Hey, look, this candidate’s rollercoaster ride entered a dead end and crashed into a wall, let’s see if the next candidate waiting in line will make it to the end if we just tweak the tracks a little..

Great candidate experience is like riding a rollercoaster. The most important thing is the drop off rate. Ideally it is exciting before a candidate starts applying, thrilling while he goes and, afterwards, leaving him with the desire to immediately go again. Sadly, three out of four applicants don’t reach the ends of the tracks most ATS’s lay out for them. Most candidates get thrown out in the first corner.

Why? Because ATS’s are built with features in mind, not candidates. An ATS is conceived of, built, and then put to the test. The makers lurk from behind their features and sneakily metricise their users to steadily improve the drop off rate.

Allowing candidates to get thrown off the tracks is not the right way to go. No. Cherish them. All of them. Make sure each and every one of them reaches his desired destination. How? By doing what it takes, even if it means adding minimum viable functions at the fly. Candidates are reasonable people. They don’t like it if you promise a lot and deliver little. They like it if you make good on your promises, even if it means you having to improvise a little.

There are more online recruitment applications than anyone can keep track of, few of which are succesful. If you want your ATS to succeed, take your candidates for a ride and stay with ‘m until the end. Fully cater to all their needs and decode your cost by organising this a little as you go. Use minimum viable products instead of features. And then rename your applicant tracking system to a candidate happiness recorder. Good luck, I’m sure you’ll make it.

h/t Tom Alfoldi

Hey, look, this candidate’s rollercoaster ride entered a dead end and crashed into a wall, let’s see if the next candidate waiting in line will make it to the end if we just tweak the tracks a little..

Great candidate experience is like riding a rollercoaster. The most important thing is the drop off rate. Ideally it is exciting before a candidate starts applying, thrilling while he goes and, afterwards, leaving him with the desire to immediately go again. Sadly, three out of four applicants don’t reach the ends of the tracks most ATS’s lay out for them. Most candidates get thrown out in the first corner.

Why? Because ATS’s are built with features in mind, not candidates. An ATS is conceived of, built, and then put to the test. The makers lurk from behind their features and sneakily metricise their users to steadily improve the drop off rate.

Allowing candidates to get thrown off the tracks is not the right way to go. No. Cherish them. All of them. Make sure each and every one of them reaches his desired destination. How? By doing what it takes, even if it means adding minimum viable functions at the fly. Candidates are reasonable people. They don’t like it if you promise a lot and deliver little. They like it if you make good on your promises, even if it means you having to improvise a little.

There are more online recruitment applications than anyone can keep track of, few of which are succesful. If you want your ATS to succeed, take your candidates for a ride and stay with ‘m until the end. Fully cater to all their needs and decode your cost by organising this a little as you go. Use minimum viable products instead of features. And then rename your applicant tracking system to a candidate happiness recorder. Good luck, I’m sure you’ll make it.

h/t Tom Alfoldi