
The most spurious argument for non-reply to
candidates is that there are so many applications they don’t have the resources
to do so. When I worked in the recruitment industry, the practice was to send
letters to every candidate when they were unsuccessful. One occasion, I signed over
500 letters in one sitting. A number of people ridiculed me about this saying
it was a waste of my time and resources. From my point of view the applicants
had put time and personal resources into his or her application and deserved
the courtesy of a reply to show that their application had been received and properly
considered. These days email provides flexibility to respond easily as can appropriate
wording on the job ad itself about expectation of response times.
One of the first things eroded in a
continuous and unfruitful search for employment is the individual's confidence.
For many unemployed people the cost of repeated applications is both
practically and emotionally wearing. My friend fell into this category. It culminated
when the consultant at the employment agency where he is a registered client
told him on the last visit that she had not bothered to match him with potential
work ‘because it was January’.
My friend’s reaction was, ‘I'm not climbing
the corporate ladder. I'm just climbing lots of stairs.’ At the top there is
usually a shut door.
Why am I ranting about this? Because employers
and recruitment service providers often miss the fact that work and the process
of seeking it isn’t just about economic considerations. It’s about a sense of purpose
and achievement. It’s about establishing and maintaining social networks. It’s about
belonging somewhere. And those in a position to offer or advance employment owe
each applicant an appreciation of that.
If nothing else, we owe them the courtesy of a reply.
*Click on blog title to bring up comment box