the interviewer and phone back with feedback, they never did even after I’d phoned them to request. It’s terrible! Thankfully at the moment I’ve been having a bit more look with getting interviews, so I hope one is successful. I’m due a bit of luck!
@Tanya de Grunwald
Sorry just seen your reply, I asked and they said they would pass on my details to the interviewer and phone back with feedback, they never did even after I’d phoned them to request. It’s terrible! Thankfully at the moment I’ve been having a bit more luck with getting interviews, so I hope one is successful. I’m due a bit of luck!
@Peter F. After some bad experiences you have no right as a company to expect job seekers to speak well about you.
As a company you have no right to complain when you people will not buy your product again.
With social media a bad experience can go viral and you have no right to whine when you get laid off due to lowered sales or going out of business.
Then all your points listed apply to YOU as a job seeker. Poor narrow minded individual. What goes around comes around.
The recruiters are valuable assets for the company reputation as they play an important role in the organization, they are responsible for the candidates hiring and other organization communication. So if the candidates are not handled by them in a decent way that either by not giving proper feedback or due to their unhelpful nature will affect the candidate view about the company.
For finding the decent recruitment agencies check reviews on http://www.recfluence.com