Saturday, October 22, 2005
That's How It Is
Some might object to the characterization that we've structured the candidate out of selection process. While they are the object of the process, we do control their entry, exit, and nearly every step in between. Yes, they are willing participants, but we direct the game. Sadly, most candidates are treated as supplicants rather than applicants.
What we have today is a process with companies running ads (initiating the search) and candidates responding to them (reacting). Nothing wrong with that, but imagine yourself as a candidate for a moment. If you do a search on Monster and start poring through the jobs, how many interest you and how much? Most of us get numb very quickly. What's missing? The part about what they want to do (and decent search technology).
This stimulus and response pattern is initiated by the hiring entity. They define the position and write the ads. From the job description, to the skills desired, the salary, and culture, everything is described by what one party wants. What the other party desires isn't structured into the initial call. It is assumed, and the assumption is flawed. Job hunters respond to that call. The leading ATS vendors actually give applicants fields to complete so they can glean skills. Applicants try to use the same verbiage and style and we all wind up talking biz-speak and doing a dance designed by compliance geeks. It is a lopsided game with the company choosing the field, the jersey colors, and whether they want to kick or receive. It is designed for the company to cast a net, and sort out the losers. One party hunts, the other party (ironically called jobhunters) is fairly passive.
What's interesting, is that candidates who are actively hunting, that is truly engaged in the hunt, are more desirable. Particularly if we have what they're hunting for. But the current framework isn't conducive to such a hunt. Go on one of the major job boards and try a search based on your aspirations. It can't be done easily. The best one can do is a keyword search. Even the best matching engines (which haven't penetrated the job board market) bias toward skills, not aspirations. Once again, the language (the playing field) has been determined by one party.
What we have today is a process with companies running ads (initiating the search) and candidates responding to them (reacting). Nothing wrong with that, but imagine yourself as a candidate for a moment. If you do a search on Monster and start poring through the jobs, how many interest you and how much? Most of us get numb very quickly. What's missing? The part about what they want to do (and decent search technology).
This stimulus and response pattern is initiated by the hiring entity. They define the position and write the ads. From the job description, to the skills desired, the salary, and culture, everything is described by what one party wants. What the other party desires isn't structured into the initial call. It is assumed, and the assumption is flawed. Job hunters respond to that call. The leading ATS vendors actually give applicants fields to complete so they can glean skills. Applicants try to use the same verbiage and style and we all wind up talking biz-speak and doing a dance designed by compliance geeks. It is a lopsided game with the company choosing the field, the jersey colors, and whether they want to kick or receive. It is designed for the company to cast a net, and sort out the losers. One party hunts, the other party (ironically called jobhunters) is fairly passive.
What's interesting, is that candidates who are actively hunting, that is truly engaged in the hunt, are more desirable. Particularly if we have what they're hunting for. But the current framework isn't conducive to such a hunt. Go on one of the major job boards and try a search based on your aspirations. It can't be done easily. The best one can do is a keyword search. Even the best matching engines (which haven't penetrated the job board market) bias toward skills, not aspirations. Once again, the language (the playing field) has been determined by one party.
