'Getting a bad reputation can really affect your ability to attract talent,' says academic offering tips for HR
Companies that ignore applicants during the recruitment process, known as “ghosting”, risk negative actions from a legion of jobseekers.
A recent survey from management consulting firm Robert Half found candidates who felt they were being ghosted would be prepared to blacklist a company and not consider it for future jobs (21%), ghost the employer in return (12%) or post a negative comment on social media or review sites (12%).
Over the long term, ghosting can damage an organisation’s reputation and its prospects for talent acquisition.
Ghosting is a real problem, said professor Nick Wailes, director of the Australian Graduate School of Management at UNSW, and it can get to a point where an applicant may face a complete vacuum of information.
“Often, that’s because they’re talking to some other candidate and they’re keeping you warm,” he said. “For lots of people, it’s a very unsatisfying experience.”
If the job market is tight, an employer might feel it can string applicants along. Over time, it’s not a great strategy, Wailes said.
“There’s still a war for talent and, in lots of areas, particularly critical areas, getting a bad reputation among the candidate pool can really affect your ability to attract talent.”
The Robert Half survey found 35% of candidates who feel they are being ghosted would take positive steps, such as request updates from the hiring manager they initially contacted (26%) or try to find information through another company contact (9%).
More than half of respondents (57%) lose interest in a job if they don’t hear back from employers within 10 business days. Only 9% of candidates are willing to wait as long as it takes for a response.
HR teams have a lot to lose by giving applicants the silent treatment, Wailes said.
“Even if someone’s unsuccessful, it’s probably important they walk away from that and then feel like it was a fair process.”
The recruitment process tends to be designed from the point of view of the organisation, rather than the candidate, Wailes said.
“A better strategy is to think about the candidate experience the same way the rest of your organisation thinks about the customer experience.”
The recruitment process must be planned out and properly resourced, Wailes said, “whether that’s the right type of technology solution or the right type of human investment – but you need to be confident in that. From an HR point of view, that’s really important.”
A job ad for a “marquee brand” will attract a horde of hopefuls, which makes hard work for an HR manager.
“It’s great for them because they get this amazing selection of talent, but it’s also an enormous challenge,” he said. “On top of that, your unsuccessful candidates might end up becoming your customers in the future. You’ve got to think about the experience you’re leaving them, not just as a candidate but as a potential customer.”
If a company is tightening its belt, it can be a big mistake to cut back on the cost of finding the best candidates. “It’s very easy to cut talent acquisition,” Wailes said.
In that case, an employer might think a simple and cheap solution is to use technology to avoid an investment in professionals; for example, a major financial institution looking to fill about 300 roles from a pool of more than 50,000 applications.
“They’re running this culling process all the way through – and, increasingly, they have less and less human resources attached to that, so they’re supplementing that with technology,” he said.
That approach can backfire. Investment in talent acquisition pays dividends in a strong relationship with the candidate market, Wailes said.
“Treating people well, building your reputation, getting access to talent – they are very significant, potential benefits for organisations.”
The early stages of large-scale recruitment drives have become very automated, he said, including online aptitude and numeracy tests and video interviews.
“That’s how you get down to a manageable number.”
As the funnel narrows, further rounds will see more human involvement, Wailes said.
“You’re giving people more information about the organisation, seeing how they work in different circumstances,” he said.
Artificial intelligence (AI) can play a part in making recruitment more human, says Alex Horder, senior associate IP and technology at Clayton Utz.
“It’s an interesting irony, that while AI can pose a risk that humans don’t have adequate oversight over who’s being engaged and interviewed, automation can also be used in a positive respect to assist that,” Horder told HRD.
Horder acknowledges the interpersonal experience that comes with recruitment is one of the key ingredients for optimal engagement. AI can support the process with automated reminders or automated emails that give applicants an idea of their success or failure in the interview process.
“That will enable continuous engagement with candidates through the employment process,” he said. “It would be a preventative measure you could employ to ensure people aren’t getting ghosted.”
However, feedback to applicants about their performance in psychometric tests would be different matter, he said, with considerations around privacy and data security.
“Putting personal or sensitive information of a candidate into an algorithm in order to be able to automate this process carries privacy and data security risks pertaining to things like data breaches and employers making sure they have the adequate privacy consent,” Horder said.
