Effective recruiting in the age of Applicant Tracking Systems

I completely agree Tiffany, I think that recruiters have in many cases become lazy key word compilers thanks to ATS style systems.

The moment I understand that to apply for a position I will need to complete an ATS input screen (or more likely 10 screens) I stop applying.

I don't have a degree, when I can explain what I have instead - including that I am studying for an MBA - then I have some chance of being invited to interview, with an ATS I have no chance as the moment you fail to complete a degree in the education screen you are dropped immediately from the pool.

We had an example from a guy on here the other day where he was explaining how when recruiting for a position for a lorry driver a company was inundated with 800 applications, I pointed out it might have been better to change the recruitment method rather than step up the scanning and screening of endless numbers of CVs. (In this case I recommended calling a lorry driving school and asking for recent passes to get in touch).

But I think what's worst of all is how many recruiters are unable to identify a quality candidate even when they have the "golden" resume in front of them. There's no thought or intelligence there at all, in one organisation which was recruiting trainers I was handed 100 CV's that had been picked up by the recruitment team as possibles, 98 were unsuitable, and of the 2 suitable candidates, 1 was no good as it was my CV and I already worked for them...

As for interviewing, my experience to date is that the HR interview rarely adds any value from a candidate or client perspective because the recruiters have such poor understanding of what you will do, they can't even relate that to the "big picture" in broad, generic terms.

I started my career as a recruitment consultant, and if we managed to source 4 CVs for any given position we would have been ecstatic, but the good news for us was that all the CVs we did source were the right candidate type for the role. We didn't always place our candidates but we had a much better success rate than many bigger agencies, because we kept the talent pool to a level where we knew each and everyone of our candidates and could present their skills and experience in the right manner to the right recruiters. Today, I think we'd be stuffed. It's all about volume and not about quality at all. I keep hearing recruiters bragging of recieving 1000's of applications for the job, but when you probe them regarding quality it all falls to pieces.

I so agree. I applied years ago with a major org for an HR Business Partner role. While I thought I was PERFECT for the role, I received the automated "thanks but no thanks." Well, about a week later, a former co-worker referred me for the exact same position and I went through 6 face to face interviews. (That's another post!) The recruiter said I was a "wonderful fit" for the job. I snickered and let her know the ATS didn't think so. I was then provided with some lame excuse as to why I may have received a "thanks but no thanks."

I'd prefer my recruiters out there direct sourcing and being creative than posting req's on the ATS and conducting ineffective key word searches.

Oh, and any company that requires me to provide my SS# and DL# BEFORE I am even considered a qualified candidate, is not a place I'd ever want to work.

I will respectfully disagree but with a caveat. If an organization still employs or hires experience instead of seeing recruiting as an entry level position that because of automation doesn't take a lot of skill to perform, then the ATS systems make recruiters better. If all it becomes is an automated screening tool focusing on key words and expressions then not only is the organization using it improperly but they are not getting any value.

It is painfully evident that many organizations use "entry level recruiters" to place tick marks on a checklist before allowing the "successful candidate" to advance in the process. Not only is this ludicrous from a quality standpoint it is also of limited value to the organization. Much like those organizations who rely on personality tests or behavioral analysis to screen candidates before interviewing them. A lazy and non-productive approach to something that should be rather serious.

So I cannot paint all who use an ATS with the same broad brush. There are organizations that use ATS's to enhance their process and make them more productive.

I suspect it was an entry level recruiter who checked off a list that allowed xixi haha to join this group.

Let me add something here. I once worked for a company as their top HR executive that was operating in 44 states. They had approximately 3500 employees and an incredible turnover rate of about 155%+ ($7M in exposure here). They were 100% old school manual in their recruiting operations. This meant fax, snail mail, paper applications and e-mail to a variety of accounts set up by very inexperienced recruiters. The organization was not aware of where it's recruiting dollars were going, how long it took to recruit, what was and wasn't working or that they were receiving over 3000 applications a month (a one time peak of 4200 occured). After I was hired this changed.

We automated the process through a well known ATS product. I hired professionals who were experienced recruiters and did not increase recruiter headcount; in fact I reduced it by 1. We automated a very robust background investigation process as well. The outcome?

1. Time to hire was reduced from 93+ days to 35 days.
2. Advertising costs were reduced by $2M with the ability to target productive advertising in individual markets.
3. Manager satisfaction increased by over 100%
4. Applicant/candidate satisfaction increased by over 100%
5. Applications received averaged over 3200 a month
6. Qualified applications handled increased to about 1200 a month where previously it wasn't even 100 a month.

Obviously recruiting wasn't the total problem but the ATS helped us identify critical issues that helped resolve many human capital challenges. Ultimately turn-over was reduced to under 30% and the length of time a new hire remained with the company rose from 42 days to over 1 year. This could not have happened as quickly or as effectively as it did without the professional staff and the appropriate use of technology.

I agree with Don's post escpecially where he states "This could not have happened as quickly or as effectively as it did without the professional staff and the appropriate use of technology." This is my point, the ATS in itself is a great tool from a process standpoint but it STILL takes talented recruiters to ultimately get the job done.

Tiffany, you are completely correct. We need better tools to vet away unqualified applicants. However, there is no technology that can completely eliminate the need for human interaction in the recruitment process. A quality recruiter is still needed to decipher which resumes represent the best candidates. An interview is also always essential and is something that a technology could not replace. However, even if technology cannot do 100% of the recruitment process, it can definitely save a recruiter a lot of time.

Tiffany: You make some good points but I think you are blaming the wrong technology. I built my first ATS in 1985 and it was just that, a tracking system. With the volume of resumes, SOH data requirements some of us need to track and the desire for recruiting metrics, an ATS is an invaluable tool. I think the dumbing down of recruiting was caused by online job boards and the ability of recruiters to be passive in their sourcing. The good recruiters still know all the tricks, have great "gut" instincts about candidates and the ability to truly recruit. Generally, I believe as Social Media Recruiting gains traction, there will be more old-school recruiters in the future meaning the network will again be king. Long live the rolodex.

ATS's have not ruined the game. However they have become a hindrance and nuisance.

I am working with a Global Investment Bank currently and I actually want to walk round to their offices and rip the ATS out of the building. I maybe over generalising here however Internal Recruiters tend to use it as a way of helping them to deal with Recruiters less, and allow them not to read CV's.

We as the recruiters are actually encouraged to tell candidates not to apply through their ATS as they will not be reviewed correctly by HR/Internal correctly. Sadly it is HR telling us this as well.

I can see where what Don says above about ATS's may dispel peoples illusions about how insufferable they are. However I think the key line in his statement is that he hired good recruiters. I doubt the ATS system did little more than streamline the process, however the recruiters with their knowledge and work-around skills undoubtedly made the difference.

The issue we now have ATS are getting better, they can read CV's, and pick out key skills. So people no longer need bullion strings, they can do a skill search of the CV. They don't need to talk to the candidate anymore. So with Recruiters (wrongly) telling people to keep their CV to 2 pages. We have an issue of a candidate emitting information from their CV, information an ATS won't see. They may have just lost a dream job because they didn't think the fact they worked in Commodities 8 years ago would be relevant today.

Lets face it, as ATS's get better, I will make more money. So I shouldn't really complain...