LARGE 
EMPLOYERS NOW RISK LOSING BEST CANDIDATES TO SMALLER FIRMS
Graduates have slammed the UK’s big employers for failing to offer feedback and being slow to provide progress updates – stoking fears that large firms which don’t streamline their processes risk losing great graduates to smaller employers offering a quicker, more candidate-friendly recruitment process.
A new study by KPMG – which runs one of the UK’s most popular graduate schemes – surveyed over 400 of this summer’s new graduates about their experiences of applying to the big schemes, and discovered that applicants’ complaints list reads as follows:
– Not being offered any feedback if they were unsuccessful (55%)
– Delayed or poor communication from the employer (43%)
– The length of time they had to wait to hear the outcome of the interview (34%)
– The length of time the recruitment process takes from start to finish (34%)
– Too many stages in the recruitment process (28%)
Simon Collins, Chairman of KPMG in the UK, admitted the “hard hitting” findings had been a wake-up call which had prompted his firm to shake things up and improve the candidate experience for graduates. He explained:
“Millennials don’t want to navigate a cumbersome and convoluted recruitment process when applying for a job and this is something we as business leaders need to understand and address.
“Our own graduates have given us some hard hitting but really useful feedback and we’re using this to overhaul how we recruit. From now on a candidate’s final interviews and assessments will take place over the course of just one day and we will make them an offer or give feedback explaining why they were not successful within two working days.”
BIG BUSINESS: KPMG is recruiting for 1,000 graduate positions across the UK this year
Collins also warned that big firms that don’t change their ways risk losing great graduates to smaller businesses who offer shorter, simpler recruitment processes:
“Millennials no longer feel the need to play it safe and most are now equally happy to work for a start up or tech firm as they are a large traditional employer. We are competing with the full gamut for the best brains and talent leaving university: getting our graduate recruitment right is crucial to the long term success of our business.”
Alongside publication of this research, KPMG announced the introduction of Launch Pad, its new streamlined approach which combines the traditional three stages of first interview, assessment centre and final interview into a single day.
Students will also get the chance to gain new skills, network with existing KPMG staff and partners, as well as their peers. KPMG is the only ‘Big Four’ professional services firm to offer this type of graduate recruitment process, which was introduced following in depth discussions with its current and prospective graduates.
Last month, it was revealed that the UK’s big graduate programmes were struggling to attract female candidates, even though women were more likely than men to be successful if they applied to these schemes. At present, the reason for this is unknown.
*DOES BIG BUSINESS HAVE AN IMAGE PROBLEM WHEN IT COMES TO ATTRACTING GRADUATES?
Have you considered applying to any of the big graduate programmes? If not, why not? We’d love to hear what you think, so please share your views below – thanks!
Given that it has been incredibly difficult to access any place on a Graduate Scheme, with employers replacing jobs with Apprenticships/Internships, and numbers of applications increasing from the current crop of graduates (and from(post)graduates from previous years), with employers receiving (say) 10,000 applications per vacancy, why on earth obsess?
After all, it may be illegal…but if an employer discriminates against an initial sift of applications on the basis of age, gender, ethnicity, whether a candidate graduate from a Russel Group University (as opposed to a lesser Former Polytechnic which miraculously became a University overnight after the 1992 Education Act), the employer is not going to provide legitimate feedback other than to suggest “your skills and experience do not meet our current requirements”.
Additionally, automatic sifting may easily be achieved by computer, and if the employer is going to reduce the initial 10,000 applications per vacancy to 50, this initial sift (if automated) is only going to take a maximum of 1 milliseconds….hence, dont obsess with an application, and dont think that if you spend 1 week on an application, the employer is going to offer a reciprocal level of commitments.
When I was searching for a graduate Town Planning job, one of the roles I applied for was in the Real Estate branch of Deloitte and they said on the application form that they would be back with you in 3 days. They duly got back in touch to inform me that I was invited to do their tests which I also passed and within 2 days, they made me an invite to an Assessment Day. They were up front and honest with me about when they’d inform me of the decision and they fulfilled their promise of letting me know by the day they would. Furthermore, they also gave me some feedback which I was able to use to my advantage and secure an alternative role at another employer so not all employers are that ignorant of applications
@Eowyn You’re right that some of the big graduate schemes are v competitive – but the odds aren’t quite as bad as you suggest! The KPMG press release says the firm received 28,000 applications for around 1,000 positions in 2015, so that’s a 1 in 28 chance of getting the job.
@ Nick – Great to hear you had such a positive experience with Deloitte! It seems that things really are improving, with big firms stepping up to lead the way on changing the culture and norms of graduate recruitment.
I think it’s really interesting that despite a perceived clamour for places on graduate schemes, the big employers are still desperate to boost what they call their ’employer brand’ (how their firm is perceived as an employer by potential candidates / employees, as opposed to by consumers or clients). In particular, what I hear most commonly is that although they receive thousands of applications per year, the number who take real care over what they submit is far smaller than you would expect. And the number of candidates who turn up for interviews being properly prepared and having done their research is also surprisingly small.
They are also extremely keen to hear from graduates from all backgrounds. Indeed, some of the big firms (including KPMG, and fellow / rival consultancy firm EY) were among the first to back the campaign for fair pay for interns. They understand that in order for their company to flourish, they need to hire lots of different types of people, from all walks of life.
Out of interest, does anyone have any views on why BAME graduates, disabled graduates, or those from disadvantaged backgrounds or female graduates, might be hesitant about applying to big firms? And / or do you have any ideas about these firms can do things differently in order to seem more inclusive or attractive to these graduates?
I was put off by the graduate schemes and got a trainee job (they do still exist!) with a small employer to begin with, then moved to a larger company once I had some experience. This was for a number of reasons:
1. The time consuming and expensive recruitment process for the grad schemes – to apply for just one job, which you may or may not get, there are pages and pages of application forms, psychometric tests, group assessment days and then individual interviews, which usually involve having to travel repeatedly to London. For me this would involve overnight stays because of the distance. I simply couldn’t afford to do it. With smaller companies all you have to do is send a CV and go for one interview.
2. I didn’t like the idea of working in a “corporate environment”. I felt that the culture wouldn’t be for me – the rigid hierarchies, long hours, stress, having to be super confident and dominant to succeed etc. Smaller companies allow more individuality and flexibility.
3. I don’t really want to be a manager and all the generic grad schemes seemed to be essentially a fast track into middle management.
I’m a woman, but I’m not sure if this has much relevance. My reasons were more due to my circumstances and personality.