A friend’s senior-school daughter and six of her friends all applied to work for a renowned global hamburger chain. All six were high achievers, most bound for university, and were looking for a casual job for the next 3-4 years. They had heard great things about this company, their awesome systems, training programs and the way they treated their people. Of course they had eaten there regularly too.

The six girls applied separately over a six month period and all had the same experience. They responded to an ad, and were directed to an initial on-line test. It was a series of questions that took about 30 minutes. In recruiter world, this would be called screening; more accurately sifting. The aim is clearly to reduce the vast number of applicants down into a manageable size for the next phase of the recruitment process. Being done on-line is cheap and fast for the company. It makes some sense, until what happened next.

All six received E-notifications six weeks after the test stating that they were unsuccessful, but had performed very well in the interview. Remember, they had all applied months apart. This was not a one-off occurrence. The problem was that none of them had actually been to an interview. Has this company deemed an interview a screening test or are their recruitment systems not quite so awesome as other systemised parts of their business?

All six, sensitive at their first foray into the working world, felt the rejection, but were also irate that they had been treated as a number.  I suggested that the company’s system that was actively screening out great applicants was more to blame. In fact, most such tests and psychometric exams employers seem to get off on these days, are unproven and subjective and cause more harm to the business and applicants than good. In an interview we once had with a leading provider to many major companies of one such product, the provider eventually admitted he had made the questions up.

One thing’s for sure. From the jobseeker’s viewpoint, there was no humanity or dignity in this process and while companies insist on using these E-screening tools on some theory of cost-saving and efficiency, they are risking their brand reputation at the same time. The six girls have never eaten at these stores again and tell everyone they meet not to. We have heard this story so often in many workplaces. Get treated like crap in the interview process and then bag the company forever. I am sure that the referral influence of six girls going social is quite powerful. Getting the recruitment system right, and focussing it on the applicant needs, not the company, means far more to business success than just employing people. Interesting and Absurd.