Recruitment: you're doing it wrong.

Now, I've recently had to make a full time job out of applying for jobs (although thankfully the end is now in sight), and as I've stated previously, there's all sorts of ways you can do it well, and also a whole lot of ways you can do it wrong.

Recently, I've been on the receiving end of a recruitment process so epically bad, that I'm actually genuinely surprised that the HR department involved are somehow still employed. It became so convoluted that I'm going to reduce it to bullet points, for easier reading.

• I am advised by a colleague to send a prospective CV to A Certain Workplace (ACW), on the basis that a friend of theirs at ACW advised them a vacancy was available. I checked with another contact within ACW, who advised me that this was an acceptable way to proceed, as certain staff types were recruited in this way.
• I send my CV and a covering letter.
• I get a response, thanking me, but advising me that this was not an approach they accepted. I was informed that the ONLY place vacancies would be advertised was on the ACW website, and I should monitor this for them in future.

Fast forward a month or so....

• An advert for roles at ACW was placed on library mailing lists. Friends forwarded me this information, which I'd missed as I was not on those lists, and I was waiting for it to be advertised on the ACW website. It was not at any point placed on their website. 
• I email and ask for an application pack.
• I receive an application pack, complete the requested forms, and realise that there's no information on how/where to submit them. There's a closing time on the covering letter, so that implies an email submission, but no email address. And a partial instruction on posting, but not a postal address. There is however, important information about the fact that if I want an acknowledgement of my application, I should enclose a self addressed stamped postcard... 
• I call to check if they accept email submissions: yes, they do. However, they require them to be signed. OK: this means I have to print, sign, scan and collate a pdf from my original electronic application. It's a faff, and I'm lucky that I have access to a printer and scanner, but I did it.
• So, where was it to be submitted? The email address on the covering letter, I was told. I had to break it to them there was no email address on the covering letter. OK: send it to recruitment @acertainworkplace they said.
• I sent off everything they needed, to the email address I was told to, a week before the deadline.
• Silence. No automated acknowledgement email, but then again, this company has been so backward up to this point that I didn't expect one.

Fast forward a week...

• I receive an email from ACW responding to my original application pack request, saying they understood I had submitted an application, but they didn't have it, so where did I send it?
• Apparently (from what I can work out), the recruitment@acertainworkplace email address doesn't actually exist, so when I phoned up to see where to send my application, I was cheerfully instructed to send it into complete nothingness.
• I forwarded my original email with the application forms from the week before, saying what email address I'd sent it to, and why.
• They replied saying thanks, but they couldn't open the documents, so could I resend them in Word format? These are the documents that I'd had to send as pdfs, because they insisted they needed a signature on them, so I'd had to print, sign and scan them and make them into pdfs.
• I replied attaching the original, unsigned Word versions of the forms, explaining why they were in pdf format, and that I couldn't send them the third form as a Word document, because they had supplied it to me as a pdf document.
• I got an acknowledgement, and a small, grudging "sorry for the inconvenience".
• I contacted other people that I knew had submitted applications to ACW, and told them what had happened. They hadn't been contacted, but as they had received the same information as me on how to apply, they had to assume that their applications too had been lost.
• The other people resubmitted their applications.

Fast forward two weeks....

• Deafening silence, until today, I hear that interviews were held last week, and someone has been appointed to the position this week. As far as I know, the other people who applied also haven't heard anything since submitting their applications for the second time, despite one going to the extent of physically going to the workplace and also handing in a paper copy of their application as they couldn't get a hold of anyone to acknowledge their email submission.

So, to top off the HR Department's epic incompetence and inability to manage a recruitment process (which is actually one of the core functions of an HR department), I'm now frustrated by the fact that, after I had to spend hours of my time fixing and resending information that they lost because they can't perform basic tasks, they also don't even have the simple good manners to tell me that I'm not being invited for interview.

