NOT PROVIDING REAL FEEDBACK TO CANDIDATES FOR FEAR OF LEGAL REPERCUSSIONS - INFORMED DECISIONS TAKE

NOT PROVIDING REAL FEEDBACK TO CANDIDATES FOR FEAR OF LEGAL REPERCUSSIONS - INFORMED DECISIONS TAKE

Thank you to everyone who participated in our survey where we asked how you feel about recruiters not providing genuine feedback to candidates for fear of getting sued.

Here is Informed Decisions take on this:

We strongly believe that you should definitely provide genuine and meaningful feedback to a rejected candidate.

We also believe that the chances of being sued actually go up if you don't do so.

Providing feedback to a rejected candidate shows respect for their time and investment in your process, and is a testament to the process's fairness and transparency. If a candidate is just rejected without a proper explanation, they are more likely to feel frustrated and not respected, thus will be more likely to sue.

We are highly convinced that if companies will analyze their candidate litigation cases, they will see that most rejected candidates did not receive any feedback.

The fact that there are many corporate recruiters who do provide genuine and detailed feedback to candidates, and also report the beneficial outcomes of such feedback on candidate experience shows that this is possible and has a personal motivation component to it. We at Informed Decisions believe that this should become a standard practice and that its benefits outweigh its costs.

#interviews #candidateexperience #informedecisions

THIS IS FLOCKIG WEIRD!

Source: the web

#interviews #candidateexperience #informedecisions

Should Every CEO Apply for a Job at Their Own Company Once a Year? Informed Decisions Weighs In!

First and foremost, a hearty thank you to each one of you who took the time to share your insights in our recent survey. (Link to the survey results in the 1st comment).

The intriguing question stands - Should a CEO apply for a job at their own company annually?

Here at Informed Decisions, our perspective is a resounding YES. Let’s delve into the three primary reasons for our stance:

1. Upholding Company Values: Growth is thrilling, but with the addition of numerous layers in a rapidly expanding company, there’s a risk: the core values may get diluted or misinterpreted. The hiring process is the maiden encounter potential employees have with an organization. For a CEO, being hands-on ensures these values remain consistent and true to their foundation.

2. Maintaining Brand Integrity: Remember, a job applicant today might just be a customer tomorrow. Or they already might be one! The impression the company creates during the hiring phase doesn't just impact the immediate process, but ripples into areas like brand perception, social media reviews, and public sentiment. It’s more than just hiring; it’s brand building.

3. Ensuring a Competitive Edge: Stellar talent is the backbone of a successful enterprise. But how do you draw such talent? Beyond just the perks and the pay, it’s the candidate experience that makes or breaks the deal. A CEO's involvement emphasizes the importance the company places on every individual's journey with them, right from the application stage.

Now, critics might opine that such an approach implies a lack of trust in the Talent Acquisition team. But isn’t that like suggesting that a CEO shouldn't periodically review pivotal processes like sales or marketing? Overseeing doesn't mean micromanaging; it signifies prioritizing. After all, as the guardians of company ethos, CEOs play an integral role in ensuring every facet of the business aligns with its foundational principles.

To conclude, a CEO's involvement in the hiring process, even if symbolic, echoes the commitment to values, brand, and the quest for top-tier talent. It’s not just about filling a vacancy; it's about shaping the future of the organization, one hire at a time.

#informedecisions #candidateexperience #interviews

DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS INTERVIEW PRACTICE?

*Source: the web

IS THIS MORE FUNNY OR SAD? WHAT DO YOU THINK?

 

*Picture source: the web

INTERVIEW HORROR STORY

“I did 6 interviews in one week, they ghosted me afterwards”

*from the web

 

INTERVIEW HORROR STORY

“I had three phone interviews before meeting with five people in person. I was told by the VP of HR that she wanted me to meet with one more person and then I was ghosted.”

*from the web

 

INTERVIEW HORROR STORY

“A few years ago I interviewed for an HR position with a company ironically known for their good customer service . It was a training & development role at a large distribution center. I had a lengthy (1 hour) phone screen; then a 30 minute phone screen; 5 HOURS of interviews on-site with multiple people at the site. The interviews were back to back with a 10 or 15 break in between and no break for lunch. By the end I was exhausted and starving!

Then the recruiter called me the next day and asked if I could do a phone interview with 2 people who weren’t able to be at the on-site gauntlet.

I did not get an offer. I knew I wouldn’t when the people on site kept saying they like to promote from within. At that point I decided to just use the interviews as practice and I was morbidly curious how far they would take it. Very frustrating.”

*from the web

INTERVIEW HORROR STORY

“I was applying for an HR position and the next page required me to answer 'Are you born in the month of May/Jun/July/August?'. What's that got to do with the position? First time in my 20 years working as a Human Resource specialist I had this question asked during my application.”

*from the web

DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS RECRUITER’S INTERVIEW PRACTICE? INFORMED DECISIONS TAKE

Thanks to everyone who participated in our survey (link in 1st comment).

Here is a short reminder for the recruiter’s practice and our take on it.

“I work as a recruiter. I always call a candidate 20 minutes before an interview, put an Indian accent and pretend to be from a Mumbai call centre asking about a car accident. Have rejected so many people from jobs because they get so angry at me”.

Informed Decisions take:

This practice is WRONG in so many ways, here are our top 3:

  1. It’s deceitful - What does it say about the values of the organization/recruiter that uses dishonest techniques to asses their candidates?
  2. Not necessarily indicative of the candidate’s character - Let’s say you called a candidate and they got mad at you - does it necessarily mean that they are bad people? what are the alternative explanations? (Might be stressed out before the interview, might think that someone is messing with them). What about those candidates that were patient and nice? does it necessarily say that they always behave like this? or could it be that you caught them on a good day?
  3. What does this say about the recruiter’s ability to assess the candidate on the actual interview? - Interviewing is hard. Candidates put their best faces on and manage impression. But it’s the interviewer's job to ask good and relevant questions and dig deeper to unveil the candidate’s skills and character during the interview.