With automation on the scale, most of the work of talent attraction people has drastically changed. Algorithms now decide if a candidate is suitable for a role. The algorithm also screens out people who don’t match the basic requirements for a role. The message is “We save time from non-value-adding activities to focus our energy on what matters most, or the experience we want to create for our new hires.” Unfortunately, that couldn’t be the truth.
Recently, I talked to a friend who was intensely interested in working for a digital bank that proudly calls itself “The Bank of the Free.” He got through the posted job profile, prepared his documents, aligned texts with what a search algorithm may accept as keywords, and sent his application. Several days after the initial send, he received a letter calling for action – he had to go through a personality and logical assessment that would have taken not more than 30 minutes. While on vacation, he couldn’t help but assess his mobile device. The evaluation started with the words that it is an external tool that doesn’t have to do much with the company, but they use it to screen candidates. A day later, after completing the assessment, he received a generic letter that the algorithm decided he was not a good match for the role. While he is curious, my friend decided to write to get honest feedback to plan a future development agenda for himself. After a week of trying, no natural person has answered his question for feedback. I’m sad that he scratched that company from his list of options for the future and warned several people around him how incorrect the company is.
Although the talent attraction team of the company may say that this is a structured process and they have an objective process that makes decisions without biasing itself, this approach looks cold and aversive. With the lowering number of people indeed attracted to companies, pushing those, investing time with the whole process, and even being interested in getting in touch with you after the software has screened them out, it sounds unbelievable to have such an approach.
And still, many of the talent attraction teams say they suffer to find the best talent, and even “unicorns” as that trendy at the moment “bank” do all they can to turn people against them.
Now, I understand that the talent attraction team of the current company may have a different story, which is why I don’t want to offend them, but for all the other leaders and talent attraction people, here are some steps from my practice that may help build a sustainable pipeline of people willing to support your business, even if you don’t see them as a current choice for one or another role in your company:
Go through the rejected applications.
AI may greatly help, but it follows a strict algorithm and does not go sideways. Sometimes, someone who cannot go through the algorithm may be an excellent fit for your role. After all, only you know what you have set rules for that AI algorithm to scan applications. People must guess and try their best to find possible keywords through your job ad. In some cases, for people not experienced in searching for jobs, that may mean rejection at the first step and potential loss for your company. For example, my last four hirings were of people who didn’t pass the algorithm limitations, but after all I invited for meetings, they were more than impressive. One of them is the Head of a critical department in our company.
Try to find similarities with your role responsibilities, no matter the differences in industries
Many years ago, when no expertise was built in some industries, companies hired people from other sectors to build that expertise. Nowadays, it is different. Talent attraction teams specialize in one sector and mostly stick to that industry without being willing to look outside of it. Now think of yourself – have you seen educational institutions teach Finance to banks, FMCG, tech companies, etc? I haven’t, and I am betting you didn’t. It is the same with all other supporting functions. For example, most channels people use in talent branding are similar. The messages they create are different, but the channels are the same. So, why scratch someone from your list with excellent talent communication experience when you should only give this person time to get familiar with the type of messages sent to the auditorium of potential candidates? They already have the expertise in their field.
Give personal feedback and try to establish a connection.
Many years ago, I was approached by what is known as Crypto.com today. They offered me a role where I had to be responsible for a team of more than 1000 people. During a conversation with their Global HR Director, I asked what they are doing about their people retention. The answer was that they don’t do much because they don’t need to. Their only focus is to find replacements for those who depart from the company. And that statement is accompanied by another one – “After all, we are a young start-up.” This was a company in its ninth year of existence at the time. I declined their offer, although it was more than generous, and then I received a cold e-mail saying that because I did that, they are banning me from future opportunities with the company for one year. Several years later, this same company hired me as a consultant to help them restructure because they were struggling with the price of the cryptocurrencies they were selling. I am not telling that story to show myself but to point out how a good relationship, built through the recruitment process, maybe a solid ground for future interaction in the winning curve, even if the person doesn’t fit the criteria for the current role. Cutting the connection at that level creates a lousy impression and set of negative feelings, making people careful against your company when searching for the next career option.
Create the same message for all rejected people at one stage.
I have had the opportunity to see how overqualified people for one role get a message that their qualifications don’t match the job requirements, and at the same time, people with less experience receive feedback that they don’t match the job requirements because of the same arguments. The honest feedback should not include all the details the person may ask for, but it must outline the criteria for screening them out of the process at this current stage. For example, after I do an assessment or meet with people face to face, I always structure my feedback using three or four internal criteria based on our company values and performance standards. That makes people feel they have been judged by some realistic criteria instead of the subjective thinking of someone who invested thirty, sixty, or even ninety minutes with them.
Give candidates a chance to ask direct questions.
Now imagine yourself standing in the candidate’s place, receiving some generic feedback generated from a system tool and not having the option to connect to a natural person to get the details. The number of candidates that do that is relatively small (from my experience, less than ten percent of all will do it), but those are the candidates to whom you must turn your attention. Having them in the pipeline and interested in improving their skills so that they can meet your standards in the future creates the most engaged prospects for your company. The short time you will take to write a personalized message explaining to a candidate who made the effort to ask for improvement may create a potential future talent for your business. Those people are interested in you; others perceive your company as a place that offers something they may use for a while, like higher salary, flexible working conditions, some specific benefits, etc.
Ask yourself who you would want to work for in the future: those who contacted you to ask how to improve to answer your standards or the other group attached to the short-term elements. In my experience, building the connection with the first group has always led to a winning situation and helped me quickly (in less than two to three weeks) close roles that took recruitment agencies months to find suitable candidates. In 2023, for example, I closed six roles with such types of candidates without even opening a project for recruitment.
Help interested in improvement candidates if they seek that from you.
In 2023, I worked with four people from a list of rejected candidates for two roles to improve themselves. I just offered to help them improve and get a role in our company or another. Because we didn’t have suitable roles for those candidates, they have started their next career chapter with other companies. Still, all four of them contact me regularly to see how we are developing as a company and help me find potential candidates for my roles through their networks. Now I know that I will have a place for two of them in the current year and will invite them to join our company, but the other two will maintain a strong connection in the future. Now, ask yourself, “How often did you do that?”. It may sound like a heavy task, but once started, it turns into an everyday habit, and within time, it takes less time but creates more value for you, your team, and your company.
IN CONCLUSION:
Companies today talk too much about employer branding, attracting talent, and keeping people. At the same time, leaders and HR people do all the actions when automating processes to create bad experiences and turn people away from their companies. The simple, human approach implemented in several out-of-the-system steps can drastically improve not only retention but also the talent attraction process. However, it is a leadership decision to approach people and their attitudes toward the company. Have you already asked yourself where you are standing, or have you decided that relying on a non-human approach can win you a good place in people’s minds driven by a rainbow of emotions?
The Human place - a path from you to yourself 