Now, what have I got out of this process? I've gained a healthy disregard for the HR department of this company. I've developed a resolve not to apply for any further positions there, should they arise. And I've informed all my professional contacts about how bad this organisation is, although I've decided against publicly naming them here, as that's not the point of this post. I wanted to use this to point out how every unnecessary hoop that I've been made to jump through, and every missed chance to inform me of what was happening has lowered my opinion of that company as a whole, even though the department I applied for a role in had nothing to do with this process. If you're recruiting, you're selling your company to the applicant, just as much as the applicant is selling themselves to you. And if you can't manage the process of getting people to join your company, how do you manage them once they're working for you?

Et tu, Lego?

So, the good news is Lego, purveyor of fine, building brick based excitement, have released a "Librarian" minifig. Yay! Lego are a cool company, they're modern, and they make some great educational products, So, we'll be seeing a little figure of a modern information professional, a veritable ninja of knowledge: ready, willing and able to assist their users in any way they need, right?

Wrong.

Lego have gone with a stereotype of a librarian more suited to 1913 than 2013. Look - a book! A mug that says "shhh"! A cardigan, glasses, pleated skirt, frumpy hair and sensible shoes! Wow - this is really showing the face of the profession today!

“Shhh!” 

Books are just about the Librarian’s most favorite thing in the entire world. Reading them can take you on exciting adventures in far-off lands, introduce you to new friends and cultures, and let you discover poetry, classic literature, science fiction and much more. If only everybody loved to read as much as she does, the world would be a better place…and quieter, too! 

The Librarian feels that it’s extremely important to treat a book with the proper respect. You should always use a bookmark instead of folding down the corner of the page. Take good care of the dust jacket, and don’t scribble in the margins. And above all else, never – ever – return it to the library late!

As if their range of pink Lego for girls, which instead of encouraging the use of kids imagination to make all sorts of cool things, tells girls that we can make cakes and do makeup wasn't bad enough (and likely to reinforce the idea that subjects like science and engineering aren't for girls). Now we get this toy that still focuses on the fact that librarians are frumpy females, and libraries only have books, and the librarians just love those books, don't ya know? And, of course, that we all hate noise. *insert incoherent scream of (noisy) frustration here*

And yes, I am perfectly well aware that Lego are using a stereotype here, in the hope of making it recognisable. But really: no computer, either desktop or laptop? No tablet or smartphone? No CDs, DVDs, or an eReader of any type? Not even the slightest attempt to show the actual reality of the average role, or some of the items in use in a modern library, or that librarians give their users assistance with? The way to change stereotypes is by challenging them, and there isn't even the slightest hint of an attempt by Lego to move this stereotype along into the modern age.

At least their Computer Programmer figure got to hold a laptop and an emoticon mug, to go with his own stereotyped outfit of a geeky Argyle jumper, bad hair, bow-tie and a pair of taped-together glasses....

Actually, maybe that librarian minifig isn't looking so bad, in comparison...

Living in interesting times

Ah, times change, and things happen, whether you're prepared or not. So, last month, I unexpectedly ended up having to look for new employment. Having been pretty happy and settled in my old workplace for almost 8 years, I didn't really have much in the way of recent experience of looking for work...now, I seem to have plenty! Luckily, I'm finding that there are actually quite a lot of interesting vacancies out there, and plenty of roles where I think "ohhh, that would be great to be able to do" and I'm keen to apply for. I have such a wide range of interests, that I'm finding posts in all sorts of sectors where I think "yeah, I'd really enjoy doing that", so perhaps this is my chance to explore some other professional areas. Silver linings, an' all that?

However, what I've also found is that some employers are not very good at creating a coherent and easily navigable recruitment process. So, here are some Do's and Don'ts, as learned by me in the process of dozens of applications recently...


DO

• Do make it clear how you want applications sent

I've come across sites where there's a wealth of information about how to get the application form and the job specification, and who to contact if you need an alternative format, or if you have problems with any of the documentation available....but neither the advert page, nor the job information materials tell you where or how to submit the application. In this case, I've had to assume that they want the application emailed, and sent the material to the email address listed for requesting alternative formats from. A single sentence saying "please email/post applications to..." would be very helpful for applicants.

