ATS AND TODAY'S RECRUITERS

I've been a successful technical recruiter for 30+ years. Now that I'm in the twilight of my career I look back on my career and I am so glad I'm almost at the finishline. For the past 10 years I feel more like an admistratrive assistant, rather than a professional recruiter. For those of you who don't remember. Back in the old days you spent most of your time sourcing and recruiting and interfacing directly with the Hiring Managers. You didn't spend half your day tracking internal information on overblown ATS such as Peopleclick, Resumix and Teleo. which in my opinion is waste of a recruiter's time and talent. Sometimes I believe the computer has created a bunch of recruiters who don't have much in the way of people skills or recruiting skills for that matter.. Recruiters have been transformed into Data Processors,.no more, no less. Frankly, ask most recruiter, who are honest about their jobs and they will tell you that they hate using ATS because it takes them away from the core responsible...RECRUITING. They do it for the hierarchy,who were sold a bill of goods by the ATS companies. And frankly most HR Executives and CEO don't even know how much time and money has been wasted on this technology.

My best to you all! Mike!

Comment by Sylvia Dahlby on September 29, 2010 at 4:16pm: Love this thread - even though I am a purveyor of the evil and useless ATS ;-)

I'd like to add a few comments:

1) Many of the "overblown" ATS being referred to that have been developed as ERP solutions for large enterprises are "process oriented" as opposed to "results oriented" (ie slaves to reporting requirements rather than getting the job filled). This is evident when recruiters ditch enterprise systems in favor of true recruiting apps like PCR. In fact, I have thrown away RFPs that are written by IT or Purchasing Dept because so little of it has anything to do with actually filling an opening.

2) Using folders, notebooks, paper resumes, Outloo, voodoo etc is still "data entry" - homegrown solutions & spreadsheets do not eliminate the need for tracking, even if it's just a desire to have some idea where candidates are coming from, where they are at in the process, taking notes, and eliminate duplication of effort (like spending time with a candidate you interviewed last yr who washed out only you forgot why). And btw, some ATS do a better job of automating "data entry" than others by allowing you to automate tasks (like reformatting a resume to present to a Hiring Manager) or fwd stuff into the system via Outlook which takes exactly the same amount of time as it would to sort into an Outlook folder.

3) Any database or ATS is always only as useful as the user adoption. Obviously some systems are easier to use & more streamlined than others.

4) If you're an independent recruiter, you also need to SELL & manage client relationships. I have used many kinds of CRM/Sales applications and I can tell you that I use my own product now to manage clients, develop relationship, track leads etc. And isn't recruiting just another kind of sales? I can't imagine effectively managing sales workflow without a good database to keep me organized & prioritized.

5) The need for any software at all is driven by business requirements. I agree that many sole proprietors/third-party recruiters may not need an ATS at all. Just depends on your goals, workflow & personal preferences. I'm probably one of the few vendors that's not an "evangelist" for my product - there is really no one-size-fits-all.

6) A good ATS also manages job orders and eliminates duplication of effort by keeping track of previous candidates (both good, bad, and worthy of future consideration). If you're only filling a few jobs a yr, you can manage well without a big database & lots of tracking tools.

I am the first to scream when I see how many of my competitors sell "the flavor of the month" or add bells & whistles to a complicated system and then tout it as the best thing in the world that will revolutionize the industry blah blah blah. It's like buying a car with enough power to haul a boat, when you don't own a boat and have no intention of hauling one in the foreseeable future.

Lately, I find myself on a mission to get "back to basics" when I qualify a buyer - nice to see some people still have realistic expectations and a longing for more practical solutions.

Comment by Martin H.Snyder on September 29, 2010 at 5:57pm: Super post Sylvia, perfectly calibrated.

Everyone please forgive Scott Sachs for getting a little excited about the discussion and going into hard sales mode. Scott is our first dedicated recruiter and he is now discovering social media beyond LinkedIn (which I never saw as social anyway but thats another post). He is a fast learner but like a kid in a candy store compared to his corporate experience.

A lot of these ATS complaints boil down to scale and luck- the level of activity and exposure to the best modern systems. The old school is slowly dying away......

Comment by Alexis Perrier on September 30, 2010 at 2:56am: Reading the initial post and first comments, what stands out is the feeling about the complexity and poor search functionalities of these ATSs.
As in all software applications, web or desktop, the most difficult thing to achieve is simplicity.

Software vendors go a long way to add up features which in the end make the application too complex to use, slow and inadequate for the true needs of the users.

Simplicity is the key here. And speed.

Which brings me to two points
1) rate of user adoption may be the most important parameter to look for in an ATS
Newton Software had a good post about that recently
http://www.newtonsoftware.com/blog/2010/07/09/user-adoption-is-more...

2) The perfect ATS would only have a minimum set of features
Something like:
- Candidate resumes
- Candidate profiles should include only a basic search oriented set of automatically filled elements (zipcodes, main keywords, industry)
- the most important feature is search

All the rest (roles, social media push, etc ...) could be done without or through other means and applications

What would be the very minimum features a candidate management application should have?

Comment by Vicki Bartelt on September 30, 2010 at 4:58pm: Sandra, many companies believe that a side benefit of these ATS systems is the ability to more easily dodge a fee that is due a recruiter. Years ago, when I owned a staffing company, a Fortune 500 firm's HR Rep tried to use that same line with me.

I asked her:

--Had she hired the candidate--no.
--Had she negotiated an offer with the candidate--no.
--Had she interviewed the candidate--no.
--Had she tested the skills, checked the references, matched for compatibility--no, no, no.
--Had she even bothered to find the candidate in that massive database until I brought her to the rep's attention--er...no.

I explained that she is not paying a fee for a name but for the full recruitment service my fee represented. (I reminded her my agreement also stated this.) I then asked her, "Who actually brought this candidate's attributes and viability to your attention--me or the database?

I got my fee.

Comment by Dick Smith on September 30, 2010 at 6:56pm: I have to agree with Sandra. I've seen this scenario repeatedly. This canidate is in our database from a year ago. Well if they are in your database then why in the heck hasn't the internal recruiter or hiring manager contacted the candidate. Ownership of a candidate is a biggie in this ATS hi-tech world. In general a candidate from a year ago is not the same person. They are better, they are worse, but they are not the same person.

Comment by Sandra McCartt on October 1, 2010 at 11:32am: Simon, you and few other internals may take that attitude and once in a while the "who was instrumental in bringing the candidate to the table" speech works but most of the time it's a brick wall as the response will be...."All candidates have to be entered into the ATS, if you had tried to enter the candidate you would have known we already had them." "So it's not your referral". The catch 22..i entered one in the ATS that was accepted by technology only to get a note from the internal. We have already interviewed, don't know why he wasn't entered.

I have done an end run around some of the internal twits and twerps and gotten a fee or two on candidates they missed then resurrected or laid claim to but it creates some bad will that is not easy to overcome in the long run.

The almost amusing thing was the response when i asked why they had not checked their own database and contacted the candidate. The response, "We have so many people apply that it is almost impossible to go back and look at candidates."

"So you only look if a recruiter submits them to see if you already have them, but not to see if they fit one of your new jobs?"

"Something like that , yes".

"Chickenshit"!

That would probably be the bottom line comment on the value of this wonderful glob of technology referred to as the ATS or CRM or CRAP or whatever alphabet soup one wants to sling money at that creates jobs for several people but not much in the way of meeting the hype.