Many thanks Emma. If you’ve not come across this post it’s also v helpful from recruiters perspective with some very useful discussion.
William Sceats
Karma: 27
I’d imagine the key disincentive would be resource scarcity; the usual barrier to change in organisations. Resource will be needed both to redesign the process and to implement. My very limited experience of EA recruitment—frequently taking 1-2 weeks to respond to an email, missing stated feedback dates, not receiving any notification at all and finding when chasing they went with someone else—is that there seems to be significant under capacity and scope for capability maturity.
My – admittedly commercial and thus possibly rather cynical—experience with incentives is that unless these are instituted at a leadership level then change seldom trickles down. Until recruitment quality and candidate feedback KPIs are hard-baked into a leadership scorecard / goals, resources won’t be re-allocated to the overworked recruiters / outsource providers, and the process won’t be updated. While there appears to be an oversupply of candidates for roles—which appears to be the current situation in EA—and attitudinal fit isn’t causing significant performance issues, there’s no real incentive to change the status quo other than good intentions.
Really insightful and tallies with my experiences. I would also add in challenges from broken processes indicating lack of organisational value placed on the function. E.g. receiving no responses from applications only to find out roles have been filled after repeated chasing; advised timeframes being massively missed; total absence of response from direct queries.
I wrote some thoughts from my experiences here, which might be added into the mix. Keen to help improve this vital function.