The job market has heated up and so have the complaints from job seekers. Emblematic of the frustrations faced by candidates, software developer Mike Conley, who sought a leadership role, posted his travails on LinkedIn. Conley pulled out of the running after feeling he was given the runaround by being required to sit for around 11 interviews.

His story on the social media platform went viral with over 2 million views and more than 40k comments and reactions. LinkedIn is the more sober, serious social media platform. It discourages virality, as it’s meant to encourage one-on-one networking relationships. To reach this amount of exposure, it clearly shows the simmering angst and anger of job seekers.

The comments have central themes. They include outrage over being pressured to undergo three to 10 interviews over six months or more. Some are asked to take tests, do projects or sit for invasive psychometric exams. There’s a lack of feedback and long periods of an absence of communication. No appreciation is extended to applicants for their time. Rude and dismissive treatment is commonplace. After all of the meetings, they complain of getting ghosted.

Meeting with a number of people during the interview process has its advantages. The candidate gets a better feel for the job, company, its corporate culture and whether or not they’d feel if they’d  be a good fit. Unfortunately, when you rope in five to 10 interviewers, a certain percentage of them don’t know anything about the role, the candidate and what the person will do. It’s easy for one or two of them to say, “I’d take a pass.”

Conducting too many interviews may suggest that hiring managers don’t have sufficient confidence in themselves to make the right hiring decision. By asking a large number of co-workers to weigh in on an applicant, it highlights how afraid they are to pick a person, as well as needing the comfort of having a crowdsourced consensus to make the call for them.

I’ve dealt with a lot of human resources and internal talent acquisition recruiters over the last 25 years. My impression is that these people go into this profession because they care about people and want to make a difference. They genuinely desire to find the best people for their companies. Unfortunately, big bureaucracies get in the way of the most passionate, caring professionals.

The situation can be improved. It’s not too hard to initiate modest improvements.

Here are some suggestions that corporations can incorporate that would dramatically improve the interviewing experience for people.

Train Managers On How To Interview

As a recruiter and host of a LinkedIn Live show with guests, I can unequivocally say that interviewing isn’t easy—no matter how easy it looks. Getting the job seeker to open up and share what they do in their jobs, what they want to do next and why they’re good for the specific role they’re interviewing for is no easy feat. It’s an art form. For some reason, corporate executives feel that managers can effectively interview applicants without any training, manuals, guidelines or guidance. It would make an appreciable difference if companies took the time and effort to train hiring managers how to effectively interview people and navigate the process from the beginning stages to extending an offer and onboarding the applicant.

Manage Expectations

At the start of the interview process, expectations should be set for the candidates. This entails how many interviews will take place, the amount of time for each interview and how long it will take. The salary, bonus, benefits and other important information should be disclosed to manage expectations and not have any surprises at the last minute. Before the interviews, job hunters should be supplied with the LinkedIn or professional bios of the interviewers and color on the role and people involved with the process beyond what’s in the job description.

Dedicated Interviewers

An interesting concept is having a “professional interviewer” participate in the process. This could be a newly created role in which a person—perhaps, an internal recruiter—is dedicated to interviewing candidates, alongside the hiring manager. The dedicated interviewer would direct the process and ask the questions. The hiring manager would contribute questions that are specific to the job at hand. It would be the best of both worlds.

Management Involvement

What’s so perplexing is why the executive management team doesn’t get involved. They have to know what is happening, don’t they? Are they too far removed from the interview process and human resources? There should be a mechanism put in place that after three or four interviews, a senior-level person—within the division—should step in to see what is happening.

The overseer would ask the interviewer why they are conducting so many interviews, do they need some help and inquire as to how many more interviews are scheduled. They could then find out if the salary being offered is too low, the requirements too high and anything else that would improve the candidate experience.

Compensate For The Interviewee’s Time

Since interviewees spend so much of their time in the process, it’s reasonable to offer them a stipend, gift card or compensation for their time—especially in a hot job market. At first blush, it sounds wild, but think about it. How different is that than paying for a focus group to talk about the merits of a company’s new product launch?

Job Seeker’s Bill Of Rights

Kenneth Lang is a career coach. He hosts events on LinkedIn, Clubhouse and online Zoom calls to help people in their pursuit of a new job. He has his fingers on the pulse of the job applicants. Lang has suggested promoting a job seeker’s “Bill of Rights.” This would be a statement companies adhere to that would outline the basic dignities and fairness extended to job seekers.

Lang says, “Hiring managers are looking for a ‘pink unicorn’—a job applicant that doesn’t exist.” Lang contends, “Two rounds of interviews and you should be able to make a decision. More  job seekers need to push back against multiple rounds.” Lang points out, “If enough job seekers say ‘no’ and walk away, management would have no choice but to start paying attention to what is happening during the interview process and will need to make some big changes.”

Protecting The Company’s Brand

Treating candidates with respect, empathy and compassion would bode well for the companies. It would help companies protect and burnish their brands. When people interview for a job and are met with rude and inappropriate behavior, they leave with a bad taste in their mouths. They’ll share their terrible experiences with family, friends and co-workers. Negative news spreads fast. It tarnishes the brand of the company. Making candidates jump through hoops for months without any end in sight is a clear red flag for other issues going on at the company. Based on word of mouth, potential candidates may think twice about interviewing with the company or avoid it completely.

Source: Forbes