E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Seth Wenig / AP file
Jobseekers fill out applications at a construction job fair in New York this month. Such paper forms are a rarity these days.
If you think big companies could treat employees better, wait until you hear how they handle jobseekers.
Even some employers that rank among the nation's best routinely fail at making would-be employees feel welcome, according to survey results released Tuesday. Jobseekers routinely are confronted with online applications that are needlessly complicated, irrelevant questions and resumes that are seemingly ignored.
Staffing industry consulting firm CareerXRoads analyzed online hiring practices by creating a resume for a fictional job seeker and using it to apply for open positions at every company on Fortune’s list of 2012 Best Companies to Work For. Companies on the list include Google, Whole Foods, Goldman Sachs, Ernst & Young and Zappos.
Despite the big names, what they found wasn’t pretty. In addition to other shortcomings, companies typically make the career sections of their websites hard to find and fail to notify candidates when a job they had applied for is filled, according to the survey.
One of the few companies to pass muster was outdoor goods retailer REI, which among other things, calls job seekers to acknowledge receiving an application. REI also lists an email address and phone number at the bottom of all career-related pages on its website in case job seekers need extra help.
“We want the candidate experience to be representative of how we treat our customers, and we put a huge emphasis on customers,” says REI recruiting supervisor Lisa Arbacauskas.
REI, based in Kent, Wash., long has been recognized for its people practices, landing on Fortune’s list of best workplaces for the past 15 years.
Big brands spend big money on their digital recruiting efforts. But if they’re not rolling out the welcome mat for job applicants, those efforts could be for naught, especially since today people think nothing of going on Facebook or Twitter to vent about a bad experience. Likewise, if a company does a good job, jobseekers “tell their friends,” says CareerXRoads’ Gerry Crispin.
The survey found:
- 13 percent of companies don’t let job seekers apply directly from a job description, something CareerXRoads says should occur “quickly and easily every time.”
- Close to half of online applications take up to 20 minutes to complete; 8 percent take up to an hour.
- 6 percent of companies ask for a Social Security number, even though it has “no bearing on someone’s qualifications for a position.”
- Fewer than three in 10 companies ask screening questions specific to the job being applied for.
Employers are getting some things right. In this year’s survey, 86 percent sent job seekers some type of acknowledgement after receiving an application. More are making the hiring process interactive; this year, 15 posted video job descriptions and nine offered live chats, email or other connections between job seekers and employees or recruiters.
Complete results of the annual Mystery Job Seeking survey are posted on the CareerXRoads website, including the fictional resume for one Charles Brown, marketing manager for the "Great Pumpkin Division" of a major consumer-products company.
More money and business news:
- Nike says it stands by Lance Armstrong
- Home, home on these beautiful ranch homes for sale
- Education secretary: Shop around for college
- Video: The economics of legal marijuana
- Sign up for our Business newsletter
The states with the lowest improvement in their unemployment rates include two swing states: Minnesota and North Carolina, reports CNBC's Jane Wells.
Leave a Comment:
I've encountered online job applications that have taken nearly two hours, including pages of "personality" questions of questionable relevance. Most of those are repeated several times in slightly different ways and many boil down to "is it okay to steal from your employer?" Also, questions about which attribute "most describes me" or "least describes me." Can't help but think the point is to weed out applicants simply by making it too frustrating to complete the application.
It is, because of globalization and outsourcing we have 50 million too many people wanting work in today's economy. Because of this employers have their pick of an unlimited supply of applicants and the applicants have no power whatsoever to negotiate better wages or conditions. Within 10 years the US wage will be reduced to the world average and the vast majority of us will be living on a third of what we would have been making at this point in history if we had stood firm against labor devaluation.
Regarding online applications, they often force you to specify what your past salaries were. I've run into some that don't allow you to leave them blank and must put in an amount. The downside, of course, is that you lose the chance to land a higher paying position because you're forced to reveal your salary history.
