Finding the right talent does not allow for compromises!
Applicants want a fast, appreciative application process. Companies, on the other hand, need a lot of information to prevent wrong hires, as well as efficient and structured processes to keep costs low and not make themselves liable to legal action. How does HR find the balance – and the best talent at the same time?
One thing is clear: a poor application process can be expensive. Specifically, when companies:
- hire candidates even though they don’t suit them,
- reject candidates who would actually be a good fit,
- lose candidates in the process because they are frustrated,
- risk their reputation due to recurring negative candidate experiences, resulting in bad reviews on Kununu or Glassdoor.
Where false judgements are made
Misjudgements happen, for example, when recruiters are overly impressed by features such as prestigious universities or large companies on a CV and then neglect to track down the really relevant qualifications. In interview situations, eloquence and self-confidence can mask a lack of skills.
Qualified candidates, on the other hand, run the risk of being weeded out early if their CV does not meet the formal requirements. Or if they sell themselves poorly in their cover letter. In stressful interview situations, introverted or less eloquent applicants sometimes perform worse. Even though they would be an excellent fit professionally.
Is AI the solution? – A clear “yes and no”.
The risk of bad hires does not automatically decrease with the use of AI. Sometimes the same effects described above are at work. AI systems can scan CVs and cover letters for certain keywords or qualifications in order to save time. However, this can lead to the exclusion of suitable applicants if unconventional but qualified candidates are overlooked due to missing keywords. At the same time, there is a risk of mis-hiring if applicants appear to be suitable due to the clever placement of keywords, even though they are not.
The same applies to AI-supported systems that analyze video interviews to evaluate non-verbal clues such as body language and facial expressions. Such systems would rate candidates positively simply because they show good non-verbal skills. At the same time, qualified people can fall through the cracks if they are assessed negatively due to nervousness or cultural differences in their non-verbal communication.
Taking the candidate’s perspective
So what to do? – One thing is clear: the best formal recruitment process is useless if it ignores the needs of the applicants. There are studies on what candidates want in the application process. First and foremost: objectivity, transparency, speed and personal interaction. Whether AI systems can have a positive impact on these factors is assessed differently by potential applicants, according to a survey of 1,005 participants conducted by the International University of Applied Sciences Erfurt. The majority of participants stated that the use of AI could lead to an increasingly impersonal process. More than half feared being disadvantaged by programming errors. And over 40 percent believe that transparency and data protection are at risk.
It is interesting to see that the majority of respondents have not knowingly had any experience with AI in the application process. The proportion of supporters also varies greatly depending on their level of education and migration background. For example, people with a high level of education or migration backgrounds are more likely to see advantages in AI, especially with regard to non-discriminatory assessment. In addition, some of the statements in the study clash with the desire for objectivity formulated in other studies. For example, 59% stated that they feared that factors such as “likeability” would be pushed into the background. At the same time, likeability is anything but objective and says little about the expected professional performance.
What can recruiters conclude from these contradictions?
Here comes the ultimate recruiting recipe!
No, of course not. At least we haven’t found it yet. (But we’re working on it with Zortify.) 🤓
Our findings from seven years of working at the interface of HR and AI:
- Walk the Talk: We can recommend to anyone and everyone to put themselves in the target group’s shoes and go through their own processes from an applicant perspective. Ask yourselves: How do I feel at the various stages of the process? Do I know what is happening and with what goal? Am I interacting with an AI or a human being? Would I still want to do the job after this experience?
- Transparency requires clarification: Where AI is used, it is all the more important that HR experts make personal contact with applicants at critical points. For example, to explain where AI technology is used, what kind of evaluation it provides and what happens next. De-briefings and a personal meeting in the event of a rejection are also important to maintain the bond between the company and candidate.
- Focus on individualization: Not every applicant has the same needs. While some applicants prefer a quick process, others want deeper insights into the company. Flexible application options, e.g. video interviews or trial days, can cater to both sides. The same applies to vacancies and roles: Not every job requires the same depth of information. For example, the application process for a management position can be designed differently than for an employee in production.
- Data-based evaluation: In order to improve the candidate experience based on data, companies should regularly gather feedback from applicants (including rejected applicants) to identify bottlenecks or points of frustration. Think: candidate experience surveys. Other KPIs can also provide valuable insights, such as those that measure the performance of newly hired employees or figures on how long new employees stay with the company.
- Reflect on your own thought and behavior patterns: Narratives such as the “talent vs. employer market” consciously or unconsciously shape the work of recruiters. Ask yourself self-critically: Do I always make quick decisions because I’m afraid of losing the applicant? Do I make compromises because I assume I won’t find a better candidate? – Becoming aware of your inner drivers helps to sharpen your focus on what the company really needs.
Conclusion: Hire slow, fire fast.
Candidate experience and business needs don’t have to be opposites – at best, they complement each other. Every recruiter has a responsibility for the company.
Even if the application process takes longer as a result, it is worth weighing up all the options carefully. AI systems can provide valuable insights, but the final decision should always be made by a person – or rather a group of people – with expertise.
In the short term, it may be tempting to hire a candidate, even if he or she is not an ideal fit – but in the long term, such a compromise will harm the company.
If a suitable candidate cannot be found immediately, freelancers, external experts or consultants can be a valuable alternative. Platforms such as ExpertPowerHouse, Upwork or Empion offer access to an expanded talent pool and make it possible to flexibly bridge short-term bottlenecks.
And last but not least: Fire fast. What may sound harsh is actually a deeply human move. After all, it serves no one’s interests to keep employees and give them the same negative feedback over a long period of time. What’s more, a bad hire puts a strain on the entire team. And: the world does not need more dysfunctional companies. But vibrant and innovative organizations that develop great solutions in a changing world. And that is much more likely with the right people in the right positions.
We look forward to your thoughts on this: Which levers are you already using successfully to ensure a good candidate experience and sound talent selection? – Join the discussion on LinkedIn.
New Leadership: Nice is the little brother of toxic.
Expensive, unloved employees: How to avoid bad hires
