'Fussy' job application processes
Discussion
A companies electronic system may allow for them to filter hundreds of CV's and applications, and see who is 'best fit' for a specific job. The company I work for did exactly this. There were a number of posts available and we got thousands of app;lications. The filter system allowed us to sift out the best ones, ( best fit), and then the shortlisted CV's were manually checked and further filtered prior to inviting individuals for interview.
It was a very time consuming process, but we did employ a lot of very good people via that system.
The amount of CV's that we saw that bore absolutely no connection to the roles we advertised were significant !
Our requirements were very specific to the roles - experience and specialist training required, but people still submitted 'wildcard' CV's in the hope of an interview ( not a chance I'm afraid !).
Also, the CV's were 'interesting' to read and we could quickly see who had written there own, and who had had a professional CV writing service do it for them.
People write all sorts of 'adventurous' statements in their CV's and it didn't take us long to spot them.
If you dont wish to apply and use the companies own submission system, then you wont get a chance of an interview. Simple as that. Your choice of course, but I don't think the company will be too bothered - they will have plenty of other good applicants to choose from.
It was a very time consuming process, but we did employ a lot of very good people via that system.
The amount of CV's that we saw that bore absolutely no connection to the roles we advertised were significant !
Our requirements were very specific to the roles - experience and specialist training required, but people still submitted 'wildcard' CV's in the hope of an interview ( not a chance I'm afraid !).
Also, the CV's were 'interesting' to read and we could quickly see who had written there own, and who had had a professional CV writing service do it for them.
People write all sorts of 'adventurous' statements in their CV's and it didn't take us long to spot them.
If you dont wish to apply and use the companies own submission system, then you wont get a chance of an interview. Simple as that. Your choice of course, but I don't think the company will be too bothered - they will have plenty of other good applicants to choose from.
FiF said:
You'll not be applying to work in GCHQ et al then if you want a simple process. Probably for the best. 
I didn't say I want a simple process, merely that it tells me a lot about the organisation if they don't have one. With that particular organisation its clearly not going to be an efficient or bureaucracy free environment.The thing is everyone in the western world uses CVs so any process that doesn't just ingest a CV is inefficient and a poor user experience. If that's the kind of system your company aspires to then it may well put off the more experienced technical people as they will have plenty of other opportunities
Langweilig said:
bomb said:
People write all sorts of 'adventurous' statements in their CV's and it didn't take us long to spot them.
I would never embellish my CV. As you say, an employer could quickly spot it.The thing I can't get my head around is that to apply for a role adverted by a recruitment consultancy, all I have to do is email my CV. Yet to apply for a role directly to a company I have to jump through all kinds of hoops via their unintuitive in-house application process, copy/paste chunks of my CV into their predefined textboxes etc.
Yet companies routinely complain about the amount of money they are spending on recruitment consultants.
An in-house application process should be at least as simply as applying though a consultancy, otherwise why would anybody bother applying directly?
And while I'm here, why do companies advertise roles without a salary? That is a guaranteed way to make me look for your role on JobServe and apply via an agency.
Yet companies routinely complain about the amount of money they are spending on recruitment consultants.
An in-house application process should be at least as simply as applying though a consultancy, otherwise why would anybody bother applying directly?
And while I'm here, why do companies advertise roles without a salary? That is a guaranteed way to make me look for your role on JobServe and apply via an agency.
My wife recently filled in, on line, the most exasperating job application I've ever seen. It ran to 20 A4 pages. The position. Sitting in a charity shop, part time, some hours unpaid, flogging peoples unwanted junk!
Incidentally, during my years of contract work, the name given to HR personnel, Human Rejects, seemed quite appropriate.
Incidentally, during my years of contract work, the name given to HR personnel, Human Rejects, seemed quite appropriate.
Its all swings and roundabouts, I was around when the internet came along and people find its easy to scatter gun job applications with the same generic CV, its amazing how many people just list their jobs out in chronological order newest to oldest even if the job is completely irrelevant to what they are applying for and think that one size fits all. Putting together a job isn't always as easy as people think, if I am recruiting to my team I may put in 5-6 hours of time putting the job description together, getting it signed off by my boss, signed off by talent and culture, going through a review process on it, agreeing salary bands etc. then someone thinks they can apply just by clicking 'send CV' - no thanks. The industry is a crowded one supply outstrips demand by some margin, if someone thinks having to put an hour in to apply is not worth it then they wont be missed, we will find someone who genuinely puts the leg work in.
