Candidate Experience. What do Candidates experience and what do they expect during Application Processes?

Table of Contents

Abstract

List of Figures

List of Tables

1 Introduction
1.1 Objective and Research Question
1.2 Structure of the work

2 Theoretical Framework
2.1 The Candidate Experience
2.1.1 Definition
2.1.2 Origin
2.2 The Candidate Journey
2.3 Opportunities and Challenges for Employers
2.4 Candidate Experience and Recruiting Studies
2.4.1 Candidate Journey Study by Athanas and Wald
2.4.2 Personnel Selection Study by Kanning
2.4.3 Customer-oriented Recruiting Study by Kootz
2.4.4 Recruiting Study by Weitzel et al
2.4.5 Recruiting Study by Softgarden and Personalmagazin
2.4.6 Qualitative Candidate Experience Study by Ullah and Ullah
2.4.7 Further Research Results

3 Method
3.1 Qualitative Interviews
3.1.1 Interview Guide and Conduction
3.1.2 Sample
3.1.3 Qualitative Content Analysis
3.1.4 Interrater Reliability
3.1.5 Results of the Qualitative Interviews
3.2 Quantitative Online Questionnaire
3.2.1 Questionnaire Design
3.2.2 Sample
3.2.3 Statistical Analysis

4 Results of the Quantitative Online Questionnaire
4.1 Descriptive Analyses
4.2 t -Tests and Mann-Whitney U Tests
4.3 Analyses of Variance and Post-Hoc Tests
4.4 Correlations

5 Discussion
5.1 Qualitative Interviews
5.2 Quantitative Online Questionnaire
5.3 Strengths and Limitations of the Work

6 Recommendations for Action for Personnel Managers

7 Conclusion and Implications for the Future

References VII

Appendix XIII

List of Figures

Figure 1. The six phases of the recruitment process (own illustration following Verhoeven, 2012)

Figure 2. Process model of inductive category development (own illustration following Mayring, 2015)

List of Tables

Table 1 Main categories and the assigned sub categories derived from the qualitative interviews

Table 2 Candidate experience expressed by means referring to the four sub categories and the associated items within the main category process design

Table 3 Candidate experience expressed by means referring to the two sub categories the associated items within the main category communication

Table 4 Candidate experience expressed by means referring to the two sub categories and the associated items within the main category employer-related aspects

Table 5 Candidate experience expressed by means referring to the main categories

Table 6 Favorability of application forms expressed by percentages

Table 7 Expectations and attitudes of candidates expressed by means

Table 8 Percentages of the receipt of a rejection, receipt of confirmation of receipt and obtainment of feedback

Abstract

The present explorative research study dealt with the candidate experience which is the sum of individual experiences of candidates with a potential employer during a recruiting process. The study examined which experiences candidates made and which expectations they have within application processes. In order to answer this question, a mixed-method approach was used. First, qualitative interviews (N = 4) were conducted. The content analysis revealed eleven categories which played an important role from the subjects’ perspective. Second, a quantitative online questionnaire (N = 170), based on these categories, was performed. The data were analyzed by means of descriptive analyses, t -tests or rather Mann-Whitney U tests, analyses of variance, and correlations. In general, the findings showed that the applicants had a quite positive candidate experience. However, some basic features have to be considered within application processes including aspects such as giving feedback, providing information about the application status, sending confirmations of receipt and rejections and the indication of a personal contact person. Furthermore, the study found significant differences between particular groups of applicants e.g. females and males, which are specified in the present work. In addition, the candidate experience correlated with the willingness for a renewed application and the likelihood to recommend the employer to others. Summarizing, it can be stated that taking into account the candidate experience offers a promising approach to master challenges like the demographic change, the skill shortage, the war for talent, and the digitization. By ensuring a positive candidate experience companies can differentiate from competitors in times in which there is change from an employer to an applicant market.

Keywords: candidate experience, candidate journey, recruiting

1 Introduction

Several years ago, in The McKinsey Quarterly it has already been stated that “there is a war for talent, and it will intensify" (Chambers, Foulon, Handfield-Jones, Hankin, Michaels, 1998, p. 44). In a changing and competing job market, companies are faced with varying challenges. Besides the intensified war for talent, the demographic change and the skills shortage are current challenges which require new approaches to fill vacancies in companies (e.g. Ferber Aengenheyster, 2015; Trost, 2014; Ullah Ullah, 2015). In addition, the increasing digitization plays an important role within the recruitment of employees (e.g. Diercks, Kupka, Flohr, 2015; Irmisch, 2015; Rose, 2013). A further challenge is the development of an employer brand. Following a recruiting study by Weitzel et al. (2015), the development of a strong employer brand is even the second largest internal challenge within the field of recruitment. A recent study about recruiting trends by Abbot and Bevegni (2016) supports the relevance of the employer brand: 68% of the participating companies indicated that the employer brand has a potential influence on the ability to hire the best candidates. In order to remain competitive, companies have to successfully solve these varying challenges.

A topic which is related to the field of recruitment and gains in importance is the so-called candidate experience (Irmisch, 2015; Kootz, 2014; Verhoeven, 2016) which describes the individual experiences with application processes with a potential employer from the perspective of candidates (Athanas Wald, 2014). Companies should consider the candidate experience as it has a potential influence on the employer brand and the recruiting success (Athanas, 2015). The knowledge about expectations, experiences and emotions of candidates increasingly impacts the success of recruiting processes of companies (Athanas Wald, 2015). Barbedette (2005) confirmed that “even if a candidate’s application hasn’t been successful, a positive experience during the recruitment phase will ensure the candidate isn’t left with a bad impression” (p. 5). Hence, companies should not only focus on particular candidates but rather on all candidates. Moreover, by taking into account the candidate experience companies can differentiate themselves from competitors. This is necessary as factors like the salary, work-life-balance and promotion prospects hardly offer potential for differentiation (Rode Brickwedde, 2016). However, Verhoeven (2016) stated that there is a large discrepancy between the expectations of candidates and the fulfillment of those expectations by companies. Additionally, Ullah and Ullah (2015) see a gap between the self-image and the public image of employers regarding the recruiting process. In their opinion, candidates assess the recruiting process more negative than personnel managers do.

