The Dawning of the Cra#@pplication! You may be saving a tree, but you’re killin’ me!!

PART 1:
I recently posted an article on my company blog, www.Hooklineandthinker.us and here as well which highlighted the rise of Indeed.com and other job search aggregators, particularly in contrast to the Major Jobboards like Careerbuilder and Monster. Feedback was lively, and one client's contribution was particularly noteworthy. Here's an HR professional at an East Coast Health Care company, but since his commentary teeters on the edge of "maniacal rant" he asked me to keep his contribution anonymous. You, as fellow Human Resources or Staffing professionals may feel similar emotions evoked The Dawning of the Cra#@pplication! You may be saving a tree, but you’re killin’ me!!   

Undoubtedly, the introduction of the online, electronic, paperless,’e'-call-it-what-you-will application process has brought about new efficiencies for applicant and HR person alike, but I think the ease of application has begun to pollute the process. Ever since the application process has been simplified to the stroke of a mouse and click of a finger, the ratio of “qualified” applications to “unqualified” has taken a nose-dive. I don’t expect every resume to be a perfect match for the position, but I at least want to be able to discern why the applicant thought they were qualified. We’ve all applied for positions that might have been a stretch for our qualifications – you gotta try, right? I understand the theory that if you throw enough …”spaghetti” at a wall, eventually a piece will stick, but, more and more I’m seeing applications that aren’t even remotely close the meeting the qualifications. Fear of actually going insane has prevented me from tracking the time wasted reviewing the resumes of those who should never have applied in the first place.  I’ve begun to craft online job postings that start with bold statements of minimum qualifications and ‘must-haves’ and even this approach hasn’t stemmed the flood. I’m not trying to be overly selective, but my industry is highly regulated has qualifications and minimum qualifications that MUST be met. If the position requires a PhD and a state license and you have neither, no amount of desire will render you qualified.

For purposes of thoroughness, let alone EEO requirements, I’m obligated to review every resume I receive – and it takes just as long to disposition an unqualified application as it does a well qualified one. In their haste to submit the most number of applications in the shortest amount of time, applicants fail to realize that they are undermining their own success. When I see the same person applying for ten different positions, my initial thoughts are that the person is grasping at anything and isn’t particularly interested in any specific job. When I hire someone, I want at least the illusion that the position for which they’ve applied is one in which they have a legitimate interest.
  
For my solution, come back Wednesday for PART 2:  “National Registry of Time-wasting-applicants” and other items from my wish list.

Comment by Bart Bement on June 10, 2010 at 11:48am: To me, this rant...though it did give me a nice morning chuckle, thank you...seems more like a guy who does not have his pre screen and disqualification setup to the optimum degree. These completely unqualified applicants you speak of should have been DQ'd during the application process based on your requirements and the ensuing DQ questions for the specific position you are hiring for. Additionally, sounds like you could benefit from using a system where key points about the applicant are easily accessible and enable you to quickly pair down your applicant shortlists to the best available.

I feel your pain...but it is a pain that can be relieved. Call me if you need some ATS pain relief :-)

Comment by Paul Hanchett on June 11, 2010 at 2:17pm: In his follow up article, Matt continues to suggest a National Registry of Time-wasting-applicants. I understand the motivation, but there are other factors that need to be considered. Frankly, I think applicants would be justified in creating a Don't-bother-applying-here registry, themselves!

First of all, there are more job seekers than there are available positions; that by itself is a recipe for trouble. Add to that, most states require unemployed to submit some number of applications every week in order to continue to receive their unemployment benefit. If there are not enough positions that fit the applicant, they have to apply for positions or the benefit stops-- reapplying for the same limited group of positions won't count. Unemployed persons are told by the State to apply for any position they *might* be qualified for. What would you do?

I think HR creates some of the problem as well. Applicants learn quickly that applying to positions they feel qualified for is not likely to get a response. Desperate for a response of any kind, they start applying for lesser positions and related functions. Over time they learn that the connection between position descriptions, their resume, and interviews is tenuous at best. After a while it becomes a random hunt.

Quite frankly, I am tired of all the criticism directed at applicants-- They are told to match keywords, get it said in 20 seconds, provide detailed quantitative career accomplishments, on one or two pages, model this behavior or that, and tailor every resume to the job posting. We expect them to spend hours crafting a resume we will spend 20 seconds on? And then not even bother responding to the application (even with a canned response)?

That seems abusive to me.

Believe me, plowing through those resumes is no harder work than doing software development (I've done it, 80-90 hour weeks to make a deadline) or marketing, or any other position we screen for. If you want fewer applications, identify the sorts of accomplishments you will be screening for and then just check that those achievements show on the resume. You could even ask the applicant to highlight them for you on the resume. (Don't ask for a cover letter-- that is bogus if you don't tell the benefit you want the person to produce!)

When ever one group is placed in power over another (as HR is over employees and applicants), the preconditions for abuse are met. Because of the power entrusted to us, it behooves us to ensure that we are being fair and non-discriminatory in our dealings with others. For a glimpse of how bad things can become, look up the Stanford Prison Experiments.

Thanks for considering my rant!

Comment by Ben McGrath on June 11, 2010 at 7:20pm: Hi guys,

I now send a note back to the applicant that states......you have sent your resume to me in error. I hope that you are able to remember what company it is that you were supposed to send it to. Best of luck in your search.........It must have given them pause cause I have never received a response back to that.

All the best,
Ben McGrath

Comment by Matt J Peter on June 23, 2010 at 9:49am: @ Bart Bement - thanks for the reply. I completely agree with you! I've been looking for a thoughtful article on ATS's to put on our blog http://hooklineandthinker.us/. At the writing of the article they were caught into a bear of a system with little functionality. Send me a message if you are interested in considering contributing. Thanks, Matt

Comment by Matt J Peter on June 23, 2010 at 9:53am: @ The Oregon Business Coach - Thank you for your expressive reply! Considering it? I think it's great. You truly have the passion for what you do - I checked your website and truly hope your bring that to the table every day. The business world will be a better place.

Keep reading and ranting!