Why Deeper Candidate Evaluation Matters More Than Ever in Recruitment

Why Deeper Candidate Evaluation Matters More Than Ever in Recruitment

In today's market, where roles can attract hundreds of applications, filtering the right candidates from the noise takes more scrutiny. Add in the recent explosion of AI tools to help people apply to roles at pace, and the hundreds can turn into thousands for some jobs. 

At the start of the recruitment process, the CV review stage can therefore sometimes take a very long time. Dealing with such a huge volume of candidate applications can make it difficult to filter out the right ones to shortlist. 

Smarter and deeper candidate evaluation is therefore paramount. Something that can’t be effectively delegated to AI.

This first stage of the recruitment campaign sets the foundations for its success. Its critical to properly evaluate each applicant to ensure the best candidates – those most able to succeed in the role – are progressed through the recruitment process.

Example: Recruitment campaign – Data Analyst

A recent recruitment campaign I ran for a Data Analyst role at a leading publisher highlights why deep, objective, nuanced evaluation of candidates matters even more in today’s talent market. The position required a highly specific skillset: strong Excel ability with marketing and digital knowledge, ideally paired with a pricing or finance background, and strong academic qualifications. Yet, even with such detailed criteria, I had almost 2000 applications for the role.

We record every part of the process and review performance metrics for each role we recruit for. In this case, the numbers behind the hire give a good insight into the level of work that goes into sourcing a skilled Data Analyst. 

• Applicants reviewed: 1,944+Candidates
• Initial conversation to assess suitability: 40
• CVs submitted to the client: 10
• First-stage interviews arranged: 9
• Second-stage interviews: 4
• Offers made: 2
• Offer accepted: 1

It can be easy to underestimate the work behind these stats. OK, we do use technology that identifies obvious non-starters from the outset – such as people without the right to work in the UK – and identify subsets of candidates based on skills. Even so, we always add in a human element at this early stage.

The high level of interest in this role meant that we had a huge candidate pool of applicants to evaluate. And to do that properly, we considered every application on its merit, digging under the skin of the CV. 

The problem with AI – what’s real and what’s not?

One challenge we face now as recruiters is the use of AI. Many CVs now look extremely polished and well-written because candidates use tools like AI-based writing assistants to summarise their experience clearly and accurately. That’s a good thing, it helps the recruiter quickly understand it. 

But in our experience, some candidates take it further, adding embellishments that aren’t reflective of their real experience. It can be difficult to tell which is which until you actually speak to the applicant. That’s why having that first conversation is now more important than ever; it’s the only way to uncover whether someone’s credentials match their claims. 

In this instance, talking to the 40 candidates who looked best on paper was therefore essential. And whilst 40 seems like a low number compared to the almost 2,000 who applied, consider the amount of time needed to properly question, observe and listen to each. 

If each conversation takes 30 minutes, that’s 1,200 minutes, or 20 hours of pre-assessment. And this is stage 1 of the process! It is easy to see how the recruiter’s time spent on the hire can be underestimated when faced with overwhelming candidate pools.

Scoring candidates for evaluation

A common issue when dealing with a high number of applicants is conducting consistent, objective evaluation. Boston Hale’s recruitment process employs a scoring system to keep it fair, consistent, inclusive and free of common biases.

For this Data Analyst role, there were certain attributes that a candidate needed in order to progress in the recruitment process. These included:

• Technologies and tools used
• Methods applied
• Approach to working – independence, attention to detail and structure
• Previous role performed in a team
• The size and make up of those teams
• Evidence of intellectual ability
• Problem solving capabilities

Before I started having those all-important conversations, I put together a scoring plan covering the key technical and soft skills I needed to assess. With years of experience working on similar roles, I know which questions to ask to identify whether the candidate’s experience and skills matched both the CV they were presenting to me and the role they were applying for. After each conversation, I scored their responses and used that data to highlight the most suitable candidates. In this case, many simply didn’t meet the skill set and standards we were looking for.

In today’s recruitment market, AI is often used to create the initial shortlist by matching skills and criteria. And in some cases, it works. But ironically, in an AI-enabled world, adding a human element is more critical than ever, especially when CVs have been polished or tailored by AI in the first place. Indeed, some employers are very vocal about the risks that using AI poses, stating that it can lead to 'hiring incapable staff', according to BBC News.

Securing an experienced recruiter can save significant time and money in the long run. Our ability to interpret nuance and extract pertinent information, even from candidates who are nervous, overly confident, or struggle to express themselves, is a key part of the business case for using our services.

Auto-apply and volume versus relevance

I’ve touched on this already, but one of the growing challenges facing recruiters is the sheer volume of applications. Application tools and auto-apply features now make it easier than ever for people to apply to roles, whether or not they’re truly suitable. Often, if the job title looks like a match, candidates – or tech they use - will apply without reading further.

This creates more noise for recruiters to cut through. More irrelevant CVs to read. More time needed to get to the handful of genuinely strong options.

Sometimes, when we feedback to candidates, they are not even aware of the job they’ve applied for, as the application was sent by the tech. Yet applicants get frustrated when recruiters don’t give feedback – an impossible task if you’re talking about hundreds, or even thousands, of CVs for every role. And, recruiters are frustrated as poorly targeted applications waste time, leaving less opportunity to provide feedback to those who’ve applied with genuine effort.

The value of an experienced recruitment consultant.

To get back to this example, I was asked by the client to share the KPIs and demonstrate the value in the fee they paid for my services.

Just by looking at the numbers, you can start to see how, ironically, labour saving tools don’t necessarily make things easier. The time it takes to identify candidates with genuine experience, conduct pre-shortlist interviews and pull together a pool of suitable candidates is significant. It’s often way more than internal hiring teams can handle.

This huge amount of time saved, coupled with my ability to ask the right, nuanced questions and quickly identify the strong candidates, is reflected in the KPIs. Our client for this project said:

You consistently asked the most insightful and well-defined questions. A two [offers] out of ten [interviews] success rate is truly impressive in this market.

What This Means for Employers

If you’re hiring, don’t be seduced by high application numbers or the lure of AI tools into thinking you don’t need to employ the services of a recruiter. The volume of candidate interest rarely tells you anything about the quality of candidates. 

What matters is whether your recruiter knows how to dig deeper, ask the right questions, and spot quality through the ever-increasing level of noise.

It takes time. It takes a structured, inclusive approach. And it still takes a person to assess what makes a great fit.

Need help finding candidates who actually match your needs?

Contact David Pynor to discuss how we can deliver quality over quantity for hires in Data & Analytics, Change & Transformation & Infrastructure.

‹ Back