On demand Job Applicant Screening

If it is competency based and you have an organizational value for each competency you can take an applicant to a candidate status in 50% less time . In addition if you add your employer of choice options you will find that your applicants self screen in with a "pre sell to your organization" already begun.
Deborah Kearney

That has been our experience too... using our web-enabled, on demand, secure and 3rd party validated RoleFit Survey, we have reduced the typical 12 - 14 week recruiting Life Cycle (from Job Posting to Letter of Offer) by 50% while producing a higher quality talent pool. To see a video and sign up for a 30 day unlimited free trial click http://bit.ly/cxBBuB

Not in the remotest bit convinced by any of the err... "testimony" above. In my experience logic gate rules make for lousy recruiters and that's pretty much all any computer program can do at this moment in time.

It take seconds to scan a CV and if you actually recruit properly rather than the lazy scatter gun approach employed by companies who automate their processes, you shouldn't be recieving thousands of applications but rather a small handful of good ones.

nik is correct that the recruiter has to set the organizational value of competenciesand then review the applicants who are scored into the pool. Unfortunately many supervisors are not sure what competencies they need and often value. Most of the time psych variables are undervalued. Very true in the IT recruiting area where communication skills have to be built with most programming people. Resumes are unfortunately a very poor summary of a persons real range of competencies. Education is only as good as the experiences to which they have been applied to strategic plans.

Deborah, can I ask what qualifications in psychological profiling are applied by your program?

Because if it's a variant of the deeply flawed MBTI then it is almost certainly damaging to the hiring process.

I agree that resumes are often a poor summary of an individuals competence, but I am yet to be convinced that there's any other tool which is significantly more accurate in ascertaining competence than the interview (see New Scientist for a scientific evaluation of complex assessments vs. the five minute interview, shocking isn't it? The interview is equally effective and yet cheaper and less time consuming).

Box ticking and logic gates do not "evaluate" an individual except in so far as they evaluate the ability to pick the correct choices for the ahem... "evaluation".

I agree with all of your points. There is no substitute for the interview. The psychological competencies are validated from the emotional intelligence data and then validated by a worker , coworker and supervisor. Simply put as you know the ability to team is the most important psychological competency which then breaks down into conflict resolution skills and communication within diversity parameters and so on.

FACT: A separate division of ADP performed 2.6 million background checks last year and due to the high number of displaced workers through the recent economic situation found that up to 44% of applicants either padded resumes or their resumes contained outright lies. The "padding" and "outright misrepresentation" were sufficient enough to have those identified eliminated from the job competition process and/or terminated with cause if they had already accepted a position based on false information.

Suggests that it may be somewhat difficult for some to stick to the pristine ethics of representing one’s self honestly when they may be about to be foreclosed on their home. Let's step aside from the academic pontification for a moment and look at the reality of the situation... all well and good to say that if the recruiter does their job correctly that they shouldn't receive many thousands of resumes but that's not the real world these days. A job posted last month for a truck driver paying $10./hour fetched over 800 resumes - most from recently terminated middle management who don't know what a 5 speed split-axle cab over is... let alone how to drive one.

I have been around long enough to see three of these recessions in my career and believe me they reflect a different "honesty" when people are desperate to hold on to their homes and families....

Another point to note is that the question originally posted focused on Job Applicant Screening - not selection... a different beast all together. Any ATS worth its salt will allow recruiters to create, post and build business logic into the workflow that uses meaningful "knock-out" questions - as does our MatchPoint ATS.... and then allow the Job Applicant to receive one of two automated responses, one to thank them and inform them their resume will be kept on file for future reference and another to enable them to participate in the Job Applicant Screening process (which by definition is actually the second screening exercise), again, this logic and workflow is built into the system and under the control of the recruiter, with guidance from the Hiring Manager.

In short, we have a tool that offers a 3rd party validated predictive index that is second to none and if used earlier in the recruiting lifecycle will but far less strain on the resources actually required to identify top talent in any given talent pool. A big part of the problem is that recruiters keep chugging along using their ATS Boolean word search capability to screen resumes where up to 44% of those resume are suspect - essentially starting with a flawed dataset.....so then, how can they be selecting "top talent" .... furthermore, there are companies out there now that will provide you with a glowing reference for any blemishes that in reality, should exist on an individual’s resume, thereby allowing job applicants to game the system and recruiters, especially early the recruiting life cycle.... ask yourself... how many unnecessary resources does this consume over the span of a month, a year, etc.?

There actually is a way to make a tremendous and positive difference in how recruiting can provide value.... to see a 2 minute video go here http://bit.ly/cxBBuB this will also give you access to a 30-day free trial. We are currently signing up between 125 and 150 Recruiters a week and several have become such strong advocates they are applying to or have become Channel Partners.

While I appreciate the pristine perspectives that offer a more "perfect world" scenario... in short, it's guerilla warfare out there....Recruiters are swamped and while a sad situation for many, one of the causalities out there is that in many cases recruiters are so overwhelmed that they often admit because of the footrace to provide the best candidates to Hiring Managers (better and faster than their competition) they don't know how many real "gems" they are tossing to the side - our RoleFit Survey makes a significant and measurable contribution to assist resolve this dilemma.

If you really want to see a measurable and sustainable difference, view the video and give the free trial a go....... after all, what do you have to lose?

Best/Gary

as I have stated I agree . A competency summary of a job titles organizational value is the first step to giving recruiters real understanding of the job for which they are recruiting. Recruiters are often at a loss to what the real job demands are and their priority.

Sure, you can spend your time screening 800 resumes, or you could call a truck driving school and ask if they have any recent passes that are looking for work.

One is a lazy recruitment tool, the other is common sense and a far faster method than weeding through a long complex process of any kind.

Recruiters demonstrate no common sense any more, why would you advertise for what is essentially a position that requires a special kind of driving licence? When you can call a place that teaches people to get that licence, get some quick referrals and be 100% sure they have that licence and then be interviewing by the afternoon?

I don't need a "role fit" survey here, except maybe to ask why the recruiter is badly unsuited to the task of recruiting for the position.

And my methodology is cheaper, faster and less bothersome all round.

sounds great to me . What we do is compatible . Have a great day.
I like the exchange . I do not like the weird words to submit an answer.

I agree.... the recruiting profession is continuing to be challenged - and will for some time... for exactly these reasons...another reason why the RoleFit Survey has become so popular so quickly..... That said, there is a way to assist those that subscribe to the old paradigm, while introducing them to options that will assist them through the transition.....our products seems to be working in that regard.

That said, our RoleFit Survey is only a small part of the strategic work we do....strategic work and thinking smarter however, is not something readily adopted by the masses in any profession.... that's why the bell curve is always "big and wide and in the middle"....not everyone can be an innovator or an early adopter... a la Geoffrey Moore's "Technology Adoption Life Cycle".... which seems to easily translate to business in general....