With candidates spending less and less time reviewing job descriptions, perhaps recruiting and hiring teams need to ask ourselves if we are partly responsible?
It is easy to dismiss the numbers listed below as part of an overall trend (or "tinder-fication"?) of increasingly convenient/transactional online experiences, but the problem might also be in the job descriptions themselves. In my experience hiring companies have grown fairly complacent about Job Descriptions, often using generic form documents based solely on title. These job descriptions are not customized by team, they often don't contain real information about projects or key areas of focus, and they don't lay out a specific value proposition. Without this nuance or context, what does an applicant have to gain from spending time combing though a generic document?
With all the buzz in recruitment around automation and reducing administration, recruiting and hiring professionals need to remember that a robust online experience for candidates is a key component that makes new advancements possible.
From our data, applicants are spending 40 seconds or less reading the descriptions before hitting the apply button and submitting their resume. They don’t know if a job is right for them. They’re looking at the job’s title, a few of the prerequisite bullet points, and then deciding if the job is just enough of a fit before submitting their application. This leads to talent pools saturated with candidate quantity, not quality.