3 ms·

Yes and thank you, very good points. We are a larger organization, and getting past the HR filter is understandable. We have taken significant measures to impr

Yes and thank you, very good points. We are a larger organization, and getting past the HR filter is understandable. We have taken significant measures to improve that step with us, and it has yielded much better throughput on worthy candidates. At sounds as though we do something similar internally -- incorporate shared reviews from our team with inbound resumes. And to your point about a two-way street -- I couldn't agree more. We respond to everyone, and do so manually. We don't automate that way, as I want a human contact behind the message. (We don't get thousands of resumes, but we do get in the low hundreds.) I've found executing those directly is meaningful and translates to better communication over time. I think of it as a function of customer service, not recruiting. To really tie it all together: we want to speak with those who have genuine interest, and are willing to put effort into it from the beginning of any conversation with us. We hope our candidates do the same.

SmellTheGlove 9y ago
I agree with all of that. And just to be clear, I never disagreed with the principle of your original post. The thing is, for everyone doing it like you (or let's say us, since it sounds like we have a similar approach), there are hundreds of organizations letting the ATS handle it. Unfortunately, everyone else letting the ATS do it is going to harm our efforts indirectly. I should add that this is probably easy for me to say since I'm outside of a tech hub and also receive a lower volume. If I were getting thousands per vacancy, I'd have to find a different approach, but handing the keys to the ATS is not how I'd want to have it go.
- jroseattle 9y ago
  > everyone else letting the ATS do it is going to harm our efforts indirectly. Yep, this. I actually see this as a future competitive advantage for us. I want us to be known for having a really positive experience for anyone who wishes to work with us, no matter the choice/decision that ultimately happens. It will take time to get there, but consistency builds reputation.

SmellTheGlove 9y ago

I agree with all of that. And just to be clear, I never disagreed with the principle of your original post. The thing is, for everyone doing it like you (or let's say us, since it sounds like we have a similar approach), there are hundreds of organizations letting the ATS handle it. Unfortunately, everyone else letting the ATS do it is going to harm our efforts indirectly. I should add that this is probably easy for me to say since I'm outside of a tech hub and also receive a lower volume. If I were getting thousands per vacancy, I'd have to find a different approach, but handing the keys to the ATS is not how I'd want to have it go.

jroseattle 9y ago
> everyone else letting the ATS do it is going to harm our efforts indirectly. Yep, this. I actually see this as a future competitive advantage for us. I want us to be known for having a really positive experience for anyone who wishes to work with us, no matter the choice/decision that ultimately happens. It will take time to get there, but consistency builds reputation.