Clearly some applications are crazy which take hours and you have to go back and do it in stages, if its a job which has requirement for particular sign offs i.e. working with children or in government then its understandable.
Clearly some applications are crazy which take hours and you have to go back and do it in stages, if its a job which has requirement for particular sign offs i.e. working with children or in government then its understandable.
coldel said:
Its all swings and roundabouts, I was around when the internet came along and people find its easy to scatter gun job applications with the same generic CV, its amazing how many people just list their jobs out in chronological order newest to oldest even if the job is completely irrelevant to what they are applying for and think that one size fits all. Putting together a job isn't always as easy as people think, if I am recruiting to my team I may put in 5-6 hours of time putting the job description together, getting it signed off by my boss, signed off by talent and culture, going through a review process on it, agreeing salary bands etc. then someone thinks they can apply just by clicking 'send CV' - no thanks. The industry is a crowded one supply outstrips demand by some margin, if someone thinks having to put an hour in to apply is not worth it then they wont be missed, we will find someone who genuinely puts the leg work in.
Clearly some applications are crazy which take hours and you have to go back and do it in stages, if its a job which has requirement for particular sign offs i.e. working with children or in government then its understandable.
Exactly this ^^^, it's a question of balance on both sides, some application systems are just crazy considering the role, definite delusions of grandeur, others are complicated with check stages because they really have to be there, e.g. as above or national security. Clearly you don't have the same level of setup needed for a Saturday job in a bookshop as you have for an SIS analyst.Clearly some applications are crazy which take hours and you have to go back and do it in stages, if its a job which has requirement for particular sign offs i.e. working with children or in government then its understandable.
So true the statement above, for anything other than the most basic of unskilled work, if someone thinks it's not worth putting a bit of effort in then not going to have any regrets about not hearing from you. Harsh? Maybe, but realistic.
CzechItOut said:
The thing I can't get my head around is that to apply for a role adverted by a recruitment consultancy, all I have to do is email my CV. Yet to apply for a role directly to a company I have to jump through all kinds of hoops via their unintuitive in-house application process, copy/paste chunks of my CV into their predefined textboxes etc.
Really? In my experience, it's the other way around. A couple of years ago, I signed up with a recruitment agency to apply for an administrative role. After the usual filling in of forms, stating all my qualifications (I.T included), I was then asked to sit a series of competency tests in relation to MS Office. All tests were timed to at least 20 minutes and the recruiters set the bar high by demanding 80% accuracy in all tests. I would assume, the higher the score, the better the job and longer the contract.Beetnik said:
As a (potential) employer we only accept applications via a web form.
Means we
Exactly this. Glad to be a "fussy" employer means I at least get applicants that make an effort. After all you are trying to sell yourself to me. Means we
- only get serious applicants
- get all the information we want
- don't get the information we don't want
- get a consistent format - e.g. if I want to compare qualifications they're 1/3rd the way down page 2 etc.
- give applicants a level playing field
Under the old system we would get several applicants with the standard "employment services" CV and no real interest.
Drumroll said:
Beetnik said:
As a (potential) employer we only accept applications via a web form.
Means we
Exactly this. Glad to be a "fussy" employer means I at least get applicants that make an effort. After all you are trying to sell yourself to me. Means we
- only get serious applicants
- get all the information we want
- don't get the information we don't want
- get a consistent format - e.g. if I want to compare qualifications they're 1/3rd the way down page 2 etc.
- give applicants a level playing field
Under the old system we would get several applicants with the standard "employment services" CV and no real interest.
Just a bit of food for thought for all the fussy employers out there....
I think it's a bit of a given that people don't like filling in loads of forms. Fussy employers seem to equate this with "effort" and "hard working" and "desire for the job", but is it really.
So firstly, people in demand won't do this. been stated by several posters on here. This is not through arrogance, it's simply they don't have to.
people that are already in full time employment looking to change jobs probably can't justify the time for these onerous processes when they come home from a full days work.