According to Athanas (2015) and Irmisch (2015), the topic candidate experience is discussed more than any other topic in the field of human resources. When talking about the candidate experience, one can speak of a change of perspective. Following Rose (2013), candidates formerly applied to a company but today companies also have to apply to the candidates by positioning as an employer brand. Thus, there is a change from an employer market to an applicant market (Höhn, 2017; Ullah Ullah, 2015). Ullah and Ullah (2015) forecast a recruitment process in which the candidate is a customer, the workplace is the product and the recruitment process is the purchasing process which has to be designed in an efficient and effective way.

This change of perspective can be observed in the research field as research on personnel selection and personnel psychology increasingly focuses on the perspective of applicants (Müller Moser, 2006; Thielsch, Träumer, Pytlik, Kanning, 2012). Besides, Verhoeven (2016) stated that research on candidate experience is slowly increasing in Germany. However, Hausknecht, Day, and Thomas (2004) suggested that already in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the field of applicant reactions raised an increasing interest and that the research which followed emphasized the potential of researching selection procedures from the applicants' perspective. Thus, taking into account the perspective of candidates is not an entire new approach (Hausknecht, Day, Thomas, 2004). Allden and Harris (2013) also specified that "the need to build relationships with candidates to improve the quality of the recruitment process is a recurring theme" (p. 36). However, the novel about the candidate experience is that not only the selection procedures are in the focus but rather all steps of an application process (Hausknecht, Day, Thomas, 2004). Hence, it is more a holistic approach.

1.1 Objective and Research Question

The present work is concerned with the topic candidate experience which goes beyond focusing on selection procedures. The research aims to explore the experiences which candidates make during application processes and to figure out expectations and attitudes towards employers. The research has an explorative character and deals with the following research question: What do candidates experience and what do they expect during application processes? By means of a mixed-methods approach, it will be examined which factors lead to a positive candidate experience. On the one hand, qualitative interviews and on the other hand, a quantitative online questionnaire are used to answer the research question. Finally, these results lead to recommendations for action for personnel managers. The derived recommendations refer to possible improvements in order to ensure a positive candidate experience.

1.2 Structure of the work

First, the theoretical framework is described. In particular, the terms candidate experience and candidate journey are amplified. Furthermore, opportunities and challenges for employers which accompany the concept of candidate experience are discussed. Moreover, current studies dealing with the candidate experience or with recruitment themes are presented. In the methodological part of this work, the conduction of qualitative interviews as well as the development and conduction of a quantitative online questionnaire are described. The results of each method are presented separately. In the subsequent discussion, both applied methods are critically reflected and the respective results are discussed against the theoretical framework. Finally, recommendations of actions for personnel managers are deduced. Eventually, the present work ends with a conclusion which includes implications for the future.

2 Theoretical Framework

In this chapter, the theoretical background is described. This chapter will give an overview about important terms and the potential of a candidate experience management. Besides, the presented studies outline the current state of research with regard to the topic candidate experience and the related topic of recruiting.

2.1 The Candidate Experience

The candidate experience concept is a consequent candidate-oriented recruiting approach. Candidates do not want to be an administration act anymore, but wish to develop a relationship to employers instead (Athanas Wald, 2014). By showing serious interest in the experiences of candidates, they get a status of a customer which is a great opportunity for companies to develop relationships to the applicants (Athanas, 2015).

2.1.1 Definition

The term candidate experience describes the individual experiences of recruiting processes with a potential employer by the respective candidate (Athanas Wald, 2014). It is the sum of all experiences made with the potential employer during the recruiting process (Athanas Wald, 2014; Ferber Aengenheyster, 2015; Verhoeven, 2016). Moreover, the candidate experience is shaped by all touch points with the potential employer. Those touch points can be experienced in a personal as well as in a non-personal way (Athanas Wald, 2014). Since the candidate experience influences the relationship between the candidate and the employer, it also determines the willingness for or against working for a certain company (Athanas Wald, 2014). Thus, the relationship between the candidate and the company can be considered as key factor for building a positive candidate experience which evolves from positive experiences during the application process (Athanas Wald, 2014).

The approach which intends to optimize the candidate experience is the candidate experience management (Ferber Aengenheyster, 2015). Candidate experience management is a systematic approach which analyzes and designs the touch points of candidates with employers (Athanas Wald, 2014; Verhoeven, 2016). The aim is that every encounter with an employer is a positive and motivating experience so that potential candidates apply and do not quit the application process (Ferber Aengenheyster, 2015). Overall, a positive impression shall be left (Verhoeven, 2016). A further purpose of the candidate experience management is that applicants recommend the employer to others in order to create a positive employer image (Athanas Wald, 2014; Ferber Aengenheyster, 2015).

2.1.2 Origin

The candidate experience concept originates from the field of marketing (Athanas Wald, 2014; Ullah Ullah, 2015). Originally, Schmitt (1999) developed an approach of experiential marketing which focuses on customer experiences and how they can be managed. Several years later, Homburg, Jozić, and Kuehnl (2015) described the customer experience management (CEM) as “one of the most promising marketing approaches in consumer industries" (p. 1). The aim of CEM is to develop a genuine relationship to the customer providing competitive advantage for the company which is based on the understanding of customers' needs and experiences (Schmitt, 2009). To be successful it is necessary to act customer-oriented. Since customers do not only pay attention to the price and quality, it is important to make the brand or product perceptible so that a bond is developed to the customer (Schmitt, 2009). In order to build up such a bond, the CEM approach analyzes the customer's experiences from the perspective of the customer. The focus is on everything which is relevant to the customer during the purchasing decision, the purchase and the use of the product (Schmitt, 2009). By analyzing these experiences of the customer, positive experiences with the brand at all touch points shall be created (Schmitt, 2009). However, this approach is more than only an analysis; it is rather a model which shapes customer experiences strategically (Schmitt, 2009). Based on the analysis, the management develops a customer-focused strategy and implementation (Schmitt, 2009). After the successful establishment of the CEM concept within the field of marketing, other fields also incorporated the approach, e.g. within the recruitment. The transfer of the CEM approach to the field of recruitment and employer brand first began in the USA. In the meanwhile, the topic also established in Europe and in Germany (Athanas Wald, 2014). From the perspective of Cappelli (2001), "job candidates today need to be approached in much the same way as prospective customers: carefully identified and targeted, attracted to the company and its brand, and then sold on the job" (p. 140).

2.2 The Candidate Journey

Another important term in the context of the candidate experience is the candidate journey. The candidate journey facilitates a holistic approach in order to manage the candidate experience (Verhoeven, 2016). The term labels the entire application process from the perspective of the candidate. It includes every touch point between the candidate and the employer, e.g. on a job fair, the confirmation of receipt or the contract sign. These touch points need to be analyzed to establish whether they are positive or negative from the candidates’ perspective (Ferber Aengenheyster, 2015). The touch points of the candidate journey can be divided into direct and indirect touch points (Ullah Ullah, 2015; Verhoeven, 2016). Direct touch points are e.g. job advertisements or websites; an indirect touch point means to obtain the advice of third parties, e.g. rating portals (Ullah Ullah, 2015).

According to Ullah and Ullah (2015), the candidate journey describes the time frame in which the candidate experience is made. The journey reflects the personal feelings of the candidates and does not refer to the steps of the application process defined by the company. It rather starts with the first contact to the potential employer and ends with the introductory training (ibid.). The definition is not very specific as there are many influences during the candidate journey which cannot be captured in total (Ullah Ullah, 2015). Thus, there is no universal candidate journey as the application processes differ from company to company (Athanas Wald, 2014; Verhoeven, 2016). For instance, the journey can end on the first working day or even the post-hire experience can be considered as part of the candidate journey (Carpenter, 2013).

Since every candidate journey is individual, the focus should be only on particular components of the candidate journey which are the touch points (Verhoeven, 2016). According to Verhoeven (2012), the analyzed touch points can be clustered into six phases: Attraction, information, application, selection, onboarding and bond. The first two phases take place prior to the recruitment process, the third and fourth phase during the recruitment process and the last two phases after the recruitment process (see Figure 1).

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 1. The six phases of the recruitment process (own illustration following Verhoeven, 2012).

Attraction means how candidates become aware of the employer and information means how candidates inform themselves about the employer and its job offers (e.g. through which channels). The phase of application includes the selection procedures, e.g. job interviews or assessment center which a candidate has to pass, whereas the phase of selection means that the candidate receives a commitment and is hired for the job. The fifth phase onboarding is about the incorporation of a new employee and the sixth phase deals with how to ensure that the new hire remains with the employer (Verhoeven, 2012).

Following Athanas Wald (2017), the candidate journey can be also divided into six phases. The first phase is job search and orientation during which the general interest of the candidate in the employer is in the focus. The second phase is the submission of the application itself and the third phase is the participation in the selection procedure. The fourth phase is the communication of results. The last two phases are the onboarding phase and the integration and bonding phase. Those phases are labeled as employee experience as the former candidate became an employee (Athanas Wald, 2017). In a former classification, the authors only focused on the first four phases (Athanas and Wald, 2014). According to Ullah and Ullah (2015), the candidate journey starts with the first contact between the candidate and the potential employer and ends with the introductory training. The authors do not distinguish between particular phases like Verhoeven (2012) and Athanas and Wald (2017). In comparison, the two classifications of the latter authors are quite similar. Although the labels of each phase slightly differ, the content and meaning are comparable.

2.3 Opportunities and Challenges for Employers

Taking into account the concept of candidate experience implies on the one hand several opportunities and on the other hand some challenges for employers. The authors Athanas and Wald (2014) stated that the candidate experience is important for employers because it is a starting point for a better recruiting from the perspective of candidates. Furthermore, it might lead to a reduction of application cancellation and might ensure the reputation of the employer. Conversely, a negative candidate experience can harm the reputation (Athanas Wald, 2014). Thus, employers should take into account that recruiting activities influence the image of the company (Thielsch, Träumer, Pytlik, Kanning, 2012). A negative candidate experience might also discourage candidates to apply or cause to cancel their application (Athanas Wald, 2014). As a consequence this might not only lead to a loss of candidates but to a financial loss for the employer. The loss of a candidate is even more expensive, the more the recruiting process has progressed. Thus, a careless candidate experience management can have negative financial consequences (Ullah Ullah, 2015). Moreover, considering the candidate experience improves the chances to recruit the best candidates (Athanas Wald, 2014; Carpenter, 2013). Cappelli (2001) considered the development of relationships with candidates and the persuasion to take the job as crucial so that good applicants do not slip away. Particularly on the basis of the skills shortage, Irmisch (2015) considered the relevance of the candidate experience as increasing.

Another important aspect is that a positive candidate experience supports the authenticity of the employer brand by translating the employer brand into actions by company representatives (Athanas Wald, 2014). On the other side, this might also be a challenge if there is a discrepancy between the actions by company representatives and what the employer externally communicates. For example, if the employer communicates “personal appreciation” as one of the company’s values but candidates are treated in a non-appreciative way, this might have a harmful impact on the employer’s authenticity. Thus, an employer branding concept, which is externally communicated but not internally implemented, might have negative consequences for the employer (Ullah Ullah, 2015).

One major challenge for employers is that recruitment processes increasingly become transparent due to social media as employer rating platforms, e.g. Kununu (ESCH. The Brand Consultants softgarden e-recruiting GmbH, 2015; Ullah Ullah, 2015). These platforms enable applicants to rate employers and to write about their experiences made with employers. On the one side, companies can use this platform in order to present themselves as an attractive employer e.g. by creating a company portrait. However on the other side, employers may be confronted with negative ratings of previous applicants or employees but also current employees. Hence, there is the risk that potential applicants might be discouraged to apply to a certain employer. In particular, it is useful to pay attention to rejected applicants as they might share their experiences with their social environment (Müller Moser, 2006). Therefore, employers should ensure a positive experience during the recruitment process even if a candidate is not successful (Barbedette, 2005). This increases the likelihood that even rejected candidates write a positive rating about the employer.

Besides, in the case of negative ratings, employers have to decide how to react to and manage these ratings. This requires further personal capacities as well as technical skills. Furthermore, due to the digitization a modern recruitment requires more expertise in varying areas than some years ago (Irmisch, 2015). For instance, job advertisements have to be optimized for search engines or the company’s website has to be created responsively so that candidates can use it with mobile devices. Hence, it is not sufficient to have professional skills. Instead recruiters also need technical know-how in order to face the current claims (Irmisch, 2015). In this context, Irmisch (2015) assumes the responsibility to the companies which have to give the recruiters the necessary technical means.

The previous illustrations showed that considering the candidate experience is connected to both challenges and opportunities for employers. However in the long run, it seems to be a promising approach for companies.

