Candidate Experience Awards 2012 UK research paper

The Candidate Experience Awards | The Candidate Experience 2012, United Kingdom 1
support@thecandes.org
Candidate
Experience
2012
Contributing Authors
Gerry Crispin, Ed Newman, Elaine Orler,
Bill Boorman, Leigh Carpenter, Jillyan French-Vitet
and Joseph P.Murphy
Sponsored By
Talent Collective, Monster,
KellyOCG, ChangeBoard, Peer Group, and
HireRight
United Kingdom

Foreword
Dear Reader,
The Candidate Experience Awards are the brainchild of the Talent Board, a not for profit
group of recruitment industry experts who wanted to ensure candidate experience was a
priority on the talent acquisition agenda.
We are proud to be sharing the main findings from the inaugural U.K. Candidate Experience
Awards (known as “the CandE Awards”) with you. When the Talent Collective agreed to help
get the awards up and running in the U.K., having been inspired by the first awards held in
North America in 2011, we weren’t too sure if our enthusiasm for the topic would be shared by
others in the U.K. recruitment market. We need not have worried; the U.K. CandE Awards got
off to a flying start.
The CandE Awards are designed to highlight the innovative practises, technologies and
standards that some of the most forward-thinking employers are implementing to enhance all
aspects of their talent acquisition process. The winners are raising the bar to let candidates
know their investment, time and interest in the company are valued, and the CandE Awards
offers industry recognition to those employers.
The CandE Awards, while an awards programme, are also designed to provide confidential
and specific feedback to help every participating organisation improve its candidate
experience efforts. All companies that participate have the opportunity to 1) benchmark their
candidate experience against peers’ provided experiences, and 2) participate in the CandE
Awards survey of their employment candidates.
This report, “Candidate Experience 2012, United Kingdom” is based on the data collected
during the employer application and candidate survey rounds of the 2012 U.K. Candidate
Experience Awards.
Please consider this report as an open source document. It’s written for everyone in the
industry who cares about the candidate experience. It’s intended to engage talent
acquisition leaders, recruiters, vendors, consultants, analysts and candidates in a two-way
dialogue about the standards, technologies and expectations that affect us all at some point
in our careers.
Everyone who cares about the candidate experience should feel free to participate by
reading it, using the data to inform decisions about their recruitment process, and share it with
others.
Our hope is that this report sparks and elevates the candidate experience conversation, and
inspires you, whatever your role in the talent acquisition process, to create the strategies that
will continue to advance it in the future.
Regards,
Jeremy Tipper
Talent Board member and managing partner at the Talent Collective

Table of Contents
2012 CANDIDATE EXPERIENCE AWARD WINNERS, UNITED KINGDOM ................................................................ 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................................. 5
PHASE I – CANDIDATE ATTRACTION ....................................................................................................................... 6
THE INITIAL RELATIONSHIP ...................................................................................................................................................6
ONLINE AND TRADITIONAL COMMUNICATION METHODS.....................................................................................................7
EMPLOYER COMMUNICATED CONTENT OF WHICH CANDIDATES ARE AWARE ....................................................................11
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYER ATTRACTION INITIATIVES EARLY IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN.....................................................................13
COLLECTING CANDIDATE FEEDBACK DURING THE ATTRACTION PHASE...............................................................................13
PHASE II – EXPRESSION OF INTEREST..................................................................................................................... 15
THE APPLICATION PROCESS .............................................................................................................................................15
SCREENING AND KNOCK OUT QUESTIONS........................................................................................................................16
COLLECTING CANDIDATE FEEDBACK DURING THE EXPRESSION OF INTEREST PHASE..............................................................17
EXPRESSION OF INTEREST – AN OVERALL VIEW..................................................................................................................20
PHASE III – CANDIDATE DISPOSITIONING BEFORE THE FINALIST STAGE............................................................. 22
THE EVOLUTION OF THE “BLACK HOLE” ............................................................................................................................22
ACTIVE LISTENING BEFORE THE FINALIST STAGE...................................................................................................................25
CANDIDATE DISPOSITIONING BEFORE THE FINALIST STAGE – AN OVERALL VIEW ..................................................................25
PHASE IV – CANDIDATE EVALUATION & SELECTION ........................................................................................... 27
PRELIMINARY SCREENING RESOURCES ..............................................................................................................................27
THE JOB INTERVIEW..........................................................................................................................................................28
CANDIDATES ACKNOWLEDGE USE OF ASSESSMENTS .........................................................................................................32
EMPLOYER COMMUNICATION FOLLOW THROUGH ............................................................................................................32
CANDIDATE AS DECISION MAKER ....................................................................................................................................33
CANDIDATE SELECTION ...................................................................................................................................................34
THE GOLD STANDARD – WOULD CANDIDATES APPLY AGAIN? .........................................................................................35
SHARING FEEDBACK........................................................................................................................................................35
FINAL WORDS ......................................................................................................................................................... 36
THE CANDIDATE EXPERIENCE AWARDS 2013....................................................................................................... 37
THE CANDE AWARD PROCESS DESIGN ................................................................................................................ 38
ABOUT THE RESPONDING EMPLOYERS AND CANDIDATES ................................................................................. 40
ABOUT THE EMPLOYERS ...................................................................................................................................................40
ABOUT THE CANDIDATES .................................................................................................................................................41
ABOUT THE TALENT BOARD AND THE CANDIDATE EXPERIENCE AWARDS ......................................................... 42
ABOUT THE SPONSORS........................................................................................................................................... 44
ABOUT THE JUDGES................................................................................................................................................ 45
ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS................................................................................................................ 45
2012 CANDIDATE EXPERIENCE AWARD WINNERS, NORTH AMERICA................................................................ 46

2012 Candidate Experience Award Winners, United Kingdom
2012 With Distinction Winner

Executive Summary
Having completed the U.K. inaugural year, the Candidate Experience Awards (known as the
CandE Awards) started in North America in 2011. This year’s programme attracted a range of
participating employers, job candidates and sponsors. The programme is supported by many
sponsors, and the research data was based on 857U.K.- based candidates and 17,500 in North
America. The benchmark results and participation emphasise that candidate experience and
its impacts are valuable to both employers and candidates. Employers are taking notice and
working to improve candidate experience as they seek, evaluate and hire the talent that they
need to build successful workforces.
The landscape in the war for talent is shifting. Candidates are gaining equal footing with
organisations regarding perception, communication and the ability to choose whether or not
to maintain engagement. As the talent playing field levels, organisations which recognise this
evolution in candidate-employer partnership will have an edge when it comes to employment
and overall brand, candidate interest to re-engage and even refer future talent regardless of
whether or not they have been dispositioned or withdrew from the hiring process.
Some key findings from this year’s awards and benchmarking programme follow:
 49.3 per cent of the candidates claim some positive relationship with the company prior to applying.
This includes just over one fifth citing they were existing customers and 11.5 per cent having friends
and family working at the company.
 Referred candidates are four times more likely than non-referred candidates to receive an offer.
 Prospect and candidate engagement through Connections on LinkedIn (73.7 per cent), Facebook
(41.4 per cent), Google+ (23.5 per cent) and Glassdoor (11.4 per cent) are significant and growing.
 On a positive note, the theoretical ’black hole,’ where no status or notification is ever forthcoming,
seems to be a decreasing practice among the firms that competed for the 2012 Candidate
Experience Awards. While more employers are providing notification to candidates and are willing
to provide feedback to dispositioned candidates when asked, few have made it a standard
practice to do so. As per candidate responses, the majority received standard non-specific
feedback, and more than one-third received no feedback at all.
 Nearly half (47.1 per cent) said that they asked candidates – whether or not they were qualified –
for feedback if they were not advanced to the Finalist evaluation phase. Nearly 53 per cent of
employers are missing a meaningful opportunity to better understand their processes and the
impact that they have on candidate experience. The vast majority (76.3 per cent) of candidates
said they were not asked to provide any feedback once they were notified they were no longer
being considered.
 Candidates responded (66.7 per cent) “no” when asked if employers were interested in learning
about their experience in applying for a job despite the fact they withdrew from the position.
 According to 2012 employer application results, the majority (70.7 per cent) have practises that
require qualified candidates (not among the Finalists) be informed with a standard script or with
feedback – much higher than the 50 per cent of employers that have those same requirements for
unqualified candidates.
 Shouting Out: The majority of candidates are ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’ to tell their ‘Inner Circle of Friends’
(~5) about their experiences whether it is positive (72.7 per cent) or negative (61.7 per cent). A
growing and significant number are willing to go further and share their positive (27.6 per cent) and
negative (16.7 per cent) experiences with EVERYONE via blogs, Facebook and sites like Glassdoor.
 Ultimate test of your employment brand: In the end, fewer than half (45.9 per cent) of candidates
surveyed were likely or highly likely to refer others to the employers they were surveyed about. More
than half (53.8 per cent) were neutral and nearly 1 out of 10 (10.3 per cent) would not.

