Featured image via iStock
Those who have been in the corporate world would be familiar with receiving letters or e-mails on their job applications being turned down. Reading those dreaded words, ‘We regret to inform you that your application has not been successful…’ can indeed be disheartening. That is, if you even get a reply. In most cases, you would most likely not get a response. Some job postings even state upfront that only shortlisted candidates will be contacted. The applicant is then left wondering why he or she was not shortlisted for the next stage of the selection process despite meeting the requirements stated in the job posting, or whether the application was even considered at all. Understandably, it may not be practical for the company to formally reply to all applications received, due to the high volume of applications. More so now, where job searches and applications can be made online easily at the click of a few buttons. Online recruitment platforms also have a wider outreach, enabling more people to apply. Unlike those days where one had to search for jobs through newspapers advertisements or similar sources, type and print out an application letter, attach the relevant documents and mail the application, which required more effort. That said, the question remains as to how candidates are selected for a job out of the numerous applications received.
Studies have shown that on average, employers look at resumes for only six to seven seconds. Yes, seconds, not minutes. Due to the ease of online applications, there are people who apply to hundreds of jobs whether or not they are qualified for the jobs, taking a chance as they have nothing to lose and might just get lucky. Employers are frequently overwhelmed with the number of applications received for each job. How then, do they choose who to consider? It is said that many companies, especially the larger ones, use a resume screening software to filter a sea of resumes. All resumes received for a particular position will be organised into a database. The recruiter searches the database by keywords, and the corresponding resumes will appear. The recruiter then scans the resumes to determine if he or she would like to check out the applicants further. If a resume doesn’t pop-up from the keyword search, it is not seen by anyone. This is contrary to some applicants’ expectation that the recipient of the resume reads the document in its entirety, word for word. While the use of a resume screening software is a more efficient way of scanning resumes, relieving much of the manual work involved, it does have obvious shortcomings. The process is somewhat flawed, as it depends on how a resume is drafted and presented as opposed to the content of the resume. More surprisingly, the system cannot always read certain fonts, colours or formatting types, and may end up rejecting someone who is a good fit for the role. Some applicants may also know how to manipulate or game the system by tailoring the resumes such that they have a better chance of being selected by the system, leading to what is known as ‘false positives’. Further, when screening the resumes filtered by the system, the decision by the recruiter on whether or not the applicant should be considered for the next stage may be affected by certain biases, preferences or preconceived judgements, where general conclusions are drawn based on factors such as age, colleges or universities attended, previous employment, gaps in employment, and so on.
Sourcing of candidates is only the beginning of the process. There is then the interview process. This process varies depending on the organisation, and could include a few layers of interviews as well as assessments, with some companies adopting a more rigorous process than others. Conducting in-person interviews is a good way to gauge the applicant’s suitability for the job and also provides the candidate with the opportunity to demonstrate his or her strengths. It does, however, have drawbacks. Interviewers frequently rely on gut feeling as to whether the person they are interviewing would fit in well with the workplace setting. However, gut feelings, like first impressions, can be wrong. The interviewer may already form an opinion and reach a decision based on observations within the first few minutes of the interview, while selectively seeking information that reinforces his or her opinions or preconceived notions from the observed responses and behaviour of the candidate. A good interview doesn’t necessarily mean the applicant will be a good employee. A candidate for a position can perform well in an interview due to strong interpersonal and communications skills, while portraying a strong sense of confidence, and yet be unsuitable for the job. The candidate may be putting on a performance just to get the job. Some undesirable personality traits or attitudes would not be apparent in an interview. There is only so much you can know about a person in a 30-minute interview. The reality may well be different.
Apart from the above conventional method of sourcing for candidates, job vacancies are sometimes filled through recommendations or contacts. ‘Networking’ has become the new buzzword these days. Even institutions of higher learning nowadays frequently promote the availability of networking opportunities, e.g. through industry links, etc., as a marketing strategy for their courses. It is understandable why someone would want to handpick a particular person who has proven his or her worth, e.g. through previous employment, to work under him or her. It may be preferable especially if you already know that the person can perform to expectation and is capable of adding value, rather than taking the risk of hiring someone totally new. This, however, should only be based on performance alone and not on other considerations such as friendship or personal relationships. It is often said that it is difficult to get a foot in the door without first knowing someone in the company or someone who knows someone in the company. The same resume, if had been sent through the normal process, might have gone unnoticed. If this is indeed a practice, those with many contacts or connections would have an unfair advantage over those who don’t. Those who do not have many contacts but can perform well, only have their resumes to rely on. Their work as well as their attitude to work, would only be known to those whom they have worked with. Many of these people are not even given a chance to prove their skills.
