Job-Search Sites Try Shaming Companies That 'Ghost' Job-Seekers (fortune.com) 22
An anonymous reader shared this report from Fortune:
More than 14 million job seekers' applications went completely ignored in a single quarter last year, according to one hiring platform. Now, sites like Greenhouse and LinkedIn are experimenting with new ways to hold companies accountable for making the hiring process so miserable for applicants. Three of the biggest job search sites — LinkedIn, Indeed and Greenhouse — have put tools in place to highlight which companies frequently respond to applicants in a timely manner... According to Greenhouse, half of applicants say they've been ghosted after an interview.
Meanwhile, new artificial intelligence tools have made it easier for candidates to play a numbers game, generating tailored resumes for hundreds of roles. But that's led to an increasingly overwhelming flood of applications for companies, making it nearly impossible to process the deluge and respond to every hopeful in a timely manner — let alone find their perfect match... [LinkedIn is] refining its "job match" feature that uses AI to see how well qualified a candidate is for a given listing. The feature is designed to help cut down on the flood of applications companies are receiving by nudging users to focus their efforts on jobs where they actually have a good shot at hearing back. That, in theory, should make the hiring process more efficient for both parties...
Indeed chose to focus on encouraging employer responsiveness after the issue showed up as the biggest pain point for job seekers in a recent survey. While the platform has issued "responsive employer" badges since 2018 to recognize companies that consistently reply to more than half of all messages, it started releasing even more detail in 2023, including labels that share the employer's median response time with candidates... Greenhouse, meanwhile, is testing a set of four badges that would verify an employer meets the platform's respectful, communicative, prepared and fair hiring process standards for a given job posting... For "communicative," they're expected to clear out active candidates on closed jobs and send out rejection emails.
LinkedIn is also adding "responsiveness insights," according to the article, which "show applicants which listings are being actively reviewed by employers.
"It's testing the insights on a small number of job postings before rolling them out sitewide in the coming months."
Meanwhile, new artificial intelligence tools have made it easier for candidates to play a numbers game, generating tailored resumes for hundreds of roles. But that's led to an increasingly overwhelming flood of applications for companies, making it nearly impossible to process the deluge and respond to every hopeful in a timely manner — let alone find their perfect match... [LinkedIn is] refining its "job match" feature that uses AI to see how well qualified a candidate is for a given listing. The feature is designed to help cut down on the flood of applications companies are receiving by nudging users to focus their efforts on jobs where they actually have a good shot at hearing back. That, in theory, should make the hiring process more efficient for both parties...
Indeed chose to focus on encouraging employer responsiveness after the issue showed up as the biggest pain point for job seekers in a recent survey. While the platform has issued "responsive employer" badges since 2018 to recognize companies that consistently reply to more than half of all messages, it started releasing even more detail in 2023, including labels that share the employer's median response time with candidates... Greenhouse, meanwhile, is testing a set of four badges that would verify an employer meets the platform's respectful, communicative, prepared and fair hiring process standards for a given job posting... For "communicative," they're expected to clear out active candidates on closed jobs and send out rejection emails.
LinkedIn is also adding "responsiveness insights," according to the article, which "show applicants which listings are being actively reviewed by employers.
"It's testing the insights on a small number of job postings before rolling them out sitewide in the coming months."
Seems pointless for the job sites (Score:2)
They often appear to be scrapers supplementing legitimate direct posts with whatever they've scraped from elsewhere. Plenty of stale listings happen. But hey, if they're trying to be better (even if only because they see more profit that way), then I'm all for it.
Next I'd like to see them mark posting based on how often they're repeating. A company that's looking to fill the same position at the same location every month is probably a horrible employer driving people out as fast as they hire them.
Too many ways to say reject to a candidate (Score:2)
Technology has only made the go / reject list of questions longer and longer in the hiring process.
Elongating the initial application to hiring a person is economically detrimental on both sides, employer and employee.
From the employer side, they get a more uniform set of employees for a position countering the narrative that a team of varied backgrounds leads to better performance (link below).
From the applicant or hired employee perspective, it costs more time, due to short staffing, and lower productivit
Game-ish evolution (Score:2)
But the service provider , Linked in, doesn't want the customers obviously wasting resources
Ghosting is so, so common (Score:5, Interesting)
And it seems so avoidable.
I've been out of work for a year. I've applied for something like 100 positions (all reasonable matches, I'm not just shotgunning out resumes). Most companies send a polite "thank you for your application, we'll get back to you" email. Only about one in three send a "thanks but no" or "thanks, we hired someone else" response when they close the req.
It's weird. You know they manage the openings in some sort of recruitment platform. How tough can it be to automatically send those polite rejections when you close the opening? And there have been any number of openings which I know got closed because when I chase the link, the job doesn't show up. For that matter, why return a 404 rather than a "sorry, the position titled 'chief bottle washer' has been closed"? And the other feature many platforms don't seem to have is a way to see the status of your pending applications. If I don't keep a record, I can't even tell if my application was submitted.
All in all, there are so many usability gaps in the job search tools from the perspective of the applicant. I guess it's not surprising, I'm not paying for any of the services so why would my wishes be prioritized?
Re: (Score:2)
They probably don't want to do that because if the successful applicant doesn't last the trial period they want to accept the next one without that person realising they were plan B.
Re: (Score:3)
I was Plan B (or C or D, no idea) once. Then I "failed" the trial period too. Turned out the company was doing disguised contracting - ie get some mug in on a 6 month probationary period to do donkey work, make out they failed probation, get next one in. Rinse and repeat until donkey work completed then no permie left on payroll and didn't have to pay 2-3x the salary for a real contractor.
Re: (Score:2)
They probably don't want to do that because if the successful applicant doesn't last the trial period they want to accept the next one without that person realising they were plan B.
That and they don't want to have to deal with people who don't handle rejection well. Sadly there are such unhinged people out there.
Re: (Score:2)
There were unhinged people out there before ghosting became common, and somehow they managed. Most people aren't going to go postal over an automated rejection email, especially in the days of job seekers sending how a high volume of applications.
Re: (Score:2)
How tough can it be to automatically send those polite rejections when you close the opening?
I advertised a property for rent a couple years back, and had multiple responses. After I chose someone, I just took the ad down. Responding to the other applicants could only invite a lawsuit and had zero benefit for me.
So I just ghosted everybody else.
Re: (Score:2)
I think a listing of something for sale/rent doesn't need to be treated like a job application. You expect a job application to potentially take weeks to process. I've waited months before receiving positive feedback on an application. By contrast, someone selling or renting something is generally going to move quickly if they are still selling. If you don't hear back in a few days, it's pretty safe to say it's no longer available.
LinkedIn "Top match" is useless. (Score:2)
Repost, kinda. (Score:2)
Slashdot regurgitated a Boomer piece not long ago about GenZ folks not front up after supposedly getting a job.
Maybe they're fed up with companies ghosting them?
Noticed this as well (Score:1)
look in the mirror LinkedIn (Score:2)
That is funny. The one time I applied to LinkedIn itself, LinkedIn never responded. After that I had two recruiters hit me up to apply for that same job and I said No.
Companies think qualified people grow on trees and can be treated like rotting fruit. Well the rotting fruit has something to say about that. You can't get the best people when you treat them poorly.
I have another idea (Score:2)
I've been on both sides of this (Score:1)
Excessive Delay a Problem Too (Score:2)
I've had job applications where I thought I was ghosted, only to get positive feedback months later. I once did an interview, heard nothing for 8 months, and then was contacted for a follow-up and an eventual offer (I turned down).
Sometimes things happen and an opening needs to be put on hold, but good employers will notify candidates when that happens.
Ghosting is NEW?! (Score:2)
In 40 years of job hunting, MOST of my applications went nowhere
I think some expectations need to be more in line with reality