When Tash Sanjay joined Clemenger Group’s Retail Services business as its HR director, she was given a tough remit to hire 400 casual workers in just four weeks.

“So I was new to the company. A quick analysis of our hiring technology showed that the ATS itself was the problem. We were operating very manually, almost not using the ATS to its full functionality, because it wasn’t good. So we decided that we needed to upgrade our ATS, but then we discovered Sapia.ai.

“We’ve been with Sapia.ai for about 12 months now. The solution for us has been game-changing: We actually couldn’t function, given the amount of hires that we do, without it. Speed to hire was critical.”

Going beyond speed to hire

But Tash quickly learned that speed wasn’t enough to properly service its clients. Clemenger Group needed to match candidates accurately to skills and values.

“The initial reason to go with Sapia.ai was speed to hire. But now, it’s become much more of a talking point about the holistic benefits of AI, and our clients that we have are wanting to understand more about that. That it is a point of difference for us. It has been groundbreaking for us.”

Tash came across many other assessment and conversational AI platforms but found none that could satisfy both efficiency and deep talent intelligence.

“We saw that there were many traditional personality tests, and that sort of thing. They were interesting to me in the sense that it’s a good way to differentiate candidates quickly, but nothing was tailored to what our business values were. We didn’t have the choice element. So what I like most about implementation with Sapia.ai was that it could tailor models and personality traits to specific roles, like a retail-based role. 

“We were able to edit those models to align with our values, and the other products in the market didn’t allow for that. The other providers have old school solutions, like Myers-Briggs type personality tests. There was just no flexibility.

The thought of AI for recruitment creates uncertainty and fear. Tash was quick to point out to her team that Sapia’s technology would not replace them, but empower and improve their decisions.

An AI that empowers TA and hiring managers

“I came into a business that was very conservative and traditional. So to go to AI was the best step for them. A company like ours would traditionally have an outsourced recruitment solution. The benefit of having an in-house one is personalization, and the fact that you are speaking to someone. So we convinced them that AI doesn’t actually remove that, it just gives us a way to get to the right candidate and have that personalized conversation.”

Sapia has taken the Clemenger team by storm. You wouldn’t think recruitment could be fun, but that’s exactly how Tash describes it.

“So when we get an application through, say, an Indeed platform, the way we operate is we actually automatically send them the link. Effectively, everyone gets an interview, and we advertise it that way. This has been a huge competitive advantage.”

“Launch day was really fun. Everyone was sitting there saying, ‘How many have we got? How many have completed it?’ And I was tracking it by the second, refreshing the dashboard to show them. So that was fun.

“Candidates are loving it too. They love the speed and the ease.”

And when Clemenger reaches out to top candidates, they have comprehensive profiles and tailored follow-up questions to drive the discussion forward.

“If you look at our candidate feedback through the dashboard, everyone’s saying, ‘Oh, that was actually super easy. That was a great experience. That was so much quicker. I actually prefer not talking to someone’.

Personalized candidate experience

“And when you’ve had the conversation, I think what I love most is, as I said, the personalization. It was the key to our business. We can jump on a call and say, ‘Congratulations – can we ask you another question?’ And these questions are built by referring to comments that candidates have made in their interview or things that they’ve said.”

Across the board, it’s a love-fest.

“[Sapia.ai] is second-to-none. Everyone at Clemenger is bought into the platform. I think it’s funny now when I go to client pitches, and my team mates are saying, ‘We have this tool, and we can effectively hire candidates in minutes.’

“So it’s nice to see that they’ve come on the journey.”

Most candidates aren’t being rejected – they’re being ghosted. Mentions of ghosting on Glassdoor is up 450% since the start of COVID. We know that it’s bad for employer brand and long-term prospecting, so why does silent candidate rejection happen so often?

Here are some of the causes most commonly cited for ghosting candidates:

• Our hiring team is understaffed and overworked, and we don’t have the time to get back to everyone
• Our recruitment system is difficult to use, and through sheer volume we lose track of people
• Our recruitment system does not facilitate the automation of tailored rejection emails
• We don’t know exactly what to say, or do not feel qualified to give detailed feedback

We’re not out to bash recruiters, talent acquisition professionals, or hiring managers. Finding talent during the Great Resignation is difficult. Time is precious. Offering everyone a high-touch candidate experience, therefore, seems far beyond scope. 

Problem is, candidates expect feedback. At the very least, they need closure. Rejection by silence has a unique sting. Consider the following responses, offered by people who applied for jobs and were either ghosted, or received a templated rejection:

“Discarded. Treated like number.”
“Crushed. Doubted my competence and value.”
“Depressed, unsure of reasons, uncertainty with quality of CV and skills or experience.”

The preceding is part of a new study, What Type of Explanation Do Rejected Job Applicants Want? Implications for Explainable Ai, by researchers at UNSW, Australia. It aims to prescribe an ideal framework for positive candidate rejection. 

Here is a snapshot of some of the findings. 

Candidates want these specific reasons for not making the cut

This point may sound obvious, but here it is: 53% of study respondents wanted to know why they did not make the cut. Just under a third wanted to know how they might improve, and 12% of respondents wanted to find out more about the competition – including whether or not the successful candidate was an inside hire.

According to the wants of candidates, when crafting a rejection letter, it is recommended that you focus on at least one of these factors:

• Interview performance
• Presentation of CV
• General comment on skills, qualifications, or level of experience
• Characteristics of the successful applicant
• Candidate ranking in the total number of applicants (i.e. “it was between you and one other person”)

If possible, err on the side of extra transparency. If it was an inside hire, say so. If the losing candidate was neck-and-neck with the winner, tell them. People want the truth, it seems, and without sugar-coating.

Candidates believe they are owed an explanation for their effort

This is interesting: As part of the study, respondents were asked how much they would pay for a tailored explanation for rejection. 44% of respondents said they wouldn’t pay anything for feedback; 25% of respondents said they might pay more than $20. 

We might first surmise from this result that applicants don’t place value on feedback, but this isn’t the case; for the most part, they believe they have already paid for it. Said one respondent, “The idea about paying for feedback is idiotic and I beg you not to put it into the universe. If I take the time to apply for a job they should have the courtesy to provide feedback. Job hunting is hard enough and expensive don’t add more cost to excuse inexcusable conduct.” Fair enough.

Automating candidate rejection: The best way to retain candidates as advocates

Phai, our smart interviewing Ai, gives every single one of your candidates an interview. But it also provides tailored personality insights and coaching tips to every single one of your candidates, whether or not they are successful. 

We do this because we can quickly and accurately analyse how people align to the HEXACO personality inventory. It’s high tech stuff, but the result is what matters: More than 98% of candidates love the feedback they receive, and rate it as useful. We help people understand themselves better, and equip them to attack jobs with the techniques best suited to their personalities. 

If you’re using Phai, that means you’re really helping people. If that wasn’t enough of a reward on its own, know that good candidate feedback is also helping your employer brand immeasurably. It’s a dream solution for volume hiring.