Phase I – Candidate Attraction
The Candidate Attraction phase of the recruiting process examines the period of time when
the individual actively investigates a firm to decide whether or not they will apply. In its simplest
form, this represents the conversion of an employment prospect to a candidate.
To better understand how employers treat their prospects during this phase of hiring – and
learn which factors have the greatest impact in their decision to become candidates – the first
series of 2012 U.K. Candidate Experience survey questions probe employers on their
communication tactics, employment messaging, and the level of transparency as it relates to
those messages in this early stage.
It is increasingly challenging for organisations to differentiate themselves and establish how
their values, culture, products and people represent a unique opportunity for top candidates.
The 2012 U.K. Candidate Experience survey also sought to understand how aware
employment prospects are with respect to the company’s products, services, people, culture
and opportunities before becoming candidates.
As communication trends continue to evolve and intensify due to social media, and more
social recruiting tools and tactics develop; the initial attraction phase gains yet another facet
for delivering and receiving employment branding messages. Both challenges and
opportunities surface as a result. To better understand employers’ and candidates’ tactics and
awareness, respectively, the 2012 survey also queried participants on social media usage
during this early Attraction stage.
Overall, and not surprisingly, employers competing in the U.K. CandE Awards viewed their
practises related to Attraction as positively skewed. The majority (61.2 per cent) said the
experiences they provide are Advanced, 22.2 per cent reported Neutral, and few (16.8 per
cent) said it was Lagging. Generally, candidates agreed with 60.3 per cent reporting an
Advanced experience, 20.5 per cent Neutral, and 19.2 per cent Lagging.
The Initial Relationship
The question below was posed early in the candidate survey and offers telling insight into
Attraction. A significant number of the 857+ candidates who applied to the companies in the
CandE Awards initiative (49 per cent) claim some
relationship at the outset. There is a clear, initial,
positive pre-disposition toward the employer,
which suggests that positive
association is ultimately the
employers’ to lose, and echoes
the importance of effective
candidate relationship
management (CRM).
What was your relationship with the
company when you began
researching them?
Candidate Viewpoint Question 5
(n=728)
50.7 %
I had no
relationship with
the company
20.9 %
I was/am a
customer of the
company
11.5 %
I have Friends/
Family w/the
Company
10.9 %
I follow the
company
6.0 %
I am an advocate
for the company

While just less than half the surveyed candidates report a positive pre-disposition, a significant
portion (50.7 per cent) is left to be ‘engaged’ with content relevant to the prospect’s decision
to become a candidate. It is these neutral prospects that employers might want to
concentrate on influencing through branding messages, marketing tactics, choice of media,
etc.
Online and Traditional Communication Methods
From social media and blogs, to mobile career apps and company career sites, it is no surprise
that the number of online recruiting media is growing as rapidly as everyday communication
trends. To better understand how widely employers are including these venues in their
attraction and recruiting strategies, the 2012 U.K. CandE Awards survey asked employers to
detail to what extent (on a range from “We Do Not Use” to “Extensive”) they leverage online
communication methods.
How do employers communicate ‘online’ with prospects BEFORE they apply?
Employer Application Question 21
Top Five Methods
88.9% Career Site (primary)
76.5% LinkedIn Company Pages
76.5% Career Site (Notifications)
72.2% LinkedIn Groups
47.1% Twitter Feeds
Do Not Use
66.7% Chat Room
64.7% Webinars/Podcasts
52.9% Talent Community Memberships
47.1% Polls/Surveys
44.4% Career Blogs
For prospect attraction, employers consistently rely on web and social networking base media
to communicate with candidates. Top cited media included their Career Sites (88.9 per cent,
Routine and Extensive), LinkedIn Company Pages (76.5 per cent) and Twitter Feeds (47.1 per
cent Routine and Extensive Use, with 29.4 per cent in the experimental stages). Twitter is, not
surprisingly, gaining ground although, given the almost universal penetration of mobile devices
in the general population, employers, disappointingly confirm here what many already know –
that many firms are far behind on the curve to enable their content and communications with
mobile devices.
In a world where companies seek to leverage their brand and use multiple channels to cast a wider
recruiting net, Candidate Attraction provides an opportunity to gain competitive advantage by
attracting the right talent vs. all talent. Employers benefit most when they know their talent audiences
and focus on messaging candidates deem important to determine fit. Better honed content regarding
an organisation’s culture, business unit or department, or where an opportunity is located, for
example, serves to invite talent to explore who the company is. Leveraging channels which align to
how talent communicates enhances messaging. Brand leverage is important, however, it is not
necessarily the determining factor of a candidate’s choice in electing to apply to an organisation.

While employers are flocking to certain online recruiting
methods, they have not yet abandoned some of the more
traditional venues during the Attraction stage. For example,
responding companies reported that they’re most heavily
invested in Employee Referral Programs (88 per cent) and
Direct Calls [Cold Calling] (82 per cent). These
communication methods rely on one-on-one personal
interactions with the companies’ employment prospects.
Employers are also heavily invested in traditional outreach
methods particularly for reaching new graduates. Internship
Programs (70 per cent) and Career Fairs (71 per cent) are
listed as some among the most used traditional
communication methods for attracting prospects before
they apply for full-time opportunities.
How do employers communicate
‘traditionally’ with prospects BEFORE
they apply?
To understand the impact of employers’
online and traditional communication
efforts, the 2012 U.K. CandE Awards
queried candidates on the ways in
which they accessed information about
the company prior to applying for a position. The good news is that companies are investing in
a number of venues that candidates regularly access. Among those marked Aware and Used
by candidates were the Company’s Career Site (65 per cent), Career Site Agents (47 per
cent) and LinkedIn Company Pages (26.5 per cent).
Unexpectedly, only 17.5 per cent of candidate respondents indicated that they were aware
of and used employees within a company to become their “referral.”
“Other” Online
Communication
Methods Reported by
Employers in the
Attraction Phase
- YouTube content
- Links with colleges
- Visioning boards
- SEO strategies and
solutions
- Alumni networks
- HR awards
programmes
- RMS job boards
- Niche job sites
- Job alert technology

While employers report that they experiment with more social and mobile Online
communication methods (such as Facebook Career Pages), the 2012 U.K. CandE Awards
survey data suggests that candidates are aware of these venues, but do not weigh the
information provided there in their decision to apply to an open position with the employer. It
will be interesting to watch how these trends evolve over the next few years as social media
offers both employers and job seekers more features and the world continues to adopt a more
mobile-enabled lifestyle.
Candidates are clearly using a few sites quite
extensively in their job search activities.
Prospect and candidate engagement through
Connections on LinkedIn (73.7 per cent),
Facebook (41.4 per cent), Google+ (23.5 per
cent) and Glassdoor (11.4 per cent) are
significant and growing.
Recruiting activities are becoming increasingly
social. Select the social networks you actively
engage with for your job search efforts.
Candidate Viewpoint Question 12 (n=464)
2012 U.K. CandE Awards Winner Spotlight: Avanade Walks in the Candidates’ Shoes
Avanade, a business technology solutions provider, understands the needs of candidates and
regularly tests their own systems and recruitment processes, walking in the candidates’ shoes.
Based on feedback from candidates about their application process, they adopted a three
click rule and shortened the process.
It shouldn’t be difficult for employers to review their own recruitment processes. Doing so may
include searching for one of the company’s jobs on the web and following all the steps
required to apply. Like 2012 U.K. winner, Avanade, companies can capture the number of
page changes, brand changes and number of times the candidate has to create an account
to log in. Employers should also consider how long it takes to apply to the position. Would they
be willing to do all of those tasks all of the time? Organisations can then create a list of
changes that would simplify and enhance the process for candidates, positively impacting the
impression they make on potential hires.
Avanade also focuses on open communication with candidates. The company provides
contact details of recruiters in automated emails, generated via the applicant tracking system
(ATS) and encourages candidates to contact them. Two years of CandE research confirms
that two-way communication is key to any successful relationship, but a high volume of
response will significantly reduce the time available and opportunity for recruiters to do this. Full
transparency in public channels reduces applications, because people choose to opt out or
identify themselves as unqualified to apply. This creates the time needed to give a great
candidate experience to those who remain in the process.
73.7%
23.5%
41.4%
11.4%
21.3%

Despite heavy use of social media
in the job search, the information
provided has little impact on their
decision to apply for a job. This
may be a reflection of the lack of
mobile compatibility, (when job
seekers are browsing the web in
down time), and the redirect from
social media to career site to ATS,
with little opportunity to complete
the whole application process
within the channel.
Unsurprisingly, LinkedIn dominates
in the areas of candidate
engagement and prospecting.
This reflects the growing trend
amongst direct employers to
move to a direct sourcing model
via LinkedIn, as reflected in the
CandE winners interviews, with
direct sourcing being cited as a
big factor in improving the
candidate experience. With the
launch of a dedicated U.K. site by
Glassdoor during 2013, we can
expect this destination to grow in
importance.
What is your experience with the online recruiting
methods of the company?
Candidate Viewpoint Question 8 (n= 506)
Aware,
USED
Aware,
NOT
USED
Not
Aware
Career Blogs 16.2% 25.9% 57.9%
Career Site (Primary) 65.1% 19% 16%
Career Site Notifications 47.2% 26.5% 26.3%
Chat Rooms 6% 22.1% 71.9%
Facebook Company
Career Pages
14.6% 31.1% 54.2%
LinkedIn Company
Pages
26.5% 35.5% 38%
LinkedIn Groups 15.8% 34.1% 50.1%
Mobile Job Apps 10.3% 24.3% 65.4%
Mobile Text-Messaging
Campaigns
5.2% 19.3% 75.6%
Polls/Surveys 11% 21.7% 67.3%
Twitter Feeds/
Notifications
8.3% 26.9% 64.8%
Talent Community
Memberships
6.5% 20.3% 73.3%
Webinars/Podcasts 9.8% 20.8% 69.5%
2012 U.K. CandE Awards Winner Spotlight:
General Electric (GE) Capital Ensures Hiring Manager are Accountable Too
GE Capital recognises the importance of hiring manger involvement in all stages of the
recruitment process. Internally, the organisation awards a Candidate Experience Award to two
hiring managers each year based on candidate feedback. The company has found that the
more hiring managers are involved in the process in all areas, including feedback and
communication, the better the experience for the candidate.
Without abdicating all responsibility, hiring managers are required to sometimes provide
specific feedback, and in some cases to facilitate communication with candidates directly, or
to be available for follow up.