• Do make sure that closing dates for applications are logical and clear

Similar to the confusion caused by unclear information on where to send applications, is the confusion about exactly when the deadline for an application is. Only giving a calendar date can be misleading, when there is also lack of clarity about acceptable format for applications. One site allowed both postal and emailed applications, but gave a closing date time of 12 noon, which implied that the assumption was that applications would be emailed. Also, if the date is just given as X day of X month, and the only way to apply is online, when is the cut-off time on that day? 5pm? 6pm? Midnight? When applicants are balancing other demands on their time, knowing when they must complete a process by helps them plan a schedule better.

• Do ensure that your application form is useable 

Supplying a pdf for download when you expect applications to be emailed is not helpful for applicants. It means you want applicants to print out, hand write, scan a form, and attach it to an email, which is a frustratingly time-wasting process. Or providing a Word version of your application form that is so badly designed that the second you begin inputting information to it, everything on the page begins to move and makes the form utterly incomprehensible, meaning that, in the end, you have to...print out, hand write, and scan the form, just like for the pdf version. Please: once you have an application form ready to share, first make sure you ask someone to do a test-run at using it!

• Do allow for your online application process to retain information if possible

Some places I've been applying to have multiple relevant vacancies advertised simultaneously, which would mean inputting the same, non-differing data repeatedly, such as education and employment history. Luckily, some of them have designed their sites to allow the easy copying of previously added data, meaning I can concentrate on outlining my suitability for a position, rather than re-entering my secondary school grades. If you have an online application process, and your site allows users to register and reuse previously input data, you are lovely people!

• Do allow some flexibility in your application forms

Not all information will be relevant to all posts. Using a standardised form can be confusing for applicants when there is little guidance about how certain sections are meant to be completed if it's not clear if they apply in the current situation. Asking for a list of applicants academic publications when the role being applied for is administrative is just wasting space on the form, and could easily have been removed by the creator. Asking if you have a driving license, but saying this hasn't to be filled in if the person specification doesn't say it's needed means double checking materials and wasting time. If you need information: request it. If you don't, remove the section.

• Do acknowledge applications

Applying for a job can be very stressful, and although email applications have removed some of the worry of a form getting lost in the mail, there's still going to be a lurking doubt that an application has got where it's meant to go, unless you receive some sort of acknowledgement of receipt. Online processes are great: an automated email confirming that your application was received means you can sit back, and wait for further information. Sending emails with applications attached that don't even get acknowledged introduces concern that it was sent to the wrong email address, or didn't make it through at all. It's definitely good practice to confirm that an application has been received.


DON'T

• Don't waste applicants time by asking for duplicate information

You really only need one section, where an applicant can explain why they meet the criteria for skills and knowledge that you have set for a post. Asking "why do you want this job", then "what would you bring to this job", and then "what other skills do you have that are relevant to this job" is effectively the same question, repeated three times. People do want to work for you, but they have other demands on their time as well, so increasing what is already the lengthy process of completing an application by asking them repeatedly for the same information makes your organisation look both confused, and confusing.

• Don't have a glitchy and unreliable website

A certain government portal website is the most awkward and unstable website I've had the misfortune to have to use in a long, long time. When you are inputting a lot of data, having to type it out elsewhere first and copy/paste it in, because you know that approximately every third time you click to perform an action the site will log you out is infuriating, to say the least. The fact that this is the only way to apply for local government jobs in Scotland is amazing. And not in a good way. Each attempt to use it is like a test of patience, and even the user feedback survey is badly designed and unuseable. Every non-government website that has had to perform the same recruitment functions (i.e. which allow users to register, input data, and retain it for future applications) has worked perfectly, so it is obviously possible to do this. A stable website with a smooth process for making applications implies that your organisation is efficient and knows what it's doing. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions about the government website says about them.