I've done a lot of job searches in my day. I probably don't have that bad of a story compared to some others, but Ido have my fair share of annoying experiences, even to this day.
1. Job description not matching the actual job duties.
2. Not receiving any sort of response in regards to receiving my resume.
3. Getting calls from third-party recruiters that ignore what the actual skills I have listed on my resume or ignoring what my resume states.
4. Getting calls from recruiters whom I can't understand because they barely speak a lick of English. Often times I don't believe they're outsourced and not calling from within the U.S. This annoys me the most.
5. Getting emails from recruiters who aren't American. I'm sorry, but it may sound a bit discriminatory, however in a country where people are struggling to find jobs, it just annoys me when I get calls from non-Americans.
6. The jobs listed are only "feelers". Meaning the employer is just trying to see how many bites they can get and what the going rate would be for specific employees.
7. Interviews are a joke. I went to an interview where the lady interviewing me had no managerial experience, no interviewing experience, etc. I was eventually hired, but it was a bad move. The girl doesn't communicate with anyone in the dept, nobody likes her, and she withholds information from other team members. So, my advice is be observant of the environment and the knowledge the interviewer has. If they are considered a manager, but asks stupid, irrelevant questions then run and don't look back.
I heard that comment on recruiters that barely speak English.
Whenever any of them call I say oh he is not home. After I hang up I save the
number with don’t answer.
Companies are supposed to make job seekers feel welcome? Who is making up these rules?
In today's world of social media, they'd better make the job seekers feel welcome or you can be sure word-of-mouth will hurt their application process.
The old adage in business school is: 1 happy customer tells 1 other person about their positive experience, 1 unhappy customer tells 10 people about their negative experience.
Except in job seeking, the companies are the customers. Did you ever consider that?
As a former hiring manager, here is the deal. You get dozens, if not hundreds, of applications for one job. The first thing anyone does is go through the resumes/applications to weed out as many as possible. When you invite the most promising in for interviews, it's the same thing, weed out as many as possible. Hopefully you will get down to a handful of people that are all prospects, THEN you do the sales pitch.
Particularly in these times, the most effort is weeding out enough to get to those that will work out best. Again, this is a labor buyers market, not a sellers market. Once unemployment gets below 5% then the tables turn and employers begin fighting over employees.
Stupid people think unions protect workers rights, not even remotely true. It is prosperity that protects workers rights. That's why declaring war on business is pathetic and why unions are actually a negative to workers.
The game is rigged !!!!!!
The system is set up to weed out and discourage job seekers form applying for the job . Why you ask ?? Because there are way to many applicants for the job or jobs available . It is purely a numbers game. To many people out of work and not enough jobs available for them. So the employer plays games to weed out most of the applicants looking for the cream of the crop ( cherry picking ).
Sorry but what is the alternative, not weed anyone out? Get a clue, why shouldn't the company hire the best they can get! That isn't rigged, it's a process of elimination. In these times you have to weed out many more.
Again, the only thing that favors employees is prosperity, period. Unions do not favor employees because they weaken prosperity.
Maybe it isn't to discourage, but to encourage. If you REALLY want a job that you are REALLY qualified for, you will answer the questions and do what it takes to get it. Or is that just my thought process when looking for a job? So many people will apply for a job they really aren't qualified for, so employers HAVE to weed them out.
What frustrates me, is when you're very qualified, answer all of the questions, and do all of the assessments but still no call back. At least acknowledge the effort that was put into the process by the candidates who are serious.
So tell me Mr.Phil....just how much richer do the rich have to get to bring about this "prosperity" you talk about? Their taxes are at ALL TIME LOWS, the top 1% are doing better than EVER...their incomes are skyrocketing while the middle class falls off a cliff. When Unions and REAL labor were respected the country "prospered" because WORKERS had money to spend......fire all the workers or slash and burn their pay and BINGO.....no "consumers". It ain't rocket science...oh sorry....I know, I know ...science is fake.