Employer Communicated Content of
Which Candidates are Aware
The content an employer makes
available to candidates is a function of
their transparency, a term that is often
used but seldom defined.
The 2012 U.K. CandE Awards sought out
to better understand what content was
routinely made available in the
recruiting process and at what stages it
became available. The survey was
designed to help uncover whether that
information was easily found online at
an early stage, or if it was not shared
until much later in the hiring supply
chain when recruiter and candidate
are directly engaged and
communicating. The survey queried
employers and candidates about Marketing and Job Specific content. Job Specific content
includes more detailed demographics about the employees involved in hiring and managing
the position.
What marketing CONTENT do you make available (or that a job seeker might want to ask about)
BEFORE they apply?
Available through Website
100% Product Information
88.9% Values: i.e. Fit
83.3% Financial Information
76.5% Community/Sustainability Initiatives
72.2% Diversity - Culture
Not Available
50% Diversity by Level (Affirmative Action)
50% Diversity (Job Specialty)
47.1% Awards for Employee Experience
38.9% Diversity (Contact Info)
11.1% Financial Information
What Job/Position CONTENT do you make available (or that a job seeker might want to ask about)
BEFORE they apply?
Available through Website
100% Jobs - ALL
77.8% Job Descriptions
52.3% Frequently Asked Questions
47.1% Career Path Examples
44.4% Details of Application/Next Steps
Not Available
83.3% Simulations of Core Jobs
82.4% Contests and Games
77.8% Practice Tests Related to the Job
66.7% Number of Hires in Typical Year
66.7% Soon to be Posted Jobs
“It is encouraging to see employers experimenting with
a wide range of methods to communicate pre-hire.
The career site is unsurprisingly the primary source of
communication. Mobile apps and text messaging
received the second and third highest ‘do not use’
response. Given the significant growth in Smartphone
usage for web access, I would have expected greater
experimentation in this area. This will become critical in
candidate experience, as an increasing number of
potential employees move from desktop access to
mobile device, Traditional methods like career fairs
and career sites dominate communication. This might
make sense for active job seekers, but ignores the
passive browsers. Employer communication is still
largely broadcast, rather than engaging, with little or
no use of features like live chat.”
– Bill Boorman, U .K. CandE Awards judge

From the reported data, overall employers indicate that the more general the content, the
more willing they are to offer it at an earlier stage in the talent acquisition process. More
content, such as recruiter contact information, cultural content, how much the position pays,
how frequently a position becomes open, what happened to the previous incumbent, and
more, is less likely to be shared at the very start of the recruiting process. This data is more often
shared by employers with fewer candidates who advance and have direct contact with the
recruiter or hiring manager in the stages the follow.
In contrast to the employers’ description of their transparency, candidates report that they
decide whether or not to apply to an open position based on their awareness and use of the
Marketing and Job Specific content that is available to them during Attraction.
For the most part, candidates report that they are ‘not aware’ of much of the Content –
Marketing or Job Specific – that companies are curating and offering at the Attraction stage.
A job candidate’s interest is likely influenced by why they might want to work at the company
and why they would stay at the firm they are considering if offered a position. Just as a firm
seeks to assess the fit of a candidate, candidates are interested in the culture of that firm and
how the job (as it is presented by the employer) is aligned to the success of the firm.
Heightened participation in sites like Glassdoor and on social media align with this observation
as well. As Candidate Experience research continues, it is expected that focus on fit for
candidates is likely to differ by job level and type.
What is your experience with the company’s
marketing content available BEFORE you
applied?
Aware
(and used)
Not
Aware
Awards Received for Employee
Experience
18.6% 56.1%
Community and Sustainability
Initiatives
16.6% 56.6%
Financial Information 29.6% 43.8%
Product Information 40.1% 34.9%
Values: i.e. 'Fit' 32.6% 45.1%
Work Culture or Environment 42.7% 34.7%
Answers to 'Why' People Want to
Work Here
41.1% 35.9%
Answers to 'Why' People Stay Here 35.7% 39.9%
Diversity- Culture 34.4% 41.5%
Diversity- Contact Info for Affinity
Group Leaders
15% 59.1%
Diversity- Statistics for Company
(Affirmative Action)
16.9% 59%
Diversity- Statistics by Job Specialty 19.1% 56.9%
What is your experience with the company’s
making specific job related content available
BEFORE you applied?
Aware
(and
used)
Not Aware
Job Descriptions 63.7% 21.1%
Jobs- ALL (currently open) 55% 25.9%
Details of Application and
Next Steps
48% 32.2%
Benefits Details 38.5% 38.9%
Frequently Asked Questions 29% 45.7%
Assessment Focused on
Cultural Fit
31.1% 51.7%
Salary Ranges 30.5% 51.9%
Jobs- Open in the Recent
Past But Not Open Now
21.9% 52%
Career Path Examples 30% 48.9%
Overview of Recruiting
Process
36.1% 44.2%
Employee Testimonials 26.7% 52.1%
Recruiter Contact Information
by Job
31.9% 48.4%

Additional Employer Attraction Initiatives Early in the Supply Chain
Beyond internship and work experience programmes, many companies have substantial
career education initiatives at grad school, high school, vocational school, and special
education community programmes. Additional attraction methods in the education space
include special programmes at the university levels to help prepare students for their careers.
These initiatives can be an integral part of employers’ successful strategies; the 2012 U.K.
CandE Awards found that about 44 per cent of respondents participate in these programmes.
What’s more, the majority of those that do also participate in the development and
management of the programmes to enhance their employment brands within the developing
workforce.
Collecting Candidate Feedback during the Attraction Phase
Actively listening to prospects and candidates during each phase of the talent acquisition
supply chain is essential to optimising the candidate experience. Based on employers’ U.K.
Candidate Experience Awards applications, fewer than 1 in 5 (16.7 per cent) survey prospects
and candidates on their experiences before the individuals have applied for positions at their
companies.
Of those that do, employers report that they often rely on Online Surveys (66.7 per cent) and
Focus Groups (33.3 per cent) to gather prospect feedback. Additional methods include
standard discussions with the recruiter; phone- and email-based application walk-throughs
with candidates; requests at conferences, association events and job training sessions;
requests for feedback over social media channels such as LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, and
Google+; and direct follow up requests with all potential candidates during the phone
screening process. All (100 per cent) of the responding employers who say they collect
candidate feedback at this stage believe this practice is a standard part of their audit
process, the rest indicate that they do so whenever possible.
Employers’ Long-Term Attraction Strategies
Employers are invested in schools and college students, encouraging them to learn more about potential career
paths and resources, as well as their companies. Examples include:
 Industry-specific career fairs for high-school students;
 Working with public schools to offer industry-specific curriculums and programmes;
 Encouraging executives to share their expertise with the college community as adjunct professors;
 Resume-building and interviewing strategy workshops for vocational and community college students;
 Consulting and mentoring programmes
 Business simulation competitions for high school students;
 Providing students, parents, counselors, teachers and administrators with comprehensive online products to
help manage high school-to-college-to-career planning processes; and
 Summer jobs and internship programmes for high school and college students.