If you follow this through to it's logical conclusion, you can see there's a correlation not between these application processes and "effort", but between these processes and desperation. simply put you'll put up with more crap the more desperate you are.
Secondly let's assume you are out of work and are doing the correct thing and treating your job search as a full time role.
You're spending 8 hours a day filling in application, sending CV's and covering letters.
If your fussy application takes and hour (number taken from coldel's post above), you can complete 8 application per day. By comparison, you can read and analyse a job advert, tailor your CV and write a concise tailored covering letter in let's say 20 minute.
This of course means you can apply for 3 times the number of jobs in a given time frame. Any individual with an ounce of common sense and sense of efficiency is going to choose the tailored CV + covering letter option.
So congratulations fussy employers, you've managed to create an interview process to select desperate idiots.
I think it's a bit of a given that people don't like filling in loads of forms. Fussy employers seem to equate this with "effort" and "hard working" and "desire for the job", but is it really.
So firstly, people in demand won't do this. been stated by several posters on here. This is not through arrogance, it's simply they don't have to.
people that are already in full time employment looking to change jobs probably can't justify the time for these onerous processes when they come home from a full days work.
If you follow this through to it's logical conclusion, you can see there's a correlation not between these application processes and "effort", but between these processes and desperation. simply put you'll put up with more crap the more desperate you are.
Secondly let's assume you are out of work and are doing the correct thing and treating your job search as a full time role.
You're spending 8 hours a day filling in application, sending CV's and covering letters.
If your fussy application takes and hour (number taken from coldel's post above), you can complete 8 application per day. By comparison, you can read and analyse a job advert, tailor your CV and write a concise tailored covering letter in let's say 20 minute.
This of course means you can apply for 3 times the number of jobs in a given time frame. Any individual with an ounce of common sense and sense of efficiency is going to choose the tailored CV + covering letter option.
So congratulations fussy employers, you've managed to create an interview process to select desperate idiots.
zippy3x said:
Just a bit of food for thought for all the fussy employers out there....
I think it's a bit of a given that people don't like filling in loads of forms. Fussy employers seem to equate this with "effort" and "hard working" and "desire for the job", but is it really.
So firstly, people in demand won't do this. been stated by several posters on here. This is not through arrogance, it's simply they don't have to.
people that are already in full time employment looking to change jobs probably can't justify the time for these onerous processes when they come home from a full days work.
If you follow this through to it's logical conclusion, you can see there's a correlation not between these application processes and "effort", but between these processes and desperation. simply put you'll put up with more crap the more desperate you are.
Secondly let's assume you are out of work and are doing the correct thing and treating your job search as a full time role.
You're spending 8 hours a day filling in application, sending CV's and covering letters.
If your fussy application takes and hour (number taken from coldel's post above), you can complete 8 application per day. By comparison, you can read and analyse a job advert, tailor your CV and write a concise tailored covering letter in let's say 20 minute.
This of course means you can apply for 3 times the number of jobs in a given time frame. Any individual with an ounce of common sense and sense of efficiency is going to choose the tailored CV + covering letter option.
So congratulations fussy employers, you've managed to create an interview process to select desperate idiots.
Hmmm, a number of assumptions I wouldn't agree with in there at all.I think it's a bit of a given that people don't like filling in loads of forms. Fussy employers seem to equate this with "effort" and "hard working" and "desire for the job", but is it really.
So firstly, people in demand won't do this. been stated by several posters on here. This is not through arrogance, it's simply they don't have to.
people that are already in full time employment looking to change jobs probably can't justify the time for these onerous processes when they come home from a full days work.
If you follow this through to it's logical conclusion, you can see there's a correlation not between these application processes and "effort", but between these processes and desperation. simply put you'll put up with more crap the more desperate you are.
Secondly let's assume you are out of work and are doing the correct thing and treating your job search as a full time role.
You're spending 8 hours a day filling in application, sending CV's and covering letters.
If your fussy application takes and hour (number taken from coldel's post above), you can complete 8 application per day. By comparison, you can read and analyse a job advert, tailor your CV and write a concise tailored covering letter in let's say 20 minute.
