Looping in feedback
Being ghosted is a phenomenon that nobody wants to experience but retailers and hospitality companies are doing exactly that to many thousands of people, which is very damaging to their brands.
This occurs when people are applying for jobs and the candidate invariably hears nothing back. Even when the applicant is massively qualified for the role. The best most people can expect is to initially receive an automated response stating that if they do not hear back within two weeks then they can assume they have not secured the job. Great.
What makes this scenario even worse is that most people will have expected their application to at least been considered but in reality the volume of applications for roles in the retail and hospitality industries is so high that many will not even be viewed. On that basis, even with the best will in the world, providing feedback to all applicants would actually be impossible.
Against this backdrop, the one recommendation recruiters would give to candidates is to apply early because the shortlist will likely have been filled before the application deadline has been reached. Recruitment teams are unlikely to wait for all applications to come in before looking at them I’m reliably informed. It’s a tick for HR teams if they fill a role quickly, irrespective of deadlines.
Clearly feedback would be incredibly valuable – whether that is at the screening stage or after shortlisting and interviews have been concluded. The ideal situation would be for every applicant to receive tailored details on what they could have said differently, what they could have added, how they could have presented themselves differently, and any recommendations for their future applications and interviews.
The reality is that feedback is near-non-existent at the volume, entry-level end of the market and it would be a mistake to believe that things are dramatically different where senior roles are involved. The likely feedback received is that the company loved the candidate but that they lost out to a better candidate and therefore did not get the job.
Where feedback is given it is most likely to involve the person who got the job. There is a lot of hype at the moment around the candidate experience but normally during these exercises many organisations simply, yet again, only talk to applicants who were successfully appointed. They do not ask for the thoughts of the 99.9% of people who failed to secure the role.
This lack of any feedback and ghosting is particularly damaging to retailers and hospitality companies because the failed applicants are likely to also be customers of the company to which they have applied. It is inconceivable that a company would simply shut down its customer services department and ignore its customers. But the equivalent of this happens with recruitment. Candidates are ignored and at the same time are expected to still spend money with that organisation.
This is wishful thinking because many disgruntled people choose not to frequent the companies who have given them a bad recruiting experience. Taking a look at the likes of Glassdoor and Indeed and they will reveal there are plenty of people vocalising their intent to avoid spending money with certain companies in the future.
Giving feedback, especially the variety that avoids all elements of contention, is incredibly tough. It is not only very time-consuming for HR and recruiting teams but is also a very delicate matter. Even the ability to fall back on notes taken during interviews can be hard when they are often thin on the ground because during the hectic process note-taking is not a priority.
Technology can play an increasing role in such areas. The ability to conduct an interview using AI tools and for the conversation to result in fully-tailored feedback to each of the candidates – and to the employer too – is within grasp. The ability to deliver an empathetic experience, and maintain a positive view of the brand, to all candidates through the recruitment process is possible with the right technology.
Glynn Davis, editor, Retail Insider
Supported by:
