What Exactly does Making Recruitment Process Simpler Mean

Going on a higher level, it has to be much beyond merely translating to less work!

So what is this that we hear about – simple meaning NOT less work in the recruitment process?

In a sense, simple DOES mean less time and work for the departments involved. That is if only we could classify recruitment as a short term hiring process for a particular position. Ideally it is not the correct definition, but unfortunately, in reality this is what being practiced in most companies.

Typically, HR department teams with specific department heads to evaluate the analytical and logical skills, commitment, ability to take responsibility, and grasp of candidate’s area of specialization when going about the candidate selection process.

Now if any of the aforementioned evaluations can be cut short in terms of time then the work also will be reduced. As a result, the recruitment process WILL be termed as being made simpler. What is overlooked is whether the simpler recruitment process is really successful in the long run.

For instance, a candidate may emerge out of these evaluations with flying colors but does that mean that he/she is the perfect match of the position?

Why not? For the simple reason that the recruitment process is limited to the specified tasks and one major factor is brutally overlooked in this scenario. That factor which can determine if the recruitment process is indeed successful.

Evaluate Your Recruitment Process Success

A recruitment process is successful not when a position has been filled by a worthy candidate. This is just a part of the success. Real success arrives when the position does not ask for another repetition of the recruitment process – that is, when the candidate hired does not quit the company for compatibility reasons.

Employee compatibility can be determined by, well, the employee himself. Currently how many companies try to see the candidate point-of-view while recruiting him/her? How many of them run “will fit in the organization” tests? Worst, how many people give candidate opportunities to decide for himself whether he’ll fit in or not?

Sadly speaking, not many. A candidate knows by instinct and experience whether he/she will be happy working in a particular company. Taking a scenario as an example, a candidate is evaluated as being fit for both sales and marketing departments. Her choice is marketing but because she is good at sales also, the firm puts her into direct sales department.

The result: employee jumps ships when confronted with a marketing department job offer in some other company. This is a classic case of recruiting process made simple but unsuccessful in the long run.

See the Employee Perspective also

Very few firms currently use the employee point-of-view assessments to make the overall recruitment process simpler. At these companies, candidates are provided an opportunity to meet her potential colleagues, workplace etc so she can make her mind in deciding to take up an offer.

The result of this is that the candidate gets an overall picture of the job profile, which ideally does not mean only the tasks that the position demands to be carried out. A full picture is where she’ll she where she’ll work, whom she’ll work with etc.

The benefit of this arrangement is that firms can indeed simplify the overall recruitment process by hiring the most compatible person.

The other benefit is that by these arrangements you also cull the fear of discrimination charges in offering jobs – something that is rising at an alarming pace across the world. By putting the ball partly but firmly in the candidate’s court you act as a responsible employer providing equal opportunity without discrimination.

In conclusion, we see that it is more important for a recruitment process to be successful in the long-run rather than becoming simple in the short-term but tiresome in the long run.