Active listening definitions emphasise that it is the person you are speaking with who
determines in the end whether you have listened. When posing a similar set of questions to the
employers’ random candidate-base, fewer than 10 per cent of the respondents realised that
the employers were interested and willing to listen (which is about half of what employers
reported).
Were you informed via the career site or a recruiter
that you would be surveyed about your job seeking
experience BEFORE you actually applied to a
position?
Talent Collective is a resourcing consultancy that, over two decades, has
helped companies to build and run internal talent acquisition and RPO
functions.
Talent Collective advises on recruitment strategy, helps organisations to
understand and navigate the recruitment technology market, and provides
implementation and training services that are delivered with both an eye for
innovation, but also a deep understanding of what really works.
Yes
15.2%
No
64.3%

Phase II – Expression of Interest
This aspect of the survey explores candidate experience at the moment when prospects
discover that they in fact are candidates. To the serious candidate, the expression of interest is
a big decision, and the point at which they are going through the conscious phase of
potentially leaving their current employer and joining another, or committing their future to a
hiring company. This does not imply that those candidates have any clear perception as to
how they have been evaluated and qualified, and if they are considered an applicant –
someone who is properly qualified, considered, and clearly interested in a specific position.
The Application Process
For the candidate, that defining moment
essentially occurs when they commit to sharing
their background with the employer. The ease
at which a candidate can provide this
information – through screening and testing,
the promise of privacy, feedback,
acknowledgement and setting expectations –
are critical challenges for the employer, and
are facilitated through its talent acquisition
technology, hiring protocols and professional
recruiters.
Most employers that applied to the 2012 U.K.
CandE Awards programme consider certain
aspects of the application that offer
convenience and acknowledgement – such
as an automated “Thank you” (100 per cent)
and the ability to upload and parse a resume
(100 per cent) – as standard. Matters of
compliance, such as offering a reason for why
gender and race questions were present on
an opt-in basis (72.2 per cent), automatic
“next steps” information (76.5 per cent) and
sharing a privacy policy (94.1 per cent) were
also common for most organisations.
However, still some aspects about the
application that candidates find important are
not yet common practice, even among those
employers that are at the leading edge of
candidate experience. These areas include
making the U.K. application available in
varying languages (50 per cent), sharing
details on how long it should take to complete
the application (16.7 per cent) – a feature that
is relatively common for applicant tracking
system technologies – and indicating how long the candidate’s background would be held
before being deleted (47.1 per cent).
Which of the following do you include in
your application process?
100% Submitting an application triggers an
automatic “thank you.”
100% The ability to upload a prepared résumé
or standard pre-populated profile to be
parsed for application fields is an
option.
94.1% An explanation of privacy commitments
– specifically with regard to the staffing
process – is explained in layman’s terms.
76.5% Submitting an application triggers a
reminder about “next steps.”
72.2% The reason for requesting race, gender,
veteran status, etc. is explained in
layman’s terms as part of the
application.
64.7% Contact information for concerns about
data privacy is included in the
application’s data privacy statement.
50% The application (in the U.K.) is available
in other language(s).
47.1% Privacy commitments include a specific
time frame when the data collected will
be deleted from the system.
44.4% As the job seeker finishes each section
there is an indication of the percent
completed or some other means to
determine how far along the candidate
is within the process.
29.4% Accommodation information for people
with disabilities is prominently displayed
at the beginning of the application.
16.7% The average/expected time to
complete the application is indicated
at the beginning of the application.

Screening and Knock Out Questions
Candidate experience from the candidate’s view point is impacted by how well they are
briefed and prepared for what is going to happen in the hiring process, and what they are
going to be asked to do, from questionnaires to detailed behavioural assessments. While it’s
not possible to generally conclude that the candidate experience is impacted by the level of
questioning, it is clear that candidates are subjected to an array of questions during the
application process, ranging from the general to the very specific. Considering human nature,
it’s likely that there is greater risk of application abandonment as questions become less
relevant and more tedious. Passive candidates are more likely to abandon overly burdensome
application processes. A lack of
clarity, as it relates to
expectations, and why questions
are asked can contribute to this
risk.
As more employers include
screening, knockout and testing
questions in their application
processes, candidates also grow
increasingly aware of these
elements. There are a number of
measures that employers can
take to ensure that candidates’
time is spent wisely while
completing the application.
When you applied, did you note any of the following?
68.5% Submitting the application presented an immediate “Thank you.”
59.7% Ability to upload or parse a prepared résumé or standard pre-populated profile for application was
an option.
56.9% The company’s privacy commitments with regard to the hiring process were explained in layman’s
terms.
49.2% The reason for requesting race, gender, veteran status, etc. is explained.
48.8% Submitting the application presented a reminder about “next steps.”
45.1% Contact info for concerns about data privacy was included in the application’s data privacy
statement.
43.1% Indication of the percent completed or some other means to determine how far along I was in the
process.
40.1% The average/expected time to complete the application was included.
39.6% Privacy commitments included a specific time frame when collected data would be deleted.
38.1% Information for people with disabilities was displayed at the beginning of the application.
33.6% Ability to use information from professional/social networking profile to apply.
When a candidate applies to an opportunity, they have begun
to invest their time with an organisation. For all of us, time is
precious and we seek to optimise it (through process
automation and ease of use of technology for example) and set
expectations for deliverables. Organisations that understand
and respect the time investment of candidates, even at early
stages of a recruitment process, may enhance the overall
perception of their talent audience. Inform candidates on
length and duration of an application process, privacy and data
retention timeframes, and confidentiality to deliver immediate
impact on how talent begins to frame its experience with the
organisation.

What kind of screening,
knockout or testing
questions are asked?
Employer Application
Question 33
Notably, many employers report that they ask general screening questions that allow non-
qualified job seekers to complete the application and reject them later (61.1 per cent). Just
16.7 per cent advance the job seeker to an exit with explanation that they do not qualify for
the position immediately. The results are mirrored for specific screening questions.
What Assessment and Testing
questions were you presented?
Candidate Survey Question 19
(n=363)
Collecting Candidate
Feedback during the
Expression of Interest Phase
The single best way for
employers to better
understand how well
candidate expectations are
set (and whether
assumptions about how
recruiting technology
performs as experienced by
the candidates) is to ask. According to the 2012 U.K. CandE Employer Application results,
nearly half of employers (45 per cent) do ask their candidates.

Do you ask Candidates to give you feedback about the
application process?
Unfortunately, only 44 per cent of the responding
employers ask candidates about their application
experiences. Of these, 75 per cent don’t do so until
much later in the process, and (by then) to a much
smaller pool of candidates. This is essentially confirmed
by the candidates who responded “no” (52 per cent)
when asked if employers were interested in learning
about their experience in applying for a job.
Today’s leading companies recognise that an emphasis on candidate experience is critical to
success in competing for talent in a demanding market. The CandE Report provides valuable
insight on what it takes to drive positive candidate experience and, most importantly, where
organisations have an opportunity to improve. The CandE Awards support commitment to
benchmarking and improving candidate experience. This commitment is about much more
than recruiting — candidate experience is an important component of a company’s brand
and, ultimately, its ability to grow and succeed.
Feedback needs to be collected in a consistent way, and in real time at every stage of the
process to bring about improvement in candidate experience. Without meaningful feedback
and data, companies can only work on gut feel and guess work.
2012 U.K. CandE Awards Winner Spotlight:
Risk Management Solutions (RMS) Provides High Touch Candidate Experience
RMS, a risk management company, understands that its business and the jobs for which it
recruits are not for everyone. As a result, RMS seeks to find and engage with a targeted group
of individuals that really fit what it is seeking.
Once RMS connects with these candidates, it’s important for them to make sure it remains
engaged in the recruiting process with a high touch recruiting process. RMS recruiters listen and
provide a two-hour daily chatter facility for all potential candidates to speak with a recruiter.
Fifty per cent of candidates using the chatter tool make it to the pre-screen interview with the
hiring manager or recruiter. In addition, sponsoring social games that fit the skills and interests
they are looking for in candidates, RMS strives to ensure that once the right candidates find the
organisation, there should be few reasons for these candidates to fall off in the recruiting
process.
RMS also focuses on candidate referral processes, and receives referrals from external
candidates including those who were not successful in their application. For RMS, this is a true
sign of how well the company manages its candidate relationships. This is an excellent
example of how candidates leaving the process with a positive experience and still play an
important role in an employer’s attraction strategies and recruiting results.
No
55.6%
Yes
44.4%

How do you collect feedback from the
Candidate as they apply?
Were you invited to provide feedback on the
APPLICATION process after you applied?
Innovation in the Application Process
Many organisations are making strides to provide candidates with an easy, direct and transparent
application process. Following are some of the ways that employers can enhance the process:
 Provide company or recruiter contact support details (email and phone), so that candidates
can contact someone directly regarding their application and working at the company.
 Deliver (automated) thank you emails that not only acknowledge receipt, but provide details
on next steps and contact information for the recruiting communications specialist that can
assist them moving forward.
 Online candidate helpdesks, live chat and social media offer direct and real-time support
candidates while they complete the application process.
 Send personal email notifications when the status of a candidate’s application changes.
 Commit to feedback timelines.
 Allow candidates to save and complete applications at a later time.
 Keep resumes on file for multiple job listings.
 Use video technology to share more about your company culture and the position.
 Offer a quick apply option that allows candidates to complete an application from their social
media (LinkedIn) profiles.
 Invite candidates to connect over social media after they’ve submitted their applications.
 Designate an internal resource to maintain communication and follow up with applicants
throughout the entire hiring process – start to finish.
 Implement a seven-click application process, making the process short and sweet for
candidates.

Expression of Interest – An Overall View
Despite the challenges associated with the general application phase, the vast majority of
employers and candidates report a positive or neutral experience during this phase of the
recruiting process. Employers said they deliver a Positive (65.5 per cent) or Neutral (17.6 per
cent) candidate experience during the application. 16.9 per cent offer that their candidate
experiences are lagging while candidates apply for an open position. Candidates offer
feedback in a similar vein.
Overall Candidate Experience
Rating during the Application
Process
Employer Application Question 37 &
(n=369)
Active Listening: Asking Candidates for Feedback
Just like candidates who value feedback during a recruitment process, organisations have an
opportunity to seek feedback from their candidates on their experience before/during/final stages of
the hiring process. Individuals have a tendency to appreciate ‘being heard’; assume large
organisations do not listen and value the exceptional companies which do. When candidates invest
their time and energy to engage with an organisation, they expect an investment in return. The
ability to give feedback, in a timely fashion, directly impacts a candidate’s perception of an
organisation, both now and in the future.
How an organisation attracts talent is a constant evolution; asking candidates, and receiving their
input benefits an over-arching talent acquisition strategy and can foster a deeper relationship with an
employers’ targeted talent audience.

Monster Worldwide, Inc. is the parent company of Monster.com, the premier global online
employment solution for people seeking jobs and the employers who need great people.
We've been doing this for over 10 years, and have expanded from our roots as a "job board"
to a global provider of a full array of job seeking, career management, recruitment and talent
management products and services. At the heart of our success and our future is innovation:
we are changing the way people think about work, and we're helping them actively improve
their lives and their workforce performance with new technology, tools and practises.
Monster's Promise
At Monster, we don't just sell better jobs, we help promote better lives.
Because, in the end, a better job is much more than just that. A better job is a better
experience; an experience that leads to better possibilities, better opportunities, better
relationships, better perspectives – all working together to improve life along the way.
So, simply put, our mission is to inspire people to improve their lives.
Learn more about how Monster’s innovative suite of products are helping employers improve
workers lives by improving the candidate experience.

Phase III – Candidate Dispositioning before the Finalist Stage
Candidates who have applied and are identified as unqualified, not considered or just not
competitive enough to be further evaluated are dispositioned by employers in any number of
ways. At the front end, the job application itself may have provided sufficient evidence for the
employer to determine not to go forward. However, at the back-end, some individuals are
ruled out as finalists after a considerable investment in virtual as well as face-to-face
evaluation. This is often the result of a direct comparison of the similarities and differences in
job-fit among the finalists.
As it relates to assessing candidate experience, it’s important to understand how and what a
firm is prepared to do to inform candidates about their status, as well as seek feedback from
them. The challenge organisations face in collecting meaningful feedback is that it is often
viewed as inversely proportional to the size of their operation, combined with compliance
requirements and company expectations. The greater the number of applications, particularly
unqualified applications, the harder it is (according to employers) to ask for and receive
feedback.
The Evolution of the “Black Hole”
Recruiters must deal with managing increasingly larger numbers of applicants that must be
dispositioned. A weighted average suggests that, in 2012, employers received on average 65
applications for every job opening and estimate that about 60 per cent of all candidates that
apply are unqualified, making it challenging to communicate personally with all unqualified
candidates unless there are clear incentives and tools to accomplish that task. Transparency
of minimum requirement pre-application can help eliminate this challenge, making it easier for
candidates to opt out if they are unqualified, and in turn reducing volumes and improving
efficiency.
How many applications do you receive for a
typical position?
What percentage are typically NOT qualified for
the position?
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%
fewer than 10
26 - 50
76 - 100
201 - 250
 “We provide contact details for candidates to call if they need support”
 “Our recruiters partner with candidates to guide them through the process, they provide interview
information and are in constant contact”
 “We provide feedback to all candidates who submit their CV”
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%
More than 90%
51%- 75%
11% - 25%

Only 11.1 per cent of the responding employers indicated they do not as a matter of course
tell unqualified candidates that they are no longer being considered. However, 39 per cent
either don’t require communication or reach out via automated message. Half of the
respondents are required to directly reach out to candidates, either with a standard script or
through recruiters who are trained to offer feedback. This “black hole” experienced by many
candidates can be avoided by setting clear expectations for recruiters, and line managers at
every stage in the process, as well as making progress visible on-line, so that a candidate can
check in and monitor their progress at any time.
How do you communicate with candidates who
are UNQUALIFIED?
How do you inform the QUALIFIED candidates
that don’t go on as Finalists?
With the remaining (qualified) candidate pool, next steps take each individual through further
evaluation. Typically additional screening takes place using computer-based assessments,
phone screening and other testing to reduce the number of candidates to a group of Finalists.
Half of all employer respondents will, at a minimum, phone screen qualified candidates to
create their shortlist; half also report they phone screen all qualified candidates sourced via
employee referral.
Then how are the qualified candidates who do not become
Finalists eventually dispositioned? According to 2012 U.K. employer
survey results, the majority (70.7 per cent) have practises that
require candidates be informed with a standard script or with
feedback – much higher than the 50 per cent of employers that
have those requirements for unqualified candidates.
In this case, employers also typically react to requests for feedback
by reverting to a ‘standard’ notification of status. Only 53 per cent
of the responding employers have established practises where the
recruiter or the RPO provider is (or is expected to be) accessible
and provide direct feedback.
“We communicate the
outcome of applications
throughout the process to
ensure candidates are aware
of the process.”

And if the qualified
candidates who aren’t
finalists ask for
feedback?
Employer Application
Question 43
While candidates may
not be happy with
learning bad news,
best practises for
employers include
sharing a status
update. Given the
time and effort that
candidates commit to
submitting applications
for consideration, they
deserve to be
acknowledged and,
when possible,
provided specific
feedback. Still, less
than one-third of surveyed candidates (30.1 per cent) reported that they received an
anonymous email indicating that they would no longer be considered. Some (35.4 per cent)
noted phone calls from recruiters and hiring managers. Nearly 13 per cent did not receive a
message on the status of their applications at all.
How did you learn you were not being considered for the position?
30.1% I received an email from a “do not reply” address notifying me I was not being considered.
24.7% I received a phone call from a recruiter notifying me I was not being considered.
19.4% I received an email from a recruiter notifying me I was no longer being considered.
12.9% I did not receive any communication prior to calling the recruiter to request my status.
7.5% I received an email from the hiring manager notifying me I was not being considered.
5.4% I was provided a link where I could check the status of my application independently.
3.2% I received a phone call from the hiring manager notifying me I was not being considered.
As more hiring companies move from transactional recruiting based on one job towards continuing
relationships with candidates through talent networks and talent communities (as operated by all of
the With Distinction winners), extra attention will need to be paid to how the rejection message is
delivered. The message should be “Not ‘not right,’ just ‘not right now.”
– Bill Boorman, U.K. CandE Awards judge

While employers are providing some form of notification to candidates and are willing to
provide feedback to dispositioned candidates when asked, few have made it a standard
practice to do so. As per candidate responses, the majority received standard non-specific
feedback, and nearly one-third received no feedback at all.
How did the company provide specific feedback to you? [Check the BEST answer]
31.2% No feedback was provided.
30.1% Standard template email was received without any specific details.
17.2% Phone call received from the recruiter/hiring manager, providing specific feedback and
answering my questions.
8.6% Phone call received from the recruiter/hiring manager providing general feedback.
7.5% Phone call received from the recruiter/hiring manager, but little feedback was provided.
5.4% Other
Active Listening before the Finalist Stage
Perhaps the biggest miss for employers is reflected in the data that follows. Just 47.1 per cent
said that they asked candidates – whether or not they were qualified – for feedback if they
were not advanced to the Finalist evaluation phase. More than fifty per cent of employers are
missing a meaningful opportunity to better understand their processes and the impact that
they have on candidate experience. By engaging individuals in this phase, employers can tap
the vast majority of their candidates – those that will walk away with a new impression of their
company based on the experience and rejection.
If this seems to be an embarrassing oversight, the responses from candidates are even more
critical. The vast majority (76.3 per cent) said they were not asked to provide any feedback
once they were notified they were no longer being considered.
As companies look to maintain relationships with candidates beyond the job stage, revisiting
their skills, experience and qualifications for future opportunities, then managing rejection in a
positive way will be critical for on-going relationships. Without feedback and data, this critical
stage is left to chance, with no real opportunity to evaluate and improve on candidate
experience.
Candidate Dispositioning before the Finalist Stage –
An Overall View
At this stage, in an overall rating, the results for responding
employers and candidates differ drastically. While the majority
(66.5 per cent) of employers report that they are able to
communicate effectively with both qualified and unqualified
candidates, just 25.3 per cent of candidates say they were treated
well when not selected. In fact, a large number (35.8 per cent)
reported a negative experience, followed by 38.9 per cent who
reported a neutral experience. While it is possible that negative
ratings are partially due to the overall sting of rejection, it is clear that there are steps that
employers and candidates can take to close the gap.
“We provide real feedback
that can help them with future
interviews or give detail on
what technical skills did not
make them a fit.”

Candidates’ expectations of better feedback at this stage do not appear to be met. If
employers do not collect feedback at this stage, they risk losing an opportunity to understand
those expectations, and the reasoning behind them, as well as the chance to meet them in
the future.
Companies’ ability to communicate with qualified and unqualified candidates &
Candidates’ ratings on how they were treated when not selected.
Employer Application Questions 46 & 47 & Candidate Viewpoint Question 38 (n=95)
From workforce consulting and outsourcing through to talent supply chain
management, we partner with the world’s leading companies to innovate the
talent solutions of tomorrow.
0%
Negative
22.2%
Positive
77.7%
Neutral
0%
Negative 44.4%
Positive
55.5%
Neutral
35.8%
Negative
25.3%
Positive
38.9%
Neutral
Quality of the communication
provided after NOT being selected.
The company’s ability to communicate
with QUALIFIED candidates that have not
been selected for an interview.
The company’s ability to communicate
with UNQUALIFIED candidates.