2.4 Candidate Experience and Recruiting Studies

In this section, studies which are concerned with the topic of candidate experience and the related topic of recruiting are presented. Furthermore, research results from varying studies which deal with applicant reactions and perceptions are introduced. These studies partly focus on both perspectives, the companies’ and the candidates’ perspective. However, subsequently only the results from the candidates’ perspective are presented as this corresponds with the present research question.

2.4.1 Candidate Journey Study by Athanas and Wald

The authors Athanas and Wald conducted the first study in 2014 which was labeled as candidate experience study. The follow-up study in 2017 was an extension of the former study as it examined the entire candidate journey. Therefore, it was labeled as candidate journey study (Athanas Wald, 2017). Basically, both studies assumed that the relationship between the candidate and the employer is the key for the development of a positive candidate experience (Athanas Wald, 2014; Athanas Wald, 2017). This relationship is influenced by varying factors, which can be emotional but also objective and procedural ones. In particular, a positive candidate experience results from the candidate’s trust in the company. According to a model of Shaw, to which Athanas and Wald (2014) refer to, trust has three dimensions: Integrity, results, and concern (Shaw, 1997, quoted in Athanas Wald, 2014). Transferring this model of trust to the concept of candidate experience, the candidate experience is composed of the following three dimensions: Clarity and integrity, eye level and goodwill as well as results-orientation.

Subsequently, the results of the candidate experience study from 2017 will be presented but also some results of the study from 2014 which are not covered by the more recent study. The target sample were persons who have been looking for a job or had career interests. Overall, N = 773 persons participated in the study. The gender was almost balanced with approximately 51% males and 49% females (Athanas Wald, 2017). From the participants, 19 % were younger than 30 years, 22% were 30-39 years, 29% were 40-49 years, and 29% were older than 50 years. The majority of the participants had a completed vocational training (36%), one quarter had a diploma or state examination (25%), approximately one tenth had a bachelor’s degree (11%), about 10% had a master craftsman training/ technician training, almost 10% had a master’s degree, almost 5% had a school-leaving qualification, 3% had a PhD or even higher academic degree and only 0.7% had no graduation (Athanas Wald, 2017).

Athanas and Wald (2017) used an online questionnaire as research tool which included questions in relation to the expectations and experiences within different phases of the candidate journey. Whereas the questionnaire from 2014 focused on only four phases of the candidate journey, namely (1) orientation and job search, (2) submission of the application, (3) participation in selection process, and (4) communication of results, the recent questionnaire included two more phases. These additional phases were

(5) onboarding, and (6) integration and bonding (ibid.).

The results of the first phase – orientation and job search – revealed e.g. which information candidates would like to have about the potential employer. 71% of the participants would like to have information about the corporate values and culture, 60% about the products of the company, and 50% about education and training. Compared to these results, the expectation to have information about employees’ statements why they work for the respective company (35%) and about the compatibility of family and work (32%) was lower. In relation to the expectations of particular information, there were differences between the participants which were younger than 30 years and the overall sample. Participants which were younger than 30 years had higher expectations with regard to information about employees’ statements (47%) and about education and training (56%) (ibid.).

A result of the second phase – submission of the application – was that about 79% of the participants preferred to apply for job via e-mail with file attachments. Applications via an online form (11%) and via letter post (10%) were considerably less preferred. Additionally, about every tenth participant (11%) would forego an application if an online form is the only possible channel in order to apply. In the age group under 30 years even 17% of the participants would forego an application. Moreover, approximately 51% would use the so-called “one-click application” via a XING or LinkedIn profile and about 40% would apply via a mobile device if this is possible way to apply. A further result of the second phase was that 62% expected to have a contact person mentioned by name and 33% would be pleased about this information. Additionally, 89% expected that the job requirements towards applicants are clearly formulated (ibid.). The results also showed that an unclear job title within a job advertisement might cause that about 19% of the participants would forego to apply for that job and in the age group under 30 years, even about 27% would forego to apply.

The results of the third phase – participation in the selection process – revealed that the majority of candidates expect to be perceived as individual person (79%) and to receive a confirmation of receipt within 24 hours (98%). Hence, appreciation and quick responses were very important from the candidates’ perspective. Furthermore, 25% of the candidates expected and 62% wished to be informed about the further procedure of the application process. Another expectation (19%) or rather wish (67%) was to get to know the prospective team members within the frame of the job interview.

The fourth phase of the candidate journey – communication of results – revealed that the duration of application processes influenced the final candidate experience. The authors found that a duration up to six weeks led to a more positive final candidate experience (M =4.3) than a duration more than six weeks (M =3.8). Here, the participants could rate the candidate experience on a six-point scale from “1 = very negative” to “6 = very positive”. Furthermore, almost half of the participants (49%) totally agreed that they received an appropriately fast response to their application. The remaining participants rather agreed (22%), partly agreed (14%), rather disagreed (10%), and 3% did not agreed at all. This item had to be answered on a five-point scale from “1 = do not agree at all” to “5 = totally agree”. Another result within the fourth phase was that about 23% of the participants expected and 47% would have appreciated that a rejection is communicated via telephone after attending a job interview, whereas 31% did not expect this. Moreover, 25% expected to be informed about any progress within the application process and 62% would have appreciated that. Here, 13% did not expect to be informed about any progress (ibid.).

Within the fifth phase – onboarding – Athanas and Wald (2017) found that a timely receipt of the contract was important for 79% of the participants and the availability of a contact person from the personnel or specialist department was relevant for 76%. These expectations could be fulfilled. Almost half of the participants (49%) also considered information about the company and the new job provided by the employer as important. However, employers often fail to fulfill this expectation according to the study (ibid.).

The final and sixth phase – integration and bonding – refers to the period of probation or rather the first 12 months as employee. This phase is labeled as employee experience instead of candidate experience as the prior candidate transferred to an employee. Here, it was found that the employee experience was particularly influenced by feedback, assumption of responsibility, and communication of the company’s strategy. Another result was that 44% of the new hired employees indicated to search for another employer. Thus, they had the tendency to change the job. A differentiation between a prior positive or negative candidate experience, even showed that 89% who had a negative candidate searched for another employer compared to 22% with a positive candidate experience. By use of a multiple-choice question, the participants were requested to indicate reasons with regard to the renewed job search. The most decisive reasons were dissatisfaction with the earning opportunities (43%), other tasks than expected (43%), cooperation with direct manager (42%), missing career opportunities (42%), and insufficient identification with the corporate culture (27%).

A further finding of the study was that the corporate culture played a role for the candidates as 85% indicated that the cultural fit is important or rather important.

Since, Athanas and Wald (2017) decided to forego the repeated measurement of some aspects, a few results of the study from 2014 are presented subsequently. For instance, Athanas and Wald (2014) measured the impact of the candidate experience on the employer image. The impact of the candidate experience was measured by a rating of the employer image before and after the specific application experience to which the participants should refer to. For the measurement, a six-point scale from “1 = very negative image” to “6 = very positive image” was used. The results revealed that candidates who had a positive candidate experience (rating of five or six) rated the employer image prior to the application process in average with M =4.70. After the application process, the rating of the employer image increased to M =4.99. Thus, a positive rating of the candidate experience was connected to a higher rating of the employer image. Conversely, there was a negative impact on the employer image if the candidate was rejected and had a negative candidate experience. In this case, the average rating of the employer image decreased from M =4.27 for ratings prior to the application process to M =2.28 after the application process. Even though the candidate was hired, the negative effect on the employer image remained if the candidate experience was negative (Athanas Wald, 2014).

In addition, the study revealed that about 80% of the participants would tell friends or acquaintances about their application experiences and about 25% indicated to share their experiences in social networks or on employer rating platforms (ibid.). The results also showed that 84% of the participants with a positive candidate experience would apply again at the same company whereas only 13% of the participants with a negative candidate experience would apply again. Finally, the study found that the interview played a key role as it was for 85% of the interviewed persons the basis of decision-making whether they want to work for a particular employer (ibid.).

2.4.2 Personnel Selection Study by Kanning

Kanning (2016) recently conducted a study about personnel selection from the perspective of candidates. On the one hand, the focus of the study is on the reflection of the practice of the selection of personnel. On the other hand, the focus is on the examination of the acceptance of diagnostic methods. In this study, an online questionnaire was chosen as method. It contained questions among others about demographics, the amount of experiences with application processes, the communication during the application processes, the acceptance of criteria for screening applications, the design of job interviews, and the dissemination and acceptance of interview questions. The sample consisted of 999 persons who participated via a non-commercial research platform. The participating test persons were in the age from 17 to 66 years (M =42.25, SD =11.95); including 62% females and 38% males. Most participants had a graduation (47%), followed by the German school-leaving qualifications vocational baccalaureate diploma or high-school diploma (26%) and secondary school certificate (17%) as well as the secondary modern school qualification (3%); 0.5% had no school-leaving qualification.

The research results show for example that 38% of the applicants did not receive a confirmation of receipt and that the average waiting period took about 13 days. In the case applicants received a confirmation of receipt, about 33% received an information about the timeframe in which a first decision will be made. Furthermore, 21% obtained differentiated feedback, instead of a simple letter of commitment or rejection. Due to these results, Kanning (2016) concludes that there is a great potential for employers to improve communication processes within the recruitment process. Further results of the study are for instance that the approximate time of a job interview is 43 minutes and that the job interview is attended by 2.5 interviewers in average. Although interview guides are essential for the conduction of structured interviews, only 27% of the applicants indicated that an interview guide was used. At least more than half of the interviewers took down notes (63%) but point values are rarely used by interviewers (10%). A rather positive result is that about 75% of the applicants received information about the job position and about 90% were allowed to ask own questions during the job interview (ibid.).

Further results were that the most disseminated interview questions are the following: Application reasons (78%), work experience (76%), expertise (74%), and know-how (69%). Less disseminated are for instance questions about the reasons a candidate should be hired (47%) and self-descriptions (41%). It was also measured on a five-point scale (from “1 = not useful” to “5 = extremely useful”) in how far these interview questions are accepted by the applicants. Overall, all questions mentioned above are accepted by applicants, whereby questions about work experience (M =4.07, SD =0.5) and expertise (M =4.03; SD =0.89) are most accepted. Another interesting result is that there is a significant correlation of p < 0.001 between the dissemination and the acceptance of interview questions. The more applicants are faced with certain interview questions, the more they accept such questions (ibid.).

In total, Kanning (2016) considered the research results as critical because the potential of diagnostics is often not used in practice. For instance, interview guides were used in only about one quarter of the job interviews although a high degree of structuring leads to prognostically valid results (Schuler, 2002, quoted in Kanning, 2016). Furthermore, some of the wide-spread interview questions, like e.g. self-descriptions or reasons why an applicant should be hired, have a questionable validity. Thus, the informative value of the responses of the applicants regarding the vacant job is also questionable. Moreover, the validity conflicts with the acceptance of selection methods. Although they might be accepted by applicants, they do not possess automatically a prognostic validity (Kanning, 2016).

2.4.3 Customer-oriented Recruiting Study by Kootz

In his study, Kootz (2014) conducted research on a customer-oriented personnel recruitment. In order to gather empirical data, Kootz (2014) used a varying spectrum of methods. For the analysis from the perspective of the customers, secondary data sources were analyzed and a content analysis of applicant comments on an employer rating platform was performed. Furthermore, students were interviewed in a focus group and a quantitative omnibus survey was analyzed. In both cases, the target group was the so-called “Generation Y”. Kootz (2014) also examined the perspective of companies in his research. However, this perspective will be left aside as the focus of the present work is the perspective of candidates.

One of the main findings of the study is that the expectations of young academics which belong the “Generation Y” do not differ from the expectations of other applicant target groups. However, young candidates prefer the personal contact to a company, quick responses and feedback. For instance, the study revealed that almost half of the participants of the omnibus survey expect a response to their application within one or two weeks (ibid.). Moreover, Kootz (2014) argued that the organization and processes should be customer-oriented. Therefore, it is necessary to regard the candidate as customer. In this context, the responsible persons also play a decisive role during the application process. The candidate experience is essentially influenced by the contact of representatives of the company. Additionally, there is a development towards an employee market which means that well educated professionals and managers can increasingly pick their favorite job positions. Hence, a recruiting market develops in which candidates are canvassed by employers (ibid.).

In his research, Kootz (2014) identified seven success factors. The first one is speed, reliability, and communication within the process. This means that the candidate receives prompt responses, information and transparency is guaranteed, professionality is conveyed and feedback is given with suggestions of improvement. The second success factor is the conveyance of consistent messages along all touch points and the inspiration of candidates. This success factor implies to position the company as attractive employer, to leave a clear message at the candidate, to ensure transparency about the company's benefits and to convey a high level of attractiveness during the first contact. The third success factor is the quality of the job interview. The quality is determined by a good preparation and by openness and appreciation during the interview which is on eye-level instead of sounding the candidate. Besides, the interview guidance has to be professional which means that the candidate is regarded as partner or customer instead of a petitioner. In addition the follow-up process should be clear. The fourth success factor is personal contact and open dialogue. Hence, the maintenance of contacts should be reliable and personal. The authentic appearance is the fifth success factor. Candidates should experience professionality and appreciation which implies that companies honestly report and do not only tell rosy portrayals. The sixth success factor comprises a smooth organization and transparency about the application process. Thus, short-term postponements or rejections should be avoided, a flexible arrangement of appointments, and to optimize and speed up the consignation of the contract in order to avoid uncertainty from the candidate's perspective. The seventh success factor is the management of expectations. Wrong expectations should not be raised by an early and direct exchange of the framework conditions. Furthermore, the framework conditions within the work environment should be clarified, e.g. the corporate policy and culture, clear communication about the contract conditions and meeting of agreements (ibid.). Furthermore, the research revealed that the overall impression of a candidate plays an important role and companies which fulfill the expectations of candidates will benefit (ibid.).

2.4.4 Recruiting Study by Weitzel et al.

Weitzel et al. (2016a) conducted the annual, empirical series of studies "Recruiting Trends" and the so-called "Bewerbungspraxis" which include among others a theme special about the application of the future and best practices and big failures of recruiting. Overall, 4,800 persons participated in the study. The data was collected via an online questionnaire in 2015 (Weitzel et al., 2016a). The majority of the participants was actively looking for a job (66%) and 29% had career interests, but were not looking for a job. The remaining 5% were neither actively looking for a job nor interested in career opportunities (Centre of Human Resources Information Systems Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, 2016). The sample consisted of 38% females and 62% males. The average age was M =41.4 years. Almost half of the participants had a university degree (48%; originally the editors distinguished between bachelor, master and diploma degrees of universities of applied sciences and universities) or a vocational training (30%). Other qualifications were a master craftsman’s diploma (5%), a habilitation (2%) or a PhD (0.2%); 9% had another qualification and 6% had no professional qualification (Centre of Human Resources Information Systems Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, 2016). 35% of the participants were employees with long-standing work experience (without personnel responsibility), 16% were employees with personnel responsibility, about 11% were employees with less than four years work experience, 6% were self-employed with long-standing work experience and 2% were self-employed with less than four years work experience. The sample also included students (5%), members of the executive board (2%), pupils (0.6%), apprentices (0.7%), and 24% were persons seeking work (ibid.).

The theme special about the application of the future was focused on the future relevance and development of application processes. The following aspects were among others analyzed: Forms and content of applications and important criteria of applications from the candidates’ perspective (Weitzel et al., 2016a).

With respect to the form of application, the participants prefer the application viae-mail (83%). Only 5% favor the paper-based application and only 8% the application via an online form. Furthermore, the results showed that if the company requires to apply via an online form, the majority (82%) would apply accordingly, 11% would apply via another application channel and 7% forgo to apply (ibid.). The study also revealed some basic conditions which are important from the candidates’ perspective. Most relevant are the confirmation of receipt (92%), the duration of a first feedback (91%), the specification of reasons for rejection (89%), information about the further process (87%), and a contact person for queries (85%). Less frequently named than the previous aspects, but also important are the offer for inclusion into an applicant pool (64%), and a transparent application status on the internet (57 %) (ibid.).

In the theme special of best practices and big failures, among others, the interviewed persons assessed the biggest failures which companies can make during in relation to the receipt of application and the candidate management (Weitzel et al., 2016b). Almost 75% of the participants’ statements refer to the category of responses so that this can be declared as the biggest failure. The participants indicated missing feedback and delayed or missing responses. (Weitzel et al., 2016b). The second biggest failure was about the content of responses given by companies to candidates. Nearly a quarter of the statements of the participants and the companies related to this category. The category of content included that no reasons were indicated, to less information were available, and standardized or meaningless phrases were used (ibid.). The third biggest failure referred to the technology which was used for the receipt of the application and which was often not working due to technical errors (ibid.). A further result was that 90% of the participants indicated that the job interview is an important aspect for accepting a job offer and 60% ever had rejected a job offer due to their impressions during the job interview (ibid.).

Another result of the research is that nine out of 10 participants indicated that the job interview is an important basis of decision-making whether they want to work at a particular company. In addition, six out of ten participants have already rejected a job offer due to the impressions from the job interview (ibid.).

2.4.5 Recruiting Study by Softgarden and Personalmagazin

The company softgarden e-recruiting GmbH (softgarden) and the German journal Personalmagazin conducted a double-perspective online study by interviewing candidates as well as personnel managers. The focus of the survey was the ideal application process from the perspective of candidates. The sample of candidates contained 1.130 persons with 55% males and 45% females. The average age was M =35 years (softgarden e-recruiting GmbH Personalmagazin, 2016a).

The participants were asked to rate the importance of varying criteria of an application process. These criteria were the following: Transparency of the process, service orientation towards applicants, appreciation, contact opportunities, effectiveness of the process. The latter means the candidates’ possibility to figure out whether the job and the employer fit to them. The importance could be rated on a four-point scale from “very important” to “not important”. The effectiveness of the process was the most important criterion: 69% of the participants rated this criterion as very important and 29% as important. However, the results of the study showed that all of the five criteria play a major role as the majority of the participants assessed the criteria as very important and important. Thus, the authors concluded that employers should consider all five criteria in order to perform an adequate application process which meets the expectations of candidates (ibid.).

Furthermore, the participants were asked to rate the varying criteria in relation to a specific application process which they previously experienced with grades from “1 = very good” to “5 = inadequate”. These criteria were transparency, service orientation towards applicants, appreciation, contact opportunities and overall quality of the process. The overall quality of the process had an average rating of M =2.32. However, 26% assessed this criteria as only satisfactory (rating of three), 7% as sufficient (rating of four) and 3% as inadequate. The lowest ratings received the two criteria transparency (M =2.41) and service (M =2.40). The criteria contact opportunities (M =2.04) and appreciation (M =2.25) received a slightly better grading. Since the criterion transparency was assessed as very important by 59% of the participants, the editors of the study concluded that this criterion is a starting point in order to improve the candidate experience (ibid.).

A further result of the online survey was that 60% of the participants indicated that the entire process should not take more than one month and 34% indicated a time limit of two months until receiving a commitment or a rejection for the applied job. Moreover, 43% of the surveyed applicants assessed a duration of 10-20 minutes, 29% a duration of 20-30 minutes and 22% a duration of up to 10 minutes for the input of data via an online form as appropriate. Only 6% of the participants indicated that more than 30 minutes are appropriate (ibid.). The participants were also asked when they expect a confirmation of receipt for the application and when they expect a binding feedback (rejection or invitation to a further selection step) for their online application. 46% or rather 45% of the participants expected a confirmation of receipt at once or rather within the first week; 9% expected it after one or two weeks and less than one percent after two weeks. For almost half of the participants a binding feedback was required after one or two weeks (48%), for 26% of the participants after two or three weeks and 16 % stated that they expect a binding feedback within one week. Only 9% indicated that three to four weeks and less than one percent indicated that more than four weeks are appropriate. As a conclusion followed that process speed is a factor which should be considered by personnel managers (ibid.).

In addition, softgarden and Personalmagazin surveyed the participants concerning rejection letters (softgarden e-recruiting GmbH Personalmagazin, 2016b). The survey dealt with the emotions which rejection letters evoked and the experiences which candidates made with rejection letters. The participants had to assess how important specific elements are in a rejection letter. The questions could be answered on a four-point scale from “1 = very important” to “4 = unimportant”. Overall, seven elements had to be rated (softgarden e-recruiting GmbH Personalmagazin, 2016b).

The most important elements were the indication of comprehensible reasons for the rejection (M =1.32), a timely response to the application (M =1.42) and a friendly tone of voice (M =1.43). The remaining elements also played a role but a slightly minor one: The offer to stay in touch, e.g. inclusion in a talent pool or invitation to apply for other positions (M =1.73), personalization of the rejection letter, e.g. by referring to specific aspects of the curriculum vitae (M =1.82), expression of appreciation to the candidate and gratitude for the application (M =1.87), and designation of a personal contact person for inquiries (M =1.94) (ibid.). As a further question, candidates were asked to think of their last rejection letter and then had to rate on a four-point scale from “1 = totally agree” to “4 = do not agree” to which extent those elements were appropriate for their last rejection letter. In this case, 92% of the participants experienced a friendly tone within the rejection letter and 78% felt appreciated. However, only 49% timely received the rejection letter and only 22% were told reasonable causes for the rejection. Moreover, 78% indicated wished to receive a reasonable feedback but only 22% experienced this in practice. The authors explained this result by law issues as personnel managers are afraid of law consequences if they indicate individual reasons in rejection letters (ibid.). Another crucial result was that rejection letters are experienced in a very emotional way by candidates. In order to improve the candidate experience in regard to rejections, the authors assumed that the starting point is the awareness of the emotionality of rejections which might lead to a negative experience (ibid.).

2.4.6 Qualitative Candidate Experience Study by Ullah and Ullah

Ullah and Ullah (2015) used a qualitative research approach to examine the candidate experience. The aim of their research was to get deep insights into the individual experiences of candidates. The authors conducted semi-structured interviews with the help of an interview guide. The interview guide contained questions about the demographics, information about the current status of application, and specific experiences made in varying application situations. The age of the interviewed subjects ranged from 20 years to 65 years. Therefore, the professional experience strongly varied among the participants. Besides, a wide range of industries was mirrored by the interviews, e.g. public sector, fashion or industry sector. In their work, the authors did not indicate how many interviews were conducted in total, they rather describe ten interviews in detail.

Overall, Ullah and Ullah (2015) identified five main categories which played a major role for the candidate experience: Process optimization, speed, communication, trust, and authenticity. The first category process optimization means that processes should be standardized to a certain degree. However, processes which are too standardized lack individualization. For instance, for the online application rather lean processes are required but when it comes to addressing candidates or to the process after the application more individualization is needed. Moreover, a rising number of responsible persons and the associated interfaces increase the effort for an application process and decrease the speed at the same. Hence, processes should be designed with rather less interfaces. This leads to the second category speed. According to the research results, a lack of speed often occurred in relation to responses. In particular, speed was essential with regard to the commitment for a job. Since the likelihood increases that a candidate has the choice between various job offers, companies which lack of speed have a strategic disadvantage (ibid.). The next category is communication which is a broad field. Ullah and Ullah (2015) figured out that communication is often non-transparent and that there is a lack of sufficient communication. The candidates wanted to be informed about the status of their application. The results even showed that transparent communication can compensate for lack of speed. Besides, communication included to give feedback to the candidates. The category trust played a role from two perspectives: The candidate’s trust towards a company and on the other side, the company’s trust towards the candidate. This category strongly reflected the corporate culture as from the candidates’ perspective, it is likely that employees are also treated the way candidates are treated during the application process. The last category authenticity meant that companies present themselves, in particular their culture, on appropriate platforms or in appropriate situations, so that the candidate can decide whether there is a cultural fit. For instance, candidates in the closer selection get insights into the future workplace and weaknesses of the company are openly handled (ibid.).

Furthermore, Ullah and Ullah (2015) distinguish between hygiene and culture factors. Hereby, process optimization and speed belong to the hygiene factors, whereas trust and authenticity are part of the culture factors, and communication belongs to both factors. The hygiene factors build the basis on which companies can build on. However, only if the cultural factors are taken into account this might lead to a positive candidate experience.

2.4.7 Further Research Results

In this section, further research results about applicant reactions and attraction in recruiting processes are presented and an overview about prior research considering the candidate’s perspective is given.

First, in a meta-analysis Hausknecht, Day, and Thomas (2004) found that candidates “who perceive selection tools and processes as procedurally fair and job related hold more positive image perceptions of the company, report better word-of-mouth intentions with others, and state that they are more likely to accept a job offer from an organization" (p. 675). Hence, positive perceptions lead to a higher acceptance of job offers and a higher likelihood for a recommendation. On the other side, “organizations using selection tools and procedures that are perceived unfavorably by applicants may find that they are unable to attract top applicants, and may be more likely to face litigation or negative public relations" (Hausknecht, Day, Thomas, 2004, p. 675). Thus, the perception of selection procedures by the candidates strongly impacts the image of an organization. Moreover, Carpenter (2013) states that the key expectations and requirements of candidates are “timely, accurate and transparent communication”(p. 203). The importance of time aspects is also emphasized by Carless and Hetherington (2011). In their study it could be revealed that time delays during the application process have a negative influence on the applicants' perception of an organization.

In another study, Braddy, Meade, and Kroustalis (2008) figured out that there was an influence of the participants’ viewing of organizational recruitment websites on the participants’ perceptions regarding organizational favorability, employer image and organizational attractiveness. For instance, a well-designed website has an impact on the perception of an organization in general as well as on the potential employer. In addition, the authors found “moderately strong positive relationships between website usability and both viewers’ impressions of organizations in general and as potential employers” (Braddy, Meade, Kroustalis, 2008, p. 2998). In a more recent study, Eberz, Baum, and Kabst (2012) examined the recruiter’s influence on different factors. Their study revealed that the friendliness and competence of the recruiter had a decisive impact on the attractiveness of an employer and therefore on the intention to pursue the application process. In particular, the friendliness of the recruiter played a major role in job interviews and during application processes (Eberz, Baum, Kabst, 2012). In a study by Derous, Born, and de Witte (2004), the results revealed six treatment factors which expressed the way applicants want and expect to be treated during selection processes. These factors are transparency, objectivity, feedback, job information, participation, and a humane treatment.

Already several years ago, research from the perspective of candidates has been conducted. For instance, Schuler and Stehle (1983) developed the so-called concept of social validity of selection processes and Harris and Fink (1987) examined the influence of recruiter characteristics on applicant reactions. The results of the latter study showed that “recruiter characteristics had an impact on perceived job attributes, regard for job and company, and likelihood of joining the company" (p. 765). Particularly, the characteristics personableness and informativeness had the largest impact. In addition, the study revealed a “significant relationship between recruiter characteristics and intentions of accepting a job” (Harris, Fink, 1987, p. 778). These results emphasize the great impact of the recruiter’s behavior. Furthermore, Gilliland (1993) developed a justice model of applicants’ reactions to employment-selection systems. The author proposed a number of rules which lead to perceived fairness in selection by candidates. Moreover, Smither, Reilly, Millsap, Pearlman, and Stoffey (1993) investigated applicant reactions to selection procedures and Taylor and Bergmann (1987) examined applicants’ reactions at different stages of the recruitment process.

The previously mentioned studies showed that there was a lot of research on recruiting from the candidates’ perspective and less research which directly addressed the topic of candidate experience. Nevertheless, there are some intersections between the most relevant factors in relation to application processes. Aspects which played a major role were process speed, transparency, feedback, communication, personal contact opportunities, and authenticity.

3 Method

In order to answer the explorative research question, two methods were used. Firstly, qualitative interviews were conducted which served as basis for the following quantitative online questionnaire. These methods are specified in the subsequent sections.

3.1 Qualitative Interviews

The first methodological step is the conduction of qualitative semi-structured interviews. The aim of the interviews is to explore the experiences with and the expectations towards employers relating to application processes. The interviews are performed in order to generate relevant categories in the context of application processes from the perspective of candidates.

3.1.1 Interview Guide and Conduction

Before conducting the interviews, a semi-structured interview guide was developed (see Appendix A). The interview guide was partly designed following Ullah and Ullah (2015). Thus, the second and third question including the sub questions of the present interview guide are adopted from the two authors. The remaining questions were independently developed by the researcher of the present work. All questions were designed with an open format in order to stimulate a more vivid conversation. The interview questions aimed to explore candidates’ experiences with and expectations towards companies in regard to application processes. The planned duration of each interview was about 30 minutes. Since the sample consisted of German subjects, the interviews were carried out in German. In advance of the interviews, the interviewees received a declaration of consent which they were asked to sign.

3.1.2 Sample

The sample of the qualitative interviews consisted of four persons; three females and one male. The average age was M =27.5 years (SD =5). All participants had an academic degree, whereby three participants had a master’s degree and one participant had a bachelor’s degree.

The interviewed persons were chosen based on three criteria. The first criterion was that the interviewee had already passed more than one application process for a permanent job, internship or working student job. Passing an application process includes e.g. submitting applications, attending job interviews or other selection procedures. This criterion should guarantee that the interviewees already have experiences with and certain expectations towards application processes of different companies. The second criterion was that the interviewee is or recently was in a phase of applying for job. This criterion was determined in order to ensure a higher involvement with the topic. The third criterion was to consider a certain gender relation. Both gender should be included in order to cover gender specific differences as well.

3.1.3 Qualitative Content Analysis

In order to analyze the interviews, a qualitative content analysis is conducted. For the content analysis, the technique of inductive category development is chosen (Mayring, 2015). On the basis of the interviews with regard to the research question a system of categories was established which provided the fundament for the development of a questionnaire. The aim of the technique of inductive category development is to reduce the text material by means of abstraction in this manner that the essential contents are saved and that the initial material is still reflected (Mayring, 2015). This procedure is systematic and is oriented towards a defined process model (see Figure 2).

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 2. Process model of inductive category development (own illustration following Mayring, 2015).

For the inductive category development, a selection criterion had to be determined in order to define which material is taken into account for the analysis. Here, the research question provides the direction. By this determination, irrelevant and decorating aspects with regard to the topic are excluded (ibid.).

As a next step, the units of analysis – the coding, the context, and the evaluation unit – had to be determined (ibid.). Here, the context unit was a single interview and the evaluation unit were the four interview transcripts, thus the entire interview material. The coding unit determines the units which are paraphrased during the first material analysis (ibid). In the present case, every statement of the interviewed person about experiences, expectations and, evaluations relating to application processes were considered. Furthermore, the selection criterion were experiences and expectations relating to application processes expressed by the interviewed persons. Thus, all aspects relating to experiences and expectations with and towards application processes were considered as relevant and important for the analysis. The next step was to determine the level of abstraction. Initially, the level of abstraction was set low in order to analyze the interview material rather detailed. However, level of abstraction was set higher at a later point of time of the content analysis so that it came to a moderate abstraction level.

[...]