This of course means you can apply for 3 times the number of jobs in a given time frame. Any individual with an ounce of common sense and sense of efficiency is going to choose the tailored CV + covering letter option.
So congratulations fussy employers, you've managed to create an interview process to select desperate idiots.
People in demand wont do this, well maybe, maybe not, but ultimately if they are in such high demand yes they can pick and choose but they are probably not applying via online adverts anyway and are often head hunted etc. via other channels of recruitment (online applications are something like 20% of all channels for job changes).
People in full time employment don't have time to do this. Again a lot of research shows that 'people are busy nowadays' is a myth and its a problem with the availability of technology, ability to communicate and individuals ability to manage themselves effectively. Try not reading any social media, not check the news/read stuff on your phone, and only check emails every 3 hours and see how much time you free up just doing that for example. Ultimately if getting a job is that important to you, you will find the time.
If someone has analysed a job advert, done all the relevant research, tailored a CV and written a covering note in 20 minutes then they have done quite frankly an appalling job of applying for that role. I think you are being drastically optimistic in terms of time required for this unless a really shoddy effort has been put in. If I were applying for a job I could easily spend 10-20 minutes browsing the website, reading google news updates, check the share price of the company etc. alone.
Clearly the caveat to all the above is that jobs, companies, roles etc. differ and as said before applying for a Director role vs part time on a check out has to be set accordingly in terms of recruitment.
Ultimately its up to the employer to set the conditions to apply for a role not the applicant. They also have the responsibility for setting the correct expectations of the role so they do not waste applicants time going through interviews etc. and a proper application procedure helps achieve this - its not being fussy its being responsible. It works both ways in getting it right. I have yet to work at a company where we recruit a continuous swath of 'desperate idiots' using this approach.
coldel said:
I have yet to work at a company where we recruit a continuous swath of 'desperate idiots' using this approach.
Sounds like you have a couple at your current place.The one who came up with "talent and culture" as a name for what is presumably HR, and the one that signed that off.
zippy3x said:
coldel said:
I have yet to work at a company where we recruit a continuous swath of 'desperate idiots' using this approach.
Sounds like you have a couple at your current place.The one who came up with "talent and culture" as a name for what is presumably HR, and the one that signed that off.
djc206 said:
nought2sixty said:
I went through the testing at Nats and Eurocontrol a few years ago, didn't get either. Would have been an absolutely fantastic career, the Eurocontrol lot especially are on an absolute fortune!
They’re both recruiting again now if you fancy another crack at it!You can of course pay for the qualifications yourself if you want. Aerodrome doesn’t interest me but the likes of Gatwick are paying silly money for controllers at the moment.
zippy3x said:
Just a bit of food for thought for all the fussy employers out there....
I think it's a bit of a given that people don't like filling in loads of forms. Fussy employers seem to equate this with "effort" and "hard working" and "desire for the job", but is it really.
So firstly, people in demand won't do this. been stated by several posters on here. This is not through arrogance, it's simply they don't have to.
people that are already in full time employment looking to change jobs probably can't justify the time for these onerous processes when they come home from a full days work.
If you follow this through to it's logical conclusion, you can see there's a correlation not between these application processes and "effort", but between these processes and desperation. simply put you'll put up with more crap the more desperate you are.
Secondly let's assume you are out of work and are doing the correct thing and treating your job search as a full time role.
You're spending 8 hours a day filling in application, sending CV's and covering letters.
If your fussy application takes and hour (number taken from coldel's post above), you can complete 8 application per day. By comparison, you can read and analyse a job advert, tailor your CV and write a concise tailored covering letter in let's say 20 minute.
This of course means you can apply for 3 times the number of jobs in a given time frame. Any individual with an ounce of common sense and sense of efficiency is going to choose the tailored CV + covering letter option.
So congratulations fussy employers, you've managed to create an interview process to select desperate idiots.
You have made a lot of assumptions, that some of us who actually employ people have not found.I think it's a bit of a given that people don't like filling in loads of forms. Fussy employers seem to equate this with "effort" and "hard working" and "desire for the job", but is it really.
