Over the past few years, a phenomenon has come to the fore in recruitment - candidate resentment.

It’s the notion that the experiences candidates have of a recruitment process, and of their wider job search, informs their actions.

Some examples:

On an individual basis, employers won’t consider this a big deal, especially if they’ve filled a role.

However, we live in a connected society where experiences are shared widely, which can create a wave of resentment, especially when things are tough.

Employers would do well to recognise this phenomenon, and deliver a process that does the opposite, both to stand out for great candidates, and to reduce the possibility of great candidates stepping away from a recruitment process.

But this is an article for job seekers, and while it’s helpful to understand the impact candidate resentment might have systemically, the point of this article is to improve your odds of finding a job.

The nature of candidate resentment is that it’s driven by strong emotion and common experience, something that’s easy to take advantage of by a career coach that is either cynical or unknowledgeable (neither of which are admirable qualities in someone jobseekers might pay money to).

Indeed, the crux of effective advertising is to create emotion and influence action (again something recruitment is woefully lacking in).

How often have you read a promotional message, whether as a post or direct message, which said something along the lines of:

Worse still these messages feel true and are then widely spread, irrespective of any basis in fact.

And this resentment informs your actions.

Actions which cut your nose off to spite your face.

Recruitment is a rare function that has no continuing professional development and little in the way of ‘best practice’ to guide employers.

Because there isn’t a north star for the profession, in the same way CIMA/ACCA/CIPD/CIPS or any other chartered body in the UK, employers often make it up as they go.

Moreover we’re an industry that looks at what others do, because starting from first principles is hard. And if others have a suboptimal process it’s likely we do too.

It’s one reason why ChatGPT type tools are becoming popular - it allows, for example, adverts to do exactly the same as everyone else quicker, and perhaps more engagingly. Even if it does nothing to help those adverts actually sell or stand out.

Where there is a formalised approach, it’s typically because recruitment is contained in another function - such as within HR or Administration, or as part of the role of a founder.

All of which have other priorities that lead to recruitment being seen as an administrative burden, rather than a commercial opportunity.

And when times are busy, it’s easy to either do recruitment habitually (rather than intentionally) or fit it in where you can (rather than strategically).

Of course, some employers are rubbish at recruitment in the same way they are rubbish at employment.

So it’s easy to assume that anyone who gives a poor experience in recruitment, will be that kind of employer.

Which isn’t true.

Herein lies the problem with candidate resentment, for you, as a job seeker, in a job search that has no doubt created much resentment.

I should also point out that my experiences as a recruiter offline are very different to what I read about on LinkedIn or other socials.

Were I to rely on socials, it might reduce my ability to do my job, so worried might I be about the reaction of job seekers and other potential candidates.

It’s a good thing that while socials mirror real life in many ways, it’s mainly in a polarised way, without nuance.

I speak to many employers who do exactly the things people resent, yet are great employers for the right people.

Sometimes £competitive salary is stated due to a compensation philosophy that is generous but not fixed. Perhaps not ideal, but certainly not a lowball.

Sometimes great employers use Workday because of its Accounting and HR functions, with the ATS being a bolt on.

And so on.

Real life has a nuance that socials don’t show - because nuance reduces engagement. So you are less likely to read them, and dopamine hungry writers are less likely to write them.

Here’s the point.

Assume nothing.

Where possible gain insight.

Consider that a bad hiring step might hide a great employer.

If you find yourself reacting emotionally to something on socials - stop, breath and look at it logically. Look for evidence and always ask ‘where is the money?’

The answer to that question may show why a post was written.

Do people want to be popular as hero employers / recruiters / career coaches? Or do they actually have something to say that’s helpful?

It’s generally a good idea to reciprocate the level of care a process takes with you - treat low effort processes with low effort, and invest your energy in the ones that matter.

But you also want to put yourself in a position where you have the best chance of saying ‘no’, rather than the employer doing that for you.

For example, you may not like £competitive salary, but you can always apply and state your salary expectation - then take note of the application (in case they contact) and move on.

In some ways resentment is helpful, even healthy - it can protect, it can help you cope, it can help you heal, it can flag danger to others.

Just don’t let it define how you act, and who you are.

Thanks for reading.

Greg

p.s. where there are links above, it’s to articles with deeper insight on those topics. No clickbait!