Tax them at 50% then hiring will increase by 50%?
there are also tons of people applying for each opening. I bet its hard for hiring managers/HR to keep up.
But they are trying to weed out people, and it would be nice if they at least let you know when they receive your app or if the position is already filled. That waiting limbo sucks.
Correct on both counts.
I have my own screening methods. If a company has an elaborate system to apply, I don't. It tells me what type of company it would be to work for. Stuffy and prison-like and caught up in the detail all too much. I like laid back companies as that is my style. Zip your resume via CareerBuilder and that is it. That is the company I want to work for. Not the uptight company where it takes 24 hours to fill out an online application.
Also, I am starting my own business so I can say "fuch you" to the corporate world in the next few years. I will be in the driver's seat not some dumba$$ boss with bad breath and body odor who vacations 30 weeks out of the year while I do his job.
Start your own business and that way you can set your own hiring policies..also if you can't think of anything you can do to get someone else to pay for it maybe that's why you can't find work eh?
Wake up HR! Filling out time consuming applications and handing over personal information is bull crap unless the employer is truly interested in you. They should accept resumes to screen who they wish to interview. Following the interview(s), if they are really interested, then they can ask for an application and authorization forms to complete the employment and background checks-then follow through and actually do them. Otherwise, they're wasting your time and you're giving them exactly the same info that an identity thief drools over. No warm fuzzy handing that to anyone, let alone sending it on line!! Too many jobs posted on line and even internally are fradulent. They don't intend to fill them or already know who they are hiring and need to collect a few more applications to cover their big fat (literally) rear ends.
TerBear98
You hit on a great point !!! Most good jobs are filled from inside or by a person with a well placed hook in the company .
Sorry but that's pathetic. Of course personal contacts are the most important. Why would a company bet on an unknown when they can hire a known quantity!
Why do you think networking is so important! It's also why letters of recommendation are also very important. References have to be very wary of giving an honest opinion of a lousy employee but get around it by heaping praise on a good one.
The bottom line is, are you a good employee? If you are you can almost always get a job. 90% of my jobs were through personal contacts or because of glowing reference letters.
Instead of harboring such stupid ideas, go take an employment education course and BELIEVE what they tell you. If you still are in contact with a former employer, boss, co workers, ask for letters of reference, ask them to be references for you. Keep in contact with former co workers to see if any have gotten jobs. Often they can put in a good word for you, IF you won't embarrass them of course.
Egad, some people are so stupid they don't deserve a job.
Sorry, Phil, absolutely cannot agree with you. My employment history is excellent. From 8 years to more than 15 years with each employer. I was always considered a 'valuable' employee. Especially because I was a Purchasing Manager, and usually saved the company more than they ever paid out in salary, benefits, etc.
Now I'm 'overqualified', or just older than they want.
It does seem that job applications have become needlessly long and complicated. They really don't need a lot of the extra information unless you pass the first cut to where they actually do want to interview you.
I wonder if they are either purposely trying to cut down the number of applications (which also turns away a lot of good people) or if they already have the job filled and are just going through the legal motions of public posting and interviewing so they can pretend there was open and fair access to the position.
Where is this myth of an "open and fair access"? Many companies actually have a public policy of promoting from within. There is only one thing fair and open, if you are a valued employee, you will get a much better shot than a bad one. That is fair, and is as open as you can get.
If you can, avoid HR like the plague ... 2 quick stories; I interviewed with a firm that required pre-employment drug tests which, while I object to in principle, have nothing to hide either. In any case, guy hands me the 'cup' and tells me the men's room is down the hall. The corridors being carpeted, I didn't realize the guy had followed me until he came up behind me at the men's room door. I looked at him and made a joke about the 'power of suggestion.' Though the guy seemed horribly embarrassed he explained that it had to be an "observed" sample. Wanting to make sure, I said; "You're going to watch me pee in a cup?" When he nodded, I gave handed the cup back to him and said: "I'd sooner piss on your shoes than have you watch me piss in a cup."
The "animal' question ... I recently had a mental midget from HR ask me what kind of animal I'd be. After appearing to ponder, I said "an elephant." She was so excited and overjoyed until she asked me why. I said: "because I have a terrific memory, a pleasant disposition but occasionally lower my head and charge ... but only at people who annoy the crap out of me with their stupidity." The look on her face as I left was priceless.
The first stunt disqualifies you from any government contract job, smooth move fool.
The second is called Karma, more likely than not you will see the perfect job only to find guess who as the director of HR.
I actually had a bozo I left at one job. Not a year later, he interviewed where I worked. Does "snowball's chance in hell" mean anything to you?
Just because you run into the occasional a hole employer, doesn't mean it's the smartest move trying to be an even bigger a hole. People don't appreciate what character is anymore and character matters. If your reputation proceeds you, what message do you want it to convey?
If the guy in the picture with the tats wants to get a job, he might want to wear a long sleeved shirt to the interview. While tats are commonplace in construction, if the boss doesn't like your particular tat, then the interview will be pretty short.
You're right ... but if the hiring manager doesn't like the color of his socks, the result is pretty much the same.
Lesson? Appear like those who you want to work with. Don't show up at a surf shop in a suit, don't show up at an investment bank unshaven in a torn tee shirt and raggedy cut offs.
And wear a hoodie if you apply at face book,maybe one that zips up all the way and shows the skeleton face.
With 50 million too many people in the labor pool it doesn't matter, they have all the leverage and you have none and never will.
WRONG! Get unemployment down to 5% or so and the tables turn. Again, the only thing that gives employees the upper hand is prosperity.
We haven't had true 5% for decades and won't now unless tens of millions of good jobs appeared overnight. First thing that would happen at 5% is another 10 million disinfranchised people would start looking again, driving it back up past 8-12% where it really has been since Reagan declared war on the middle class in the 80s.
Hey again Mr. Phil....How do you get unemployment "down to 5%" if NO ONE HIRES? And Mr. Knights has it right.
Typically online applications run through filters based on what you've put in and are weeded out prior to human eyes even seeing them.
Much of what major corporations now require are done simply to comply with government regulations and avoid lawsuits. They now post all open jobs for applications even though the hiring manager may have already identified an internal candidate that will be offered the position.
Who happens to be coming from india and working for 1/3 of what an American worker would want to do the same job, because he paid american tuition rates and has to foot american costs of food, housing, healthcare and retirement.
AMEN! Mr Knight.
A big big name company my brother-in-law worked for. He set up an interview with an engineer with the company for me during the holidays. All I had to do was get past Human Resources. The Human resources lady after perusing my application said "We don't have anything in that area that we do." I said "Yes you do. My brother in law set me up for an interview today with Mr. X." She said "He's not a person who can hire you, so you can't see him." What a piece of @!$%# McDonald Douglas, now Boeing is in my opinion. That is definitely one company the United States should never bail out.
Try applying to a casino here. They REQUIRE on their on-line application (which can take up to 1.5 hrs if it doesn't time out on you), no matter the position (customer facing or not): height, weight, age, SS #, driver's licence #, detailing out your employment and school history (all the way back to grade school), and a whole ton of questions. Then, you upload your resume. If you're lucky enough to get a live interview, what is the interviewer holding -- you're resume!
That's the rich treat every one that really works for a living. Like a slave or a disgusting side effect of making MORE MONEY.
Employees are business expenses. What do companies try to keep a tight lid on? What do companies do when things get tight? They move to reduce/remove expenses. Companies are NOT your friend. They hire only when absolutely necessary, if even that, for several years, now. Employees are a "dime-a-dozen" to many of the potential employers out there. Don't expect them to "make you feel welcome" They are NOT your friend, especially in this economy.
For employers, it's a buyer's market. They know they can be picky and, at the same time, HR departments are flooded with job seekers desperate for any job they can possibly get. Bad combination for everyone.