.
 
.
.
.
. n 1989, the average number of applicants responding to an employment advertisement was
19; today it is more than 300. On the one hand, this has depressed pay rates ad allowed employers to be more selective in candidate profiling and in the calibre of staff recruited. On the other hand, 90 per cent of job applicants will not even get the satisfaction of an interview.
    