So, can you imagine the worst possible recruitment process now? A pdf form that you have to print, fill in by hand, scan, attach to an email, and send to an address that may or may not be the correct one, by a time that may or may not be the closing date. A form that you filled out with information that's irrelevant to the post, but was required. And then...not even getting confirmation that the email with your application was received.

And...when is somebody going to develop an Equal Opportunities Monitoring Form website, where you can input all that data just one time, that will then generate a personalised code which you can put into application forms for them to download that data? It would save so much time!

Now, this isn't me moaning for the sake of it. Having not been involved in running a recruitment process myself, a lot of these points wouldn't have occurred to me, but having been through this experience I'm now a lot more aware of how small things like those listed above can impact on applicants, and how those applicants impression of a potential employer and their business can be affected by their experience of the recruitment process.

Elevator music

Please supply your own background music, while this blog goes on hold for a while....

Scots law jurisdiction – it is actually a real thing, you know

Admittedly, various legal database suppliers seem to think that English/Welsh law and Scots law are interchangeable.

For example: Westlaw. It’s developed a sort of “know how” product called Insight, which should allow more in depth analysis and updates on certain points of law. This is handy, and the sort of things our users like – no wading through articles or textbooks and checking if they’re up to date or take into account recent judgments – just nice primers on specific legal points.

Which would be lovely, if Westlaw could remember that not all jurisdictions are the same.

When I go into the Scots Law tab on Westlaw (which should restrict my searches to only Scottish material, hence avoiding a lot of time wasting and confusion when I’m looking for something with a specific Scottish meaning), it gives me the new option of Insight within that tab. “Oh good,” I thought, “they’re actually paying some attention to their Scottish users, and putting Scottish content on!”.

So I went into the Contract section…and immediately was irritated. As you can see from the photo, despite Insight being within the Scots law tab, the information on contract is for English law, as “The Law of Contract in Scotland” by William McBryde is the core text for Scots law.

Wrong. Oh so VERY wrong. Even more glaringly wrong when you consider that McBryde is available as an electronic book on Westlaw, just as they inform us that Chitty is.

If a resource is inaccurate and/or misleading, it teaches the service users to mistrust it: how much time will I be wasting telling my users that Westlaw’s accurate…but only up to a point…usually…and really, it’s best to double check everything they do on it?

How about we just agree Insight’s inaccurate for any Scots law, and have it removed from access via that tab until it’s useful?

And Westlaw’s not the only legal database provider being stupidly unhelpful and forgetting that English law and Scots law are not one and the same thing.

I used LexisLibrary to access Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia of the Laws of Scotland. Even ignoring the fact that their new style search results don’t work (a whole other issue we will need to go in to with them later), they’re working on being confusing too, although not to quite the extent as Westlaw.

If I’m using Stair, I am looking specifically for Scottish legal information. I will not be helped by being given information from other jurisdictions. So helpfully inserting a suggestion at the top of my search about what a term means in an entirely different context is of absolutely no relevance to my search. It may be a “key narrative definition”, but it’s for an entirely different country, and for an entirely different topic!

We, as the intermediaries for users of these resources, need to be able to confidently tell them: "Yes, that information's accurate - experts in legal issues have checked the contributions and I can confirm they're as good and reliable as you can get." Right now, I just can't do this, and it means our users trust in these (very expensive) resources is being eroded more each time they come up against a glaring inaccuracy.

So, legal database publishers, lets try going over this again, shall we?

Scotland is a separate jurisdiction from England and Wales
Scotland has different laws from England and Wales
Scotland has different legal terms than England and Wales
Scotland has different legal resources from England and Wales

Can you all repeat that until you know what it means, and stop trying to give us English/Welsh law instead of our own? Oh, by the way, you might want to remember that Welsh law is likely to start differing significantly from English law soon too, as their Assembly starts to exercise their powers. Try and take that into consideration for the future?