There are some crazy stories circulating right now.  And I can’t even bring myself to comment on the craziness (or worse) of what’s happening. Switching on the news these past few days has been like being transported back in time, although I’m not going to “name and shame” here to add to the publicity.  I’m going to try to address another topic that needs recognition.  And one that I feel better equipped to write about.  Yet just like the first, we are going back to the dark ages.

What is happening with recruitment?  I’m not sure whether I’m shocked or simply disappointed that we are taking backwards steps.  Just the other day my attention was drawn to a page from a recruitment questionnaire which was dissuading candidates from applying if they were unemployed,  “If you are not working, how long has it been since your last job?  Why are you not working when … restaurants are desperate to hire …?”  The same questionnaire was asking about peoples’ journey to work, “How long is your commute?” and this really took me back!

I’m a realist and have no evidence to support the use of this questionnaire although I do have first hand evidence of interim assignments where (until my arrival) equally ridiculous questions were being asked.  Surely it’s time to remind ourselves that where someone lives and how they get to work is for them to decide and not their employer.  A far better question would be, “What challenges might you have when covering late night or early morning shifts?” or better still, “What help with transport would you need from us when covering unsocial hours?”

An illuminating conversation with a barrister some years ago helped me crystalize my thinking around what is and what’s not acceptable to ask jobseekers.  There have been times when I’ve begun to doubt myself.  That’s usually been when I’ve accepted an assignment to work with what I’ve believed to be a sensible organisation, yet their essential application questions have been far from sensible.  At best they’re rude and at worst they’re open to legal challenge.  And yes, I called them EAQs and not “killer questions” (can’t get much lower than that eh?).

And so, we’ve come to that thorny subject of employment vs. unemployment and while we’re here, let’s add in “job hopping.”  Yes, we’ve just got even lower!  There are many of us who believe that varying experiences make us a stronger candidate.  We are not job hoppers!  Perhaps we chose to leave unpleasant surroundings or irrational people behind.  Maybe the organisation that promised the moon on a stick went bankrupt.

Then there’s our quest to be seen to be working or to prove a strong work ethic, hence our part time job in that creepy warehouse making sandwiches.  Who wouldn’t leave a job like that after a few months for something better?  For some potential employers, it seems that candidates can’t do right for trying.

If these are the challenges, what are the solutions?  I’m going to begin with my usual mantra which is that we should be keeping recruitment simple.  In reality it’s becoming increasingly complicated.  And before we know it, we’ll be back to cocktail parties and “the alumni networks” – previously referred to as the “old boy networks” or “little black books.” 

Just this week I’ve heard feedback from my network who’ve been approached directly and asked to apply for roles.  Then interviewed and rejected because the potential employer sensed they had better candidates in their pipeline.  How is that helpful for the jobseeker (whether employed or unemployed)?  If you find yourself in this position (as a candidate) then please don’t shy away from seeking further feedback.  You gave up your time, you travelled (time and £), you met the hiring manager, and you politely answered their questions to the best of your ability.  I’d recommend, “I take my personal development seriously, so I’d really appreciate some insights into how I met your brief and where I could have done better.”  Clearly the sub-text here is, “tell me about me, not how great the other bleep candidates are.”

Another was told by the recruiter that they were too senior for a particular role.  Is that code for “too old” we wondered or was it a fear of intimidation?  Surely it’s for the candidate to decide.  If they felt that the job was at the right organisational level for them (and what was happening in their life) then happy days!  Another lesson learned from my conversation with the barrister.

Organisations may want to spread their recruitment nets as widely as possible, although for a single role with a one location base (that doesn’t require a global leader), then my advice would be to behave appropriately.  There’s really no need for a global campaign or to keep the advert running ad infinitum.  We live in an age where jobseekers are happy to speak with headhunters while on leave and many find comfort in browsing just in case.  Try not to make the excuse that you might miss an ideal candidate (you only have a single vacancy).

Another solution, if you have a single vacancy then please be realistic; try not to raise candidate expectations by interviewing twenty candidates over several days.  And no, I am not exaggerating for effect.  This is yet another real-life story from my current portfolio.  We all know that there are no rules about how many candidates we should interview, although there are tests of fairness.  Remember that doesn’t mean 9+ candidates to include all 9 protected characteristics.

 Recruitment should be:

• Objective

• Legally compliant (protected characteristics, etc.)

• Bias-free (includes unconscious bias)

• Inclusive

And recruitment should always include prompt, clear and helpful communications including feedback that helps the candidate (not about their competition):

• Understand the decision-making

• Prepare for further interviews

• Recognise or confirm their USP

Please get in touch and let me know how I can help you with recruitment Let’s chat