There is then the contentious subject of remuneration, which is typically handled by Human Resources (HR). It is common for recruiters to ask for the applicant’s current and expected salary as part of the application process. There is a tendency for companies to use the candidate’s current salary as a benchmark, and make an offer above that amount. It is then up to the candidate to negotiate a better offer. Very often, the salary range for a position is not disclosed when it is listed. Some of us may have heard or read of instances where HR personnel offers a candidate the lower end of the spectrum, although the company is able to pay the candidate a higher amount. For example, a recent article in Forbes related an incident where an internal recruiter for a Fortune 100 electronic manufacturing company proudly posted that she offered a candidate $85,000 for a job that had a range of up to $130,000. The article also stated that this is a practice that happens far too often in hiring. Sometimes, the HR personnel may have been asked by his or her superior to offer a lower amount so as to look good for getting a good deal and saving money for the company. This practice of lowballing is considered unethical from the candidate’s perspective. Employees often feel that they should be paid what they are worth, in line with the job’s responsibilities and performance requirements, and rightly so. If a candidate ends up being hired and later finds out that a colleague doing the same job is earning much more, he or she would naturally be upset at being short-changed. The candidate would not feel valued and is likely to look elsewhere. Some candidates just don’t have good negotiation skills. Some would be afraid to walk away, as the company may not offer them a higher salary and would rather hire somebody who is willing to accept a lower salary. It also depends on the candidate’s circumstances. Those who have an existing job or who are financially stable can more readily negotiate and be prepared to wait for a better job offer if the company doesn’t meet their salary expectations. Those who are in between jobs and are in a more urgent need for a job may not have as much bargaining power. Either way, the company should not use this to their advantage to give the candidate the short end of the stick. After all, an employee is a valuable asset to the organisation, and the company is paying an employee for his or her skills. Remuneration should thus be handled professionally and not treated like buying a product from a market and haggling to pay less. Furthermore, there are other issues with making an offer based on a candidate’s current salary. People who move from one company to another typically get a much higher increase than those who stay in the same company and get an annual increment. Starting salaries for the same type of job also vary between companies. As a result, there can be a significant difference in the current salaries of two candidates who have the same number of years of experience doing the same kind of job. The expected salary of a candidate could even be more than what the superior in the hiring company is earning. Annual increments are typically marginal, even for top performing employees. If the employee is promoted, he or she will get a larger increase, but then again, promotion also depends on whether or not there is a vacant position at the next level.
Once a candidate is hired and officially becomes an employee of the company, the candidate’s performance is monitored, and periodic appraisals are carried out based on key performance indicators set. We frequently hear of bosses complaining of their staff not performing to expectation. Sometimes, a person holding a senior position is forced to do some of the work and be more hands-on in order to fill the gap in the performance of his or her subordinates. Some bosses have trust issues and hence don’t delegate as much responsibility to their staff as they should. Sometimes, the work that should be done by a particular staff is given to another staff who can perform the task better. The staff doing the work then becomes frustrated and would most likely end up leaving. Sometimes, additional layers of control are added to check the work done by certain staff, which is contrary to modern theories advocating lean processes. In some cases, the staff were ‘inherited’ by the superior, meaning that the staff were already hired before the superior came in and were not selected by the superior. One obvious option in dealing with underperforming staff would be to dismiss them, but this of course would not be easy. There is a process involved in doing this, and the staff can take legal action against the company for unfair dismissal if the required procedures were not adhered to. Most companies have what is called a performance improvement plan, whereby staff who are not performing are given a chance to improve their performance within a certain period of time, failing which they will be asked to leave the company. From my observation, this mechanism, although available, is not often used by superiors or heads of departments. The process can sometimes be painful and tedious, requiring close monitoring and frequent reporting on the progress of the employee. They would rather bear with it if they can and give the employee another chance, to avoid confrontation and just hope that the employee eventually leaves. We seldom see non-performing employees being dismissed, unless it is part of a company-wide retrenchment exercise, or in the case of a newly hired employee not being confirmed. Retaining employees who are not performing as well as they should is not only detrimental to the company, but causes frustration among other employees within the organisation. It also deprives more deserving candidates from being hired for the job. In cases where the company is providing services to the general public, the effect of hiring and retaining employees who are not fit for the job is more evident. I’m sure many of us have experienced situations where, for example, we contact the call centre of a telecommunication or utilities service provider, only to be served by a dim-witted agent who is not able to solve the problem.
The quality of the workforce is an important factor in the success of an organisation. With imperfections in the hiring, remuneration and performance evaluation process, the people being employed may not be the right people for the job. While acknowledging that it may not be possible to have a perfect system, one can’t help but wonder how such a crucial function can be so flawed. For candidates who genuinely want to perform well and contribute to an organisation’s success, frustrations with the system cause them to feel demotivated and disillusioned. It could be one of the reasons why many people nowadays prefer to start their own business or join the gig economy instead of seeking full-time employment. Perhaps it’s time the corporate sector considers reforming the recruitment process.
Nithiajothi is a content writer under Headliner by Newswav, a programme where content creators get to tell their unique stories through articles and at the same time monetize their content within the Newswav app.
Register at headliner.newswav.com to become one of our content writers now!
Newswav is solely an aggregation platform and hosts the content. The views expressed and content above including media (pictures, videos, etc) were provided by the author. If you have any questions about the content, copyright or other issues of the work, please contact Newswav.