Your HR Worst Practices Can Easily Become PR Nightmares
February 7, 2011
Author 
In A bit ago I was seeking a new job, so I reached out to a few companies and firms that had products and philosophies I believed in. After several email discussions and interviews, I ultimately chose to work with LEWIS PR in San Francisco (here’s that story if you missed it).
One company had a very impersonal process, but I really liked their brand (enough to be willing to go client-side for). So I filled out their web form application. Never got a response, which I can only assume means they must not be interested. No problem, I get it – my personality or background must not have been what they were looking for, or it’s possible they didn’t like that I basically stated on my resume this isn’t what you should be looking at. That’s on purpose, I don’t want to join a company who wants a bunch of rule followers.
Anyway, I had pretty much forgotten about applying at this company until…
Fast forward 6 months and I get the following boilerplate note from them (company name removed):
Dear Adam,
Thank you for your interest in a role at (company x). After reviewing your background and qualifications, we unfortunately do not feel that this position is a match for you at this time. Should a position become available that is suitable we will contact you. If you have applied for other positions, we will follow up with you on each of them.
We appreciate your interest in (company x) and wish you success in your job search.
Sincerely,
The (Company X) Recruiting Team
Ummm…Ok? 6 months later?
Why even bother, their (lack of) response to my original application was basically a no. Now they’re telling me again formally? I think it is inappropriate of them to follow-up at this juncture, their window of time to do that has closed.
The only possible reaction I can have is that I’m glad I don’t work for this company: the time-lapse basically says they don’t really respect me or any potential applicants. And in a world where everything and everyone are media, it is HR worst practices to do this.
- After 6 months, the chances I already took another position are high.
- Did they really take 6 months to get to my application? Or 6 months to deliberate that I wasn’t a fit? Or do nothing for 6 months, then decide to look? No matter what their internal situation is: it doesn’t make sense to ask for more applicants if they can’t deal with the ones they have.
- If they feel a need to follow-up so much later, at least acknowledge the time difference and apologize.
See how easy it would be for me to publicly share this with the specific company name? I could do so just to do something controversial to get links/attention if I wanted.
The lesson? Basically assume your HR process is going to be social and don’t take steps that make you look bad. It’s just not the type of PR you want to be named and shamed for.
Eric Friedman and I were discussing this over the weekend, read his take on following up.
Kasey Skala replied | Feb 7, 2011 (5 comments)
While I agree with the overall theme of your post Adam, I can also side with the HR department. Why do they do this? Because, right now, they can. With the amount of people applying or looking for jobs, it’s simply a time suck for them to personalize every single response. Imagine how many other people applied who weren’t qualified. I have a friend who works in HR for a large financial institution. Within 24 hours of posting a job, he gets over 100 applicants. Most aren’t qualified.
This doesn’t make the practice right, but based upon the situation we are currently in, I can see why it does happen. As the economy improves and the employees gain more control in the search process, the smart companies will adapt and change. Unfortunately, large corporate companies (for the most part) will never change. Been happening since day 1.
Adam Singer replied | Feb 7, 2011 (552 comments)
I’m not so sure that’s the case. I’ve been part of recruiting teams and let me tell you, good digital talent (or any talent) is *not* so easy to find. You should check out this post on why hiring is actually harder in a downturn: http://goo.gl/50c3s . But regardless of whether HR departments are overwhelmed, their activities are now public.
Catherine Lockey replied | Feb 7, 2011 (61 comments)
The arrogant dinosaur is breathing its last breaths yet continues operate the way it always has. You and your brand were a big opportunity for them. They don’t get it Adam – they don’t see the change happening right before their eyes and their extinction continues.
Note Taking Nerd #2 replied | Feb 7, 2011 (9 comments)
Loved how you told that company that they should be looking beyond the resume
You really can’t hire a superstar from a resume. Look at Gary Vaynerchuk and all of his wild experience looks like hell on a traditional resume of an employee but in actuality, you put him in front of something he believes in, like wine, and that dude is gonna crush it.