So firstly, people in demand won't do this. been stated by several posters on here. This is not through arrogance, it's simply they don't have to.
people that are already in full time employment looking to change jobs probably can't justify the time for these onerous processes when they come home from a full days work.
If you follow this through to it's logical conclusion, you can see there's a correlation not between these application processes and "effort", but between these processes and desperation. simply put you'll put up with more crap the more desperate you are.
Secondly let's assume you are out of work and are doing the correct thing and treating your job search as a full time role.
You're spending 8 hours a day filling in application, sending CV's and covering letters.
If your fussy application takes and hour (number taken from coldel's post above), you can complete 8 application per day. By comparison, you can read and analyse a job advert, tailor your CV and write a concise tailored covering letter in let's say 20 minute.
This of course means you can apply for 3 times the number of jobs in a given time frame. Any individual with an ounce of common sense and sense of efficiency is going to choose the tailored CV + covering letter option.
So congratulations fussy employers, you've managed to create an interview process to select desperate idiots.
zippy3x said:
Just a bit of food for thought for all the fussy employers out there....
I think it's a bit of a given that people don't like filling in loads of forms. Fussy employers seem to equate this with "effort" and "hard working" and "desire for the job", but is it really.
So firstly, people in demand won't do this. been stated by several posters on here. This is not through arrogance, it's simply they don't have to.
people that are already in full time employment looking to change jobs probably can't justify the time for these onerous processes when they come home from a full days work.
If you follow this through to it's logical conclusion, you can see there's a correlation not between these application processes and "effort", but between these processes and desperation. simply put you'll put up with more crap the more desperate you are.
Secondly let's assume you are out of work and are doing the correct thing and treating your job search as a full time role.
You're spending 8 hours a day filling in application, sending CV's and covering letters.
If your fussy application takes and hour (number taken from coldel's post above), you can complete 8 application per day. By comparison, you can read and analyse a job advert, tailor your CV and write a concise tailored covering letter in let's say 20 minute.
This of course means you can apply for 3 times the number of jobs in a given time frame. Any individual with an ounce of common sense and sense of efficiency is going to choose the tailored CV + covering letter option.
So congratulations fussy employers, you've managed to create an interview process to select desperate idiots.
I disagree with your comments above.I think it's a bit of a given that people don't like filling in loads of forms. Fussy employers seem to equate this with "effort" and "hard working" and "desire for the job", but is it really.
So firstly, people in demand won't do this. been stated by several posters on here. This is not through arrogance, it's simply they don't have to.
people that are already in full time employment looking to change jobs probably can't justify the time for these onerous processes when they come home from a full days work.
If you follow this through to it's logical conclusion, you can see there's a correlation not between these application processes and "effort", but between these processes and desperation. simply put you'll put up with more crap the more desperate you are.
Secondly let's assume you are out of work and are doing the correct thing and treating your job search as a full time role.
You're spending 8 hours a day filling in application, sending CV's and covering letters.
If your fussy application takes and hour (number taken from coldel's post above), you can complete 8 application per day. By comparison, you can read and analyse a job advert, tailor your CV and write a concise tailored covering letter in let's say 20 minute.
This of course means you can apply for 3 times the number of jobs in a given time frame. Any individual with an ounce of common sense and sense of efficiency is going to choose the tailored CV + covering letter option.
So congratulations fussy employers, you've managed to create an interview process to select desperate idiots.
Having been directly involved in the process of recruiting highly specialist personnel, we did not create an interview process to select desperate idiots.
We did, in fact, have a streamlined process that filtered through the candidates, until we arrived at a shortlist of people who we then invited for interview. The people selected came from all over the globe, and yes, they had spent some time filling in the on line questionnaire ( which was a drop down box style, to allow the electronic filter system to work) Then they submitted their CV's that documented their work history etc, so we could focus on how they matched up with our own requirements.
The system was extremely efficient and successful. We employed a lot of very good people. Our rate of job offers vs people we interviewed face to face, (some via skype due to their location), was very high indeed.
The people we interviewed were far from idiots, and I think your own perception of this is a somewhat naive one.
We employed a mixture of disciplines, some being junior staff, but many being at the highest level. Some were already in work, and some were not employed when we interviewed them.
Thats my experience from the employers side of things.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff