Recruiters versus the Applicant Tracking System

So what happens after the battle?

It seems new adjectives and expletives have been created to describe the hiring process in the last 5 – 10 years. Recruiters blame the ATS; hiring managers blame the recruiters; agencies point to the HR team behind their backs. Apparently, the hiring process has taken training from American politics. So where is the pain in all the hiring? Is there an identifiable cause of these issues?

                Why is the number of new hires that quit on their first day so high?

                Why is the same number so high when measure in the first 180 days?

                Why is engagement dropping? Morale dropping?

                Why are applicants frustrated and costing HR a fortune to identify, recruit, and onboard?

Let’s not be fair here, as ideal states don’t exist, and when employees think – “this is perfect” - little change can be made to impact hiring and therefore improve the business. The biggest complaint with the ATS is when there are problems uploading a resume to an ATS. And that’s an HR issue tied to user error. Easily resolved by offering a back-up plan, such as: If you have made every effort to upload your resume and cannot, please email it to…. Problem solved, no more complaints, and the first red flag is raised.

Yes, some ATSs do not work on all browsers, nor do they run on all mobile devices. And, no, you ought not deploy an ATS in a boutique environment where the white glove treatment is mandatory (ie, hiring doctors, c-suite, artists, etc.) But the ATS is here to stay as it is miraculous at doing one thing well: eliminating the least likely applicants to succeed in the phone interview, and ultimately, the job itself.

How’s that? If your applicant cannot fill out an application online, and HR has decided this is how they want to collect resumes and applications, the unsuccessful applicant is unlikely to succeed. Here we have identified the most pervasive complainer of the ATS – the applicant. And that individual, if hired, will destroy morale, complain that the job isn’t perfect, and so on. Thank you ATS for the help.

But, many will say, it’s bad for the brand - publicly complaining on Linkedin, starting conversations on Twitter – too many risks. But isn’t this an opportunity? Sure, the hiring process could be changed: hire more recruiters, throw more hiring managers into the process, and so on. Or the cost of a few complaints could be measured as costs. Realistically, if you can’t get into a company as an applicant, whether through the ATS, networking, or otherwise, you ought to look elsewhere.

Between the ATS and recruiter exists the most common hiring scenario in the world: most American businesses (since 95% of American businesses are small) utilize the hand shake, a paper application, and verbal, “You can start on Monday.” This practice will not be replaced by the ATS nor the recruiter, no matter the threat of EEO or OFCCP audits.

Where the ATS is deployed - it is as much a part of the workflow in the 21^st Century as is the interview process - it’s here to stay, only to get better and qualify applicants better and better. And those HR groups who leverage it best will perform the best, other variables being equal.

How about recruiters? They are the messengers of hiring - period. Like all employees that are measured on performance, they must convert applicants to employees. But as I learned at a recent recruiters meeting comprised of over 100 of the best recruiters in Seattle – longevity on the job is not tracked. If it’s not measured, it’s not important. Imagine selling one of the most important decisions that adults have to make and there’s no warranty, no agreement, apparently little concern for how long this expensive, time-consuming relationship will last.

Epic fail. What does this lead to: checking boxes, smiling faces, and the word: Next! If salespeople had no concern for customer/client satisfaction over time, capitalism would crumble.

I was a recruiter for two years; my experience with internal recruiters is in sales, building houses, technology; my peers in Seattle are involved in technology recruiting. Meaning, I have some experience here. And I can say that one issue is that recruiters do not set the expectation accurately. Unless, cynically, their role is to close business (read hype and persuade.) If the resume looks good, if the candidate looks nice, if s/he can converse – move them on by creating the impression that the work and the environment will make them giddy. That work here is easier and more meaningful than elsewhere.

Unfortunately, for recruiters, most applicants don’t think through to the business need and the disruption caused by having open reqs, or they might accept that recruiters and hiring managers need to get that job filled. It’s not a want to have; the cost of the vacancy is greater than the cost to fill, obviously. Which generally explains the urgency, the hype, the free soda, the un-used ping-pong table, the photos of employees having “fun.” The incorrect expectation, but one that propels the unsuspecting candidate forward.

Interesting to note, I have seen the shock on recruiters’ faces when they onboard into a new job, into a reality that is much different from the vision. And that’s their world: one could say they ought to know better than to be surprised. For tech pros, sales reps, admins, customer service – it’s quite a shock. Not to be dramatic, but the measured numbers of new hires that would quit early on measure low. Because the number of new hires who want to quit, can’t quit, because their old jobs are not open, or quitting left them on bad terms, or whatever.

So if the ATS is here to stay, if recruiters are measured against filling opens – how will the hiring process improve so that the business improves? Meaning, all around experience improvement: company brand, filled reqs, morale, better culture?

I believe it goes back to the largest expense for businesses: time. The push for productivity, the competition to create more products/solutions, the cost of borrowing – businesses don’t measure longevity relative to “satisfaction.” Whether it’s happy customers, happy employees, happy environment (to carry the thought forward.) Businesses measure immediate. For the majority )not the Zappos.)

Of course, this is not black and white: we know businesses measure customer satisfaction scores and perform employee satisfaction surveys. But we know as employees that there is not just dust under the carpet. The gray area of business will continue to be exploited just defined differently.

For now, turnover will continue to be too high, immediate regret for new hires will be too high, and ultimately, the gap between managers and employees will grow. But this is not a Recruiter versus the ATS battle, and the finger pointing ought to stop, as it’s obfuscating the actually cause. The cause may not ever be addressed, but the ATS/recruiter relationship can then thoughtfully be improved. And as this happens, measured improvements abound. Look at companies that use an average ATS and the recruiters speak to realities and you’ll find more realistic employees who know they are at work. And when this happens, morale improves, attrition drops, time to fill improves, managers are happier, and the business at hand is accomplished.

Great recruiters using applicant tracking systems - understanding them, deploying them where needed - continue to grow better organizations. Everywhere else, there will be battles to hide the potential for improvement. The good news- there is choice.