Age and background are almost irrelevant. There’s a guy named Chet Holmes – author of “The Ultimate Sales Machine”, who talked about having had a nineteen year old tear it up before, and a 73 year old who was fantastic.
Psychological profile is everything.
Chet only got into sales after someone told him he would probably be good at it. At the time he was a movie film projectionist. He started with a furniture store while he had a weeks worth of vacation. The quota for the month was $20 K. He sold $18,000.00 worth of furniture in one week. Super star.
What about the 52 year old milkshake machine salesman Ray Kroc, the man who founded McDonalds?
I can’t imagine all the bad hires that go down based on people being “perfect on paper”.
If anyone here is looking for the one of the best hiring processes I’ve ever come across, go find the book or personally seek out a man by the name of Brad Smart. The book he wrote is called “Top Grading” and his methodology for finding the right person for the job is amazing.
Thanks Adam for calling out these lazy practices. A lot of people need a wake up call but until someone has the courage to wake ‘em up, they just keep slumbering!
Background isn’t relevant. It’s who they are, more than what they’ve done.
Bill Kaminski replied | Mar 7, 2011 (1 comment)
You are right on when you say, “it’s who they are, more than what they’ve done!” The problem I’ve seen is that to managers don’t know how to conduct a job interview to figure out “who” they’re hiring. They ask their 10 favorite questions and hire the person with the best rehearsed answers. We say that hiring the right people is critical and yet the average manager with 10 years of experience has 6 hours of training in how to conduct a job interview.
Brittany replied | Feb 7, 2011 (1 comment)
Great post Adam! As someone who is currently on the job hunt, I can totally relate to your experience. The whole delayed getting back to candidates isn’t professional and leaves a bad impression. For those HR departments you talk about, clearly they don’t get the whole word of mouth deal, as applicants will surely share their experience with a company with friends applying in the future.
One horrible practice I myself find irritating is when you are brought in and don’t hear back about the position. That I must say is frustrating because you’re left in limbo and what if something comes along then you hear back from the first company? HR should at least inform those who they personally brought in to meet with the company.
ChicagoGirl1 replied | Feb 7, 2011 (3 comments)
My experience in recruitment advertising has shown me that the time it takes to get a thanks-but-no-thanks letter is the time it took to fill and close out the requisition in an applicant tracking system which ties your online application to the job, scores resumes (why yours gets seen or not) and tracks the whole process. It was likely it took them this long to fill the job yet your resume could have been excluded from the candidates they talked to almost immediately based on the ATS settings. They just kept waiting for more submissions that had keywords they liked or waited for the internal candidates & referrals to work through the system. (Recruiters love referrals because they don’t cost anything) A lot about online recruiting is about who-you-know again after about 10 years of more fairness in application consideration with online processes.
Peter Paluska replied | Feb 10, 2011 (7 comments)
Very well thought out and composed piece, Adam.
I am sure this sentiment is shared by millions and you have just put an eloquent, penetrating voice to it.
Nicely done!
Peter
Spencer from Faq Agent replied | Feb 10, 2011 (8 comments)
They should have informed you at most 1 month, right? How long can you wait for a company if there are other opportunities that can be waiting for you.
Craig Cowbrough replied | Feb 25, 2011 (5 comments)
The incompetence of HR never ceases to amaze me I previously worked in an organisation where one of my colleagues received a letter from HR six months after she started informing her she had been unsuccessful in her application.
Amanada replied | Mar 22, 2011 (1 comment)
I too am looking for a career opportunity, and it is amazing the bad impressions the HR or the “virtual HR” departments are presenting to job seekers who may be clients or potential clients. With the developments in communication and networking, job hunters do compare notes.
Recently, I received an email from a consulting company indicating the job I applied to had been canceled. The next day I received a message from a software company saying that I should ignore the previous message. I wrote to the CEO about their flawed HR process. Result-no response, no improvements. It appears many HR departments spent a lot of money on flawed software, but it is the job applicants problem. Read article in the Wall Street Journal, January 18, 2011 re: recruiting/recruiters and their experiences with online recruiting. When will the employers wake up ?