Phase IV – Candidate Evaluation & Selection
Employers take a generally organised approach with Candidate Evaluation. Candidate
Evaluation begins with data collected via the applicant tracking system and continues
through the use of traditional and emerging technology. A high volume of candidates per
requisition place a greater need for objective and fair evaluation methods. Companies are
challenged to dedicate resources to personally screen and/or evaluate each qualified
candidate.
More than 11 per cent of participating employers stated they receive more than 76
candidates per opening or requisition. Nearly six (5.6) per cent stated they receive more than
100 candidates per opening. While volume alone can cause a challenge, the situation is
exacerbated by the percentage of candidates who are determined to be unqualified for the
position. As a result, technology is often used to aid in determining which candidates are best
qualified for the position. However, too heavy a reliance on the ATS for selection means may
lead to only sharing automated notifications or rejections from “do not reply” mails rather than
personalised feedback. While the ATS is critical to effective hiring and providing a positive
experience, hiring companies should also collect on-going feedback from applying
candidates to ensure that the application process is user friendly, intuitive, relevant and as
short as possible, with clear instructions and on-line help.
Preliminary Screening Resources
Employers often turn to the applicant tracking
system (ATS) as the workhorse for facilitating job
applications. The ATS provides an interactive
database-structure to solicit, capture, sort and in
some cases rank or rate some degree of job fit for each candidate that applies. Of
participating CandE employers, the majority (83.3 per cent) indicate having one ATS in place.
ATS technology, in general, enables employers to
present candidates with questions that explore
basic or minimum qualifications. These questions
are typically presented to the candidate through
“Yes/No” or multiple-choice options. A recruiter
can quickly sort a population of candidates into
Qualified and Not Qualified categories based on
candidates’ responses.
Nearly three quarters (72 per cent) of candidates
who participated in the 2012 U.K. CandE Awards
survey stated they were asked basic qualification
questions during the application process. This
indicates the vast majority of companies are using
basic features of this technology to help identify
which candidates may be advanced for additional
evaluation, and which may be removed from
further consideration.
83.3% of employers use an ATS
Third Party Solutions Employers
Implement to Enhance Recruiting
Efforts
83% Applicant Tracking Systems
83% Job Distribution Services
83% Background Verifications
78% Employer Branding Services
72% Sourcing/Mining Solutions
67% Social Media Services
62% Candidate Relationship
Management
61% Reference Checking Provider
39% Onboarding Solution
39% Recruitment Process Outsourcing
17% Video Interviewing

Examples of best practises from the 2012 U.K. survey results include limiting the application
process to seven clicks, C.V. or résumé parsing for speed and convenience, issuing clear and
simple instructions at every stage and the opportunity to engage with recruiters throughout
the process. Hiring companies may reduce the volume of applications through greater
transparency and access to information at the pre-application stage, encouraging opt-out
from those who are unqualified or a poor culture match. In demand candidates will likely
have a lower tolerance for a lengthy, complicated or confusing application process, which
may lead to application abandonment.
Candidates were presented with…
72.1% general screening questions. i.e. Are you eligible to work in the U.K.?
49.2% a detailed questionnaire about their work history and preferences.
40.9% job specific questions. i.e. Are you able to lift 50 lbs.?
The screening questions typically presented by an ATS help eliminate the most unqualified
candidates. Factors such as eligibility, previous experience and physical requirements do not
identify differences that have a meaningful impact on job performance. That is, these
variables – while essential – do not define or isolate characteristics that contribute most to the
ability to achieve superior performance. Evaluation methods that examine performance
capabilities are required.
The Job Interview
The single largest evaluation method remains the interview. Each interview is a touch point
that presents an opportunity to select candidates and create a positive impression. By the
same token, each interview presents a risk for creating a poor impression by poor delivery. This
year’s U.K. CandE Award winners all indicated they provide comprehensive interview training
for recruiters and hiring managers. The organisations with the most comprehensive interview
skills development provide training for all those involved in candidate evaluation for each job
category from entry-level to executive. How employers use interviews for candidate screening
varies significantly. Some organisations (33.3 per cent) phone interview all qualified
candidates, no matter how many there are.
“The quality of
interviews was high -
comprising testing,
but fair, questions in
a supportive
environment.”
“I was interviewed by three
people in total, two were very
good and one was average,
but overall the process of
face-to-face interviews were
very good.”
“The job was different than the
one advertised. There was no
point attending the interview as
I was too experienced. They
should clearly decide what level
they wish to recruit at before
conducting interviews.”

Employers reported that they or their RPO provider…
72.3% phone screen qualified candidates to a finalist shortlist
(fewer than 10) and advance them for in-person interviews.
55.5% screen qualified candidates down to a finalist shortlist
(fewer than 10) and advance them for in-person interviews.
44.4% phone screen ALL qualified employee referrals.
38.9% phone screen ALL qualified candidates.
16.7% interview ALL qualified candidates, no matter how many.
The phone interview establishes personal contact with candidates and may set candidates’
expectations for further consideration. As the phone screen determines those not advancing,
employers should consider sending disposition communications after this step in their screening
processes. As noted in Phase III, various methods of communicating with those eliminated from
consideration are used, the most common approach being standardised emails that share
status updates with candidates.
How many interviews did you participate
in related to the position you applied to?
Candidates are able to observe
differences in interviewing and
evaluation methods. Candidates
described encountering a wide
range of behaviours from their
interview experience. Candidate
survey feedback addresses the range
of skilfulness of the interviewer and
the overall interview process.
The degree to which a company
comes across as professional and
prepared for an interview makes
a difference to the candidate
experience. Understanding the
potential impacts, several of the
U.K. CandE Awards finalists train
all recruiters and all hiring
managers on interviewing and
have behavioural interview
content available for all job levels.
Candidates said that about half of companies use prepared interview questions and take
notes on a structured form during the interview – both of which are recognised best practises
for improving the quality of the candidate evaluation.
How many interviews (on separate days) is it typical for you to
conduct with finalists? (Count virtual as well as face-to-face
but count several interviews during a day as 1.)
0 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 or
more
Hourly/Non-Exempt 23.5% 76.5% 0% 0%
Intern/College 0% 62.5% 25% 12.5%
Experienced Professional 0% 29.4% 64.7% 5.9%
Executive 0% 23.5% 52.9% 23.5%
45.3%
37.4%
12.2%
2.9%
2.2%
1 -
2
3 -
4
5 -
7
8 -
10
>
10
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00%

Forty-four (44) per cent of companies were recognised for taking the time to describe the use
of behavioural interview questions. This form of candidate education can contribute to a
thoughtful and thorough exchange.
Temp/
Contract
Intern/
Grad
Experienced
Professional
Executive
Panel interviews: multiple people interview the finalist 31.3% 62.5% 87.5% 87.5%
Varied interview approaches: hiring manager and
recruiter develop, plan and execute interview schedule.
37.5% 75% 93.8% 100%
Varied interview approaches: hiring manager and RPO
recruiter develop, plan and execute interview schedule.
33.3% 55.6% 55.6% 44.4%
Sequential interviews: recruiter then hiring manager,
etc., then selection is made.
33.3% 53.3% 73.3% 73.3%
Behavioural-based interviews are routine. 56.3% 75% 93.8% 81.3%
Testing/simulation/assessment are included 20% 80% 66.7% 46.7%
Recruiters must attend training or demonstrate
competency in interviewing skills.
53.3% 60% 73.3% 66.7%
Hiring managers must attend training or demonstrate
competency in interviewing skills.
50% 71.4% 78.6% 71.4%
Recruiters have specific training in accommodating
people with disabilities in the hiring process.
10% 20% 20% 20%
Recruiters are periodically observed/audited by
recruiting leaders during interviews.
36.4% 63.6% 72.7% 81.8%
Hiring managers are periodically audited by recruiting
leaders during interviews.
40% 50% 60% 60%
RPO recruiters are periodically audited by recruiting
leaders during interviews.
14.3% 14.3% 28.6% 14.3%
Company has mystery shopped the recruiting process
by applying and interviewing.
11.1% 11.1% 11.1% 11.1%
Employers also regularly use panel
interviews and group interviews.
However, the 2012 U.K. survey found that
employers generally fail to communicate
that expectation with candidates.
Candidates indicated that they felt
unprepared when faced with panel or
group interviews due to inaccurate or incomplete
information. Understandably, this miscommunication can
negatively impact candidate experience.
What are some of the typical interview selection methods? (Check all that apply)
“Feedback was poor, it was far too generic and not
helpful. There were too many interviews scheduled
for one afternoon – even though the overall
process took longer than expected, the interview
process was rushed.”

Interview structure and format should not come as a surprise to the candidate. Giving
candidates the opportunity to prepare is essential for a positive experience. More than half
(51.1 per cent) of candidates reported being required to attend a panel interview as part of
the selection process. This experience can be nerve-racking enough for a candidate looking
to make a positive impression, but the pressure is intensified when the panel comes as a
surprise. The survey results indicate that few candidates were advised that a panel interview
was going to take place.
Before the interview, candidates…
63.5% received interviewer names and background information prior to the interview event.
54.7% were provided a discussion of next steps for processes, expenses, etc. and a promise of
follow-up.
29.9% received a detailed agenda in advance of the interview.
23.4% were debriefed at the end of the day.
18.2% received a campus / facility tour during the interview event.
16.1% received interview transition support between each interview event.
16.1% reported that travel was fully coordinated by the employer.
13.9% received none of these items.
10.2% received an updated, printed agenda at the interview event.
4.4% received video information, tools and instructions prior to the interview.
Fifty-four (54) per cent of candidates were advised on the next step, timescales and
expectations, which means that 46 per cent were left in the dark. Coordinating candidates in
a timely and informed way should is also important for providing a positive experience. Care
and attention paid to the candidate at the critical selection stages may suggest the level of
Which interview methods did you experience during the interview cycle with the
company? (Check all that apply)
83.9% The interviewer(s) had a copy of their application or résumé with them.
59.1% The interviewer(s) used a set of prepared questions during the interview.
58.4% In-person sequential interviews were conducted (one interviewer at a time).
52.6% The interviewer(s) took notes on a structured form during the interview.
51.1% In-person panel interviews were conducted (Multiple interviewers at a time).
50.4% Phone sequential interviews were conducted.
34.3%
Tests, demonstration or role play, and / or assessment exercises were incorporated to
interview schedule.
29.2%
Behavioural-based interview questions were explained and used by each
interviewer.
19%
The interviewer(s) refer to or incorporated information /results from an assessment /
test completed in a previous step.
8.8% Virtual (video) sequential interviews were conducted.
5.1% Phone panel interviews were conducted.
1.5% Virtual (video) panel interviews were conducted.

care and attention the candidate can expect to be paid if they become employees, and
can impact their decision-making as the recruiting and screening process moves forward.
Video-based interviewing, an emerging service, has been adopted by 17 per cent of
participating CandE Award employers. A small number of candidates (fewer than 11 per
cent) indicate they have participated in a video interview. This may indicate the technology is
reserved for select job postings or jobs with fewer candidates.
Candidates Acknowledge Use of Assessments
The availability of assessment and testing resources – including skills and aptitude tests,
situational assessments, and behavioural, personality and job-fit assessments – was also
indicated by a significant amount of employers. Thirty-nine per cent stated they have one
resource and 27 per cent stated the use of multiple providers.
Candidates indicated that more than 29 per cent of companies openly
acknowledge and integrate assessment results during the interview.
These organisations may use assessment results to guide the interview to
verify or further explore insight obtained from an objective candidate
evaluation resource. The act of completing an assessment may create
interest on the part of the candidate to learn about the results and
possibly gain self-awareness from the
experience. The organisations that close
the loop with the candidate by discussing the result, or by
mentioning the interview will be guided by results, bring a
candidate-centric mind-set to the evaluation process.
Employer Communication Follow Through
The majority of participating employers (87 per cent) reported
that they follow up with finalists no longer being considered,
and that they communicate this next step with candidates. A
number of organisations (22 per cent) train their staff on how to
share updates on the candidate’s status – if they have not
been selected – demonstrating true care for these individuals.
Feedback is a critical part of a positive candidate
experience, and should be an area for serious consideration
in the selection process. The 2012 U.K. With Distinction winners
set key performance indicators (KPIs) for feedback on
progress, and the reasons candidates were not selected. A
best practises approach and fairness to candidates suggest
that timely and efficient feedback, especially that which has
future value to the candidate (even if they are unsuccessful),
can positively impact experience and employment brand.

Select the answers that best represent the level of information you were provided when notified that
you were not selected.
Candidate Viewpoint Question 35 (n= 93)
30.1% I received an email from a "do not reply" address notifying me I was not being considered.
24.7% I received a phone call from a recruiter notifying me I was not being considered.
19.4% I received an email from a recruiter notifying me I was no longer being considered.
12.9% I did not receive any communication prior to calling the recruiter to request my status.
7.5% I received an email from the hiring manager notifying me I was not being considered
5.4% I was provided a link where I could check the status of my application independently.
3.2% I received a phone call from the hiring manager notifying me I was not being considered.
Candidate as Decision Maker
A small percentage of candidates stated they self-selected out of the process after being
further considered (through a phone or in-person interview). The top three reasons included
salary (42.9 per cent), personal relationships with the recruiter/sourcers (28.6 per cent), and
feeling unqualified to fulfil the requirements of the position (28.6 per cent). These three
elements remind us that the candidate is a decision-maker too. The recruiting process
provides the candidate with a wide variety of data points to weigh and consider in their own
discernment regarding job-fit, culture-fit from their point of view.
Why did you withdraw?
42.9% The salary did not meet expectations.
28.6% Did not feel qualified to fulfil the duties of the position.
28.6% Did not have a good rapport with the sourcer, recruiter or other staffing personnel.
14.3% Didn't like or communicate well with the Hiring Manager.
14.3% The job was not as described.
14.3% No flexible work options such as remote worker, job sharing or telecommuting.
14.3% Relocation required - no assistance provided.
The communication process with candidates who withdraw was also seen as largely negative.
Of those that withdrew, nearly half (28 per cent) reported a Negative candidate experience.
What is of particular interest in this case is that it indicates a qualified candidate, one under
active consideration received some form of communication that detracted from their view of
the organisation. While not every candidate that withdraws might have been the best-fit, it is
important to leave those with a positive impression for future openings and to limit impact to
the organisation’s overall brand.

On the scale below (1-10), how do you rate the quality of
communication after decision to withdraw from
consideration with [Company]?
Candidate Selection
Making a hiring decision, while an act of judgment, is
complicated by a number of qualifying steps. As such,
finalist candidates must still advance through a series
of additional steps after they have been identified as
the candidate of choice. These sometimes include:
drug testing, background or security screening and
credit report review. Also impacting candidate
experience during Selection is the negotiation toward
a mutually acceptable total package for
employment by both the employer and candidate.
Background checking, while not typically an indicator or evaluation of job-fit or performance
potential, is undertaken as a form of verification of credentials, and employment and criminal
records. This is a form of risk management to minimize extending job offers to those falsifying
their accomplishments or with a track record of behaviours that may be counterproductive in
the work environment.
Which of the following statements were part of your experience in communicating with the
company through the offer and hire processes? (Check all)
61.3% The recruiter extended a verbal offer prior to sending a written offer.
54.8% Background verifications were conducted prior to or after the offer was extended.
53.8% Upon offer acceptance, additional services were provided to on-board you into the company.
49.5% The recruiter provided a written offer and followed up to ensure it was received.
44.1% The recruiter called to 'test' a potential offer with you i.e. "If we were to make an offer...."
35.5% The hiring manager extended a verbal offer prior to a written offer.
36.6%
The company provided multiple options to communicate goals, meet key team members, answer
questions, prior to the start date.
26.9% The hiring manager provided a written offer and followed up to ensure it was received.
20.4% A recruiter follow-up took place several weeks after start date.
17.2% Additional drug testing, credit reports, and/or security verification were conducted.
15.1% A recruiting experience focus group/debrief took place in first few days of start date.
15.1% A recruiting experience survey was completed prior to start date.
11.8% If relocation was included, help with relocation services were provided.
The 2012 U.K. winning companies interviewed reported that they were operating either a talent network or
talent community where on-going relationships with candidates are maintained regardless of the
outcome. Some employers are adopting candidate relationship management (CRM) technology for
maintaining relationships, as well as methodologies of sourcing from previous candidates for all new, open
positions.
– Bill Boorman, 2012 U.K. CandE Awards judge
Negative
(0 – 3)
27.8%
Positive
(7 – 10)
38.9%
Neutral
(4 - 6)
33.3%

The Gold Standard – Would Candidates Apply Again?
A company’s NetPromoter score indicates the likelihood that a customer will refer others to
that company. It is considered the gold standard for evaluating overall experience with that
company. To better understand the gold standard for candidate experience, the 2012 U.K.
CandE Awards asked job candidates whether or not they would apply at the company again,
and whether they would refer others to apply at that company. While the response rate is
skewed to the favourable end, it also documents that many candidates are left with a neutral
(25 per cent) or negative impression(15.6 per cent) for future personal interest and a neutral
willingness (53.8 per cent) to enhance a company’s sourcing though their referral actions.
Likelihood of Applying in Future
Likelihood of referring others to apply
Sharing Feedback
The majority of surveyed candidates are Likely or Very Likely to tell their Inner Circle of Friends
(~5) about their experiences finding, researching, interviewing, etc. for a job whether it is
positive (72.7 per cent) or negative (61.7 per cent). A significant number are willing to go
further and share their positive (27.6 per cent) and negative (16.7 per cent) experiences with
EVERYONE via blogs, Facebook and sites like Glassdoor. The effects of an employer’s
candidate experience have the potential to echo loudly, often and over time – impacting
their potential to recruit the talent that they need as well as the company’s overall brand.
How likely are you to vocalise
your recruiting experience
with your inner circle?
(n=417)
How likely are you to vocalise
your recruiting experience on
social media sites?
(n=415)
49.5%
45.9% (Likely – Highly Likely)
72.7%
61.7%
16.7%
27.6%
Inner Circle
Social Media

Final Words
The U.K. CandE Awards are designed to capture how companies produce their candidate
experience, with the goal of determining where employers can improve and highlighting
those organisations that are paving the way for an advanced experience. Candidates and
employers both play a crucial role in ensuring a positive experience. More individuals and
companies recognise this and are committed to optimising the talent acquisition process.
The Candidate Experience research not only assessed the employers’ practises during
screening and how they impact experience, but delved deep into the candidate’s role in the
process. A candidate that has a positive relationship with the employer prior to applying is
more likely to be hired. A candidate that is referred to the company is more likely to be hired.
Candidates are willing to share their experiences, and impact others’ relationships with the
company whether those experiences are positive or negative. Armed with this insight,
employers can work to foster open lines of communication with candidates from start to finish
– before they even apply and after they’ve been considered, regardless of the outcome.
As part of its primary mission, The Candidate Experience Awards recognise those companies
that understand how important experience is, and how deeply invested candidates become
as they advance in the screening and evaluation processes. By acknowledging the firms
whose practises are on the cutting-edge of the candidate experience, the employer
community can increase awareness of the choices they make and the concerns that are
growing within their future talent pools.
The Candidate Experience Awards continue to review and analyse the employer application
and candidate survey contributions. We look forward to sharing the results of the 2013 awards
and benchmarking programme.

The Candidate Experience Awards 2013
Employers who participate in The Candidate
Experience Awards enjoy the following benefits:
1) A confidential benchmark report that
compares their practises against the
aggregate of all respondents
2) A confidential candidate survey
administered by the Talent Board
3) Access to industry peers and experts on
the candidate experience
4) If applicable, industry recognition as a
leader in candidate experience
5) Participation in the Candidate Experience
Awards process is FREE
6) A RISK-FREE tool for improvement - the
identity of companies that do not win the
award are not disclosed
The 2013 Candidate Experience Awards are
open to all U.K.-based and North American
recruiting operations. Participation is
CONFIDENTIAL and FREE.
The 2013 survey will be available on The Talent
Board and Candidate Experience Awards (U.K.)
websites: http://uk.thecandes.org/ and
http://www.thecandes.org in Spring 2013.

The CandE Award Process Design
The 2012 CandE Awards programme was designed to evaluate how employers engage with
candidates during the employment application process. The CandE Award process involved
three rounds of evaluation that were designed to capture how the organisation produces its
candidate experience. The goal of the survey process was to enable companies to
confidentially benchmark themselves. The CandE Award process was risk-free for companies
in that their identities would only be disclosed if the company won an award. The process
particularly encouraged companies that feel their candidate experience was not “award
worthy.” Any company that participated received confidential and constructive feedback on
how to improve.
The CandE Award process was a survey open to any U.K.-based company recruiting
operation that was interested in benchmarking themselves. Round 1 required completing a
multi-dimensional survey that addressed:
Candidate Experience Phase Description
Candidate Attraction Refers to the content and actions candidates are
researching in order to determine their interest in
applying for employment with the company.
Expression of Interest Refers to the content and actions candidates are
completing when applying to a specific position
with the company.
Candidate Dispositioning Refers to the content and actions employers
leverage to address candidates who they deem as
not qualified for the position.
Candidate Evaluation Refers to the content and actions employers use
when engaging with candidates through the
evaluation and selection process.
Selected Candidate Refers to the content and actions when candidates
are selected for an offer and processed as a new
hire.
Each section of the Round 1 survey was designed to discern how organisations produce their
candidate experience. The questions examined the organisation’s processes, procedures and
priorities around candidate experience. Twenty-four companies initiated the process.
Round 2 consisted of a confidential candidate survey administered by the Talent Board on
behalf of the participating companies. The survey consisted of 50 questions, many of which
involved multi-select tables.
The Talent Board empowered 18 companies to provide their 2012 employment candidates
access to the Talent Board candidate experience survey. All organisations were required to
survey 2012 employment candidates in order to be considered in Round 2.

Companies administered their survey through a
combination of email campaigns and by providing the
survey link on their career portals. Companies were
encouraged to survey a broad spectrum of candidates,
and were specifically encouraged to present the survey
to rejected candidates at all phases of the recruitment
cycle. Each company was required to submit its survey
distribution methodology to the Talent Board for
consideration when evaluating their results.
Round 3 of the survey process focused on identifying
organisations that practised exceptional and exemplary
recruiting and hiring methods. Round 3 is called the “With
Distinction” round because it highlights specific practises,
and the Talent Board believes reporting them can have a
positive impact on employers’ methodologies and the
market. In Round 3, companies that distinguished
themselves in Rounds 1 and 2 were interviewed by an independent panel of industry judges
using HireVue’s digital interviewing solutions to determine areas of distinction. Seven
companies were recognised “With Distinction.”
Each organisation that participated in the 2012 awards received a benchmark report that
compares their responses to the aggregate group. Organisations receive reports for both their
employer and candidate surveys.

About the Responding Employers and Candidates
About the Employers
The 2012 U.K. CandE Awards attracted 24 employers that subjected themselves to two to
three hours of work to fully complete their applications. The participant profile data points to
the universal relevance of candidate experience.
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Under 10 11-25 26-50 51-100
Approximate Number of Resources that are Involved in Recruiting Efforts
Under
£10M
19%
£11M-
£50M
12%
£101M-
£500M
19%
£1.1B-£3B
6%
Unknown
/ Decline
to state
44%
Company Revenues
38.9%
Up to 500
22.2%
501-2,500
2,501-10,000
27.8%
10,001-25,000
11.1%
Employee Population

About the Candidates
Round 2 required candidate feedback and yielded more than 857 surveys across 18
participating companies. Six hundred and ninety-eight (698) candidates provided write-in
comments about their experiences. The response to the survey validates the conclusion:
employment candidates care a great deal about their candidate experience.
Candidates by gender: Candidates by job-level:
Candidates by generation:
We Applied to:
34.7% An experienced salaried position (3+ yrs. experience)
20.4% A management salaried position
14.3% An internship
12.6% An entry-level salaried position (0-2 yrs. experience)
5.4% A contract position
4.6% An hourly wage position
4.5% A director salaried position
1.9% A senior leadership/executive salaried position
1.3% Other
69% 31%
1.2%
Silent
Generation
<1945
13.8%
Baby
Boomer 38.7%
Generation
X
40.8%
Millennial
1.6%
Generation
Z

About The Talent Board and The Candidate Experience Awards
The Talent Board was formed in January of 2011 by recruiting industry veterans, Gerry Crispin
(CareerXroads), Ed Newman (iMomentous) and Elaine Orler (Talent Function Group). The
original spark behind the CandE Awards was a conversation in November 2010 between Chris
Forman, the CEO of StartWire, and Elaine Orler of Talent Function. Forman is credited with the
original idea to produce an industry award on candidate experience that operates
transparently. The spark turned to flame, and Orler rallied a consortium of like-minded industry
figures to form The Talent Board. In 2012 the Talent Board was led by volunteer Board
Members, Gerry Crispin, Ed Newman, Elaine Orler, Mark Stelzner, Jeremy Tipper and Sarah
White.
The Talent Board members are motivated to improve the experience of employment
candidates. Everyone engaged in the vocation of recruiting attracts candidate experience
stories from family, friends and even friends-of-friends. Often the stories do not reflect well on
our profession and a lot of the negative experiences seem avoidable. While there is an
inherent dissatisfaction that comes with rejecting employment candidates, the Talent Board
believes that it is possible to:
- Treat all employment candidates with professionalism and respect.
- Shrink the recruiting “black hole” effect on candidates.
The Talent Board was established to assist recruiting organisations in understanding and
evaluating their candidate experience. The surveys and reports are intended to support
business cases that help secure enabling investment. In our professional experiences, we have
never encountered a recruiter that wants to treat a candidate poorly. Our goal is to help
corporate recruiting organisations improve through information sharing and positive
reinforcement.
The Talent Board is thrilled with the results of the first annual U.K. and second annual North
American award processes and competitions. The Talent Board is humbled, grateful and
excited to build on the success of 2012.
There will be a CandE Awards programme in 2013 that will follow a similar calendar to the 2012
process. Companies will be able to apply and enrol in the award programme by completing a
benchmark survey to be available in the spring of 2013. Candidate surveys will be
administered following completion of the employer applications.
Gerry Crispin is a principal and co-founder of CareerXroads, launched in 1996 as a consultancy
analysing the impact of emerging technology on the recruiting function. Crispin is committed to writing,
researching and sharing his adventures, opinions and data about evolving staffing models with the HR
profession, clients and friends. Together with his business partner, Mark Mehler, Crispin facilitates
conversations about recruiting practises with staffing leaders from some of the world’s most competitive
companies. He is passionate about how firms design and build staffing processes, the technology to
enhance them and the systems to manage them. Gerry wants to know more about the ‘playing fields’
where candidates and employers meet and he’s more than a little curious about how they treat one
another: how Job Seekers ‘game’ their next career move while Employers tout their latest opportunities.

Candidate Experience Awards 2012 UK research paper

Candidate Experience Awards 2012 UK research paper

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (14)

Similar to Candidate Experience Awards 2012 UK research paper

Similar to Candidate Experience Awards 2012 UK research paper (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Candidate Experience Awards 2012 UK research paper