Online hiring systems frustrate applicants

October 19, 2012

Online hiring systems frustrate applicants

8 Comments |
E-mail |
Print
- Share:

(Thinkstock)

By Lorraine Mirabella / The Baltimore Sun

The emailed rejection came as no surprise to Bill Skibinski, though the Abingdon, Md., resident believed he was more than qualified for the entry-level job he’d applied for online.

After spending two years seeking full-time work, Skibinski is convinced that the computerized screening systems most companies use to hire actually work against job candidates, no matter how qualified they are.

“It is a frustrating and unfair process,” says Skibinski, who is working part-time as a contractor while completing a master’s degree in environmental planning at Towson University. “You don’t hear a thing through the web process, but that’s really the only way you can apply for a job.”

“[Computerized screening systems] are so narrow in the way they look at people. If they are looking for a lima bean counter, and you’ve counted pinto beans and black beans, they’ll say they can’t hire you because you’ve not counted lima beans.”

— Job seeker Elaine Sarao, of Washington D.C.

Most large employers, even the federal government, use so-called applicant tracking systems to find qualified candidates. Increasingly, smaller companies are turning to them, too. Software screening is designed to help employers manage overwhelming volumes of applications and eliminate applicants who lack the required skills.

But some experts blame these systems for eliminating qualified candidates and for contributing to a shortage of skilled workers — a problem companies say they face even in a market glutted with job seekers.

More than a third of employers in a June CareerBuilder survey said they currently have positions they can’t fill because of a lack of qualified candidates. And that’s hurting business: A third said vacancies lead to overworked employees and a lower quality of work.

'Overly rigid'

Peter Cappelli, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, argues in his book “Why Good People Can’t Get Jobs” that employers can’t find qualified workers not because of a “skills gap,” but because employers’ hiring requirements are unrealistic, salaries are too low and overly rigid applicant screening keeps most people out.

“The problem comes with employers trying to use these systems for more than they’re capable of doing,” says Cappelli. “They have so constrained their criteria, they end up with nothing. They want skill sets that don’t exist.”

Cappelli says the software often is inflexible and can’t determine all the different ways that somebody might be qualified for a job. Instead, he says, candidates are asked a series of yes-or-no questions designed to find someone who’s already doing the precise job the employer is trying to fill.

“It explains why employers feel that there’s nobody for them to hire, even though any objective observer would say there are hundreds of people who could do the job,” Cappelli says.

For Skibinski, a 36-year-old Army veteran who switched careers in 2006 after being laid off as a field engineer and project manager in the lottery industry, the computerized job-application process is full of stumbling blocks and frustration.

In the past couple of years, Skibinski has applied for graduate assistantships, entry-level planning positions, jobs at Walmart, Target and Starbucks — anything to bring in a paycheck.

The result? Either no response or a rejection note, even when he met all the minimum requirements.

After he applied recently for a planning position at a government agency, an emailed reply said, "You did not meet one or more of the experience requirements and are therefore considered ineligible at this time." He tracked down an HR representative and talked to her about his background, and she agreed he met the requirements, Skibinski says.

"That's when she said they can't interview everyone," he says. "She could not tell me specifically why."

Melanie Woodfolk, a 34-year-old Parkville, Md., resident who was laid off in April when her position as a marketing manager at a Baltimore publishing company was eliminated, said she'd always been able to find jobs quickly.

Now, after months of online job hunting, she's still looking.

"I feel like my resume just goes into an abyss," she says. "I've submitted my resume to jobs that match me perfectly and hear zilch."

What's most frustrating is knowing there isn't anybody to follow up with, Woodfolk adds. "These systems are looking for certain keywords, and if I don't have that one keyword they're looking for, I'm excluded even if I'm highly qualified. They're looking for a reason not to hire you, more so than a reason to hire."

Weeded out

But for companies trying to sort through an avalanche of applications at a time of relatively high unemployment, tracking systems can be a godsend, says Dawn A. Haag-Hatterer, a human resources advisory consultant based in Frederick, Md. She says the systems help companies weed out “the folks who truly don’t belong in the applicant pool.”

Companies began shifting from paper to electronic applications in the 1990s to make it easier for people to apply and to save on recruitment costs, Cappelli says. Because it’s so easy to apply online, companies have been inundated with thousands of applicants for every opening, he says.

But the systems have their limitations, acknowledged Haag-Hatterer, president and CEO of Consulting Authority LLC.

“You’ve got to spend the time to get the right system in place, customize it and set up the criteria that will best give you the return you’re after,” she says. “And that can be a moving target. You don’t just implement software to parse through hundreds of résumés.”

Most large companies have comprehensive screening systems in place. Now smaller companies have begun testing the waters, using recruitment software that looks for specific keywords in résumés and cover letters.

Haag-Hatterer, however, warns that employers that do little more than rely on keywords may hurt their chances of finding the right people.

“If you’re picking out words that everyone uses — strategic, budget, planning, something that’s an ambiguous term — you’re not doing yourself any good,” she says. “All it tells you is how to beat the system, and qualified applicants may be left out of the selection process.”

8 Comments |
E-mail |
Print
- Share:

8 Comments

Paul on October 19, 2012 2:08 PM | Reply

Employers complaining they can't find people with the right skills are one of two things.

1. They're lazy and set requirements far beyond what's actually necessary for the job.

2. They're greedy and refuse to offer a reasonable salary for the qualifications they expect. I can guarantee you that if you if you quadruple the salary for whatever position you can't fill, a qualified applicant will magically appear. That doesn't mean you need to pay quadruple what you're offering. It just means that whatever you're offering is not enough.

JD on October 21, 2012 8:29 AM | Reply

@ Paul,

Those first two points are debatable, but a third point is that employers aren't investing in training and development anymore. In the good old days employers would hire people who had 70-80% of the skills/qualifications and eat the cost of training them. Apparently this is just unimaginable in today's market unless someone really, really likes a candidate.

One of the explanations I've heard for not focusing on training and development is that employees immediately take their skills elsewhere once the company has invested in training them. I don't usually see a discussion about whether or not newly skilled employees leave because their new skills aren't being adequately compensated.

But let's just forget about looking for a new rock star employee. How much training would it take to fill one of these in demand positions with a current, loyal employee?

MPS replied to comment from JD

Ron you are dead nuts on. I'm amazed by how companies hire these days-- they focus on what is trainable rather than what is not trainable as far as skill sets. I'd much rather have an applicant who demonstrates they are willing and able to learn new things, doesn't currently have the skills I want, but is ideal in terms of personality, than a candidate who can check off all the boxes, but who I have to untrain or who isn't trainable and/or isn't a fit for the team.

Ron Selewach on October 22, 2012 1:18 PM | Reply

All these points are valid, and many more could be added as well. The resume is an imperfect source document to begin with - what to put in, what to leave out is just a frustrating rite of passage to get to what is really important - the interview. But then again, as employers are overwhelmed with resumes, the conventional solution has been to "read" these imperfect documents with key word searches, which only compounds the imperfect process. Overwhelmed, overworked hiring executives don't take the time to analyze what is really needed for success in the job - they just run an ad from the job description and then hire the resume that looks the best compared to all the other resumes. But there is one system that is making a difference. It is powered by artificial intelligence and directly, job-specifically questions each applicant rather than relying on the content of a resume. The artificial intelligence changes the flow of questioning on the fly as answers are given, in order to thoroughly explore the potential for a match. A much more positive experience for the job seeker and a more accurate assessment for the employer. You might want to follow the adventures of Chloe Beagle as she embarks on a conventional job search and experiences the frustration and negativity - go to www.hrmc.com and click on the treasure map icon in the lower right corner of the page. The worst injustice that can be done is to deny a person an opportunity that they could otherwise be successful in.

Brook Warner replied to comment from Ron Selewach

I agree as well. Young people looking to get started with their careers right out of college don't have a shot if all employers are expecting "the perfectly skilled and trained employee". One of the pieces of advise on how to find a good job that I have been finding on the web is to create a good resume but like Ron was saying that doesn't always guarantee a good employee. At this point it almost seems easier to just go for the managing job! (If only). At the moment, Granted.com says that that there are 42,930 sales manager positions. Go Big or Go Home!:)

Mel Kleiman on October 22, 2012 4:25 PM | Reply

Ron: The worst injustice a company does to their candidates, themselves and the great employees they now have on staff is to hire the person who is a great applicant but in reality is really an average or a poor employee.

Everyone fails.

Ron Selewach on October 23, 2012 4:50 AM | Reply

Agee 100% Mel.

Ron Selewach on October 23, 2012 4:52 AM | Reply

That was supposed to read:
Agree 100% Mel. :)