Believe it or not, it's more common than you think - in fact, according to many candidates, it's not just a majority of postings that they see that turn out to be pipeline interviews, it's interviews as well. Once upon a time, major companies and consulting organizations were the chief culprits who utilized this less-than-honest practice. "Hey, we're always on the lookout for good talent," they would say. "So send us your resume, and if we have a fit, we'll see what we can do."
Translation: We may or may not have a fit, but we don't want to be that honest with you because then you might not apply with us; so send us your resume and make sure you are as honest as possible with us (even though we're not playing by those rules ourselves) and maybe - just maybe - we'll grant you an interview.
So what happens? A desperate job seeker gets a phone call for a possible interview and quickly shifts into overdrive, reviewing the Web site, reading up on the company's history, mapping out answers to likely questions, and walking through repeated dry runs until s/he is ready for that first interview...then the second...the third...and maybe even more. And after a few more face-to-face discussions?
Sorry, kid.
Now it's true that once upon a time this practice was used by larger corporations as a way of always ensuring a steady pipeline of applicants and potential candidates, but it turns out that it's not just the consulting firms, who play this game any more.
Nowadays, it's the entire job market.
In her book, Nickel and Dimed, Barbara Ehrenreich points out that many organizations that hire blue-collar positions (i.e., cleaning ladies, waitresses, janitors, etc.) make a point of placing advertisements every so many weeks due to the high levels of turnover in their industries. In other words, an ad is printed regularly every few weeks just to ensure a steady supply of resumes and applicants so the organization can be ready at a moment's notice in the event someone jumps ship or changes jobs.
Which would be perfectly reasonable if it weren't for one ugly truth: Organizations following this practice seldom if ever admit to their applicants that the interviews they are scheduling are "pipeline interviews" vs. actual vacancies that need filling. Put more simply, if you're an applicant, you never know whether you're interviewing for an actual job or as part of someone else's monthly candidate review quota.
So, what's the impact of this practice? Well, on one hand it does what it sets out to achieve: It gives the company a steady supply of resumes and viable candidates who are ready to assume positions if/when they appear. But on the other hand, it does a tremendous disservice to the applicant who spends a great deal of time preparing to interview for a position that, in the end, does not even exist. It also costs the company thousands of dollars every year in terms of staff time since the people whose schedules are disrupted to interview and evaluate this person must ultimately admit that their evaluations and summations amount to a colossal waste of time if the company has no interest in hiring someone.
Or to be absolutely blunt: People whose time could be better spent more productively are instead required to become part of an elaborate charade that serves neither their interests nor the candidates' in the long run.
In fact, one could even argue that this practice actually hurts the organization more than it helps since the disgruntled applicant is far more likely after such an experience to dissuade friends and colleagues from applying to the company after such mistreatment. "Don't bother applying there," they will say. "I went through several interviews with them only to find out at the end that they were in a hiring freeze." Moreover, in the digital era, it's not difficult for a deceived or misled applicant to vent his or her frustrations anonymously on any one of a number of job-related Web sites such as Glassdoor or the Vault. Over time, as the power of the Web reaches further and further, such practices will undoubtedly lead to increasing numbers of disgruntled applicants venting their frustrations electronically and dissuading competent applicants from bothering to apply to a particular firm. While one or two negative postings might easily be overlooked, such contentions become increasingly difficult to dismiss as the number of mistreated applicants increases.
Or put more succinctly, over time, applicants' information pipelines may yet someday rival those of the companies where they apply for positions. That will be an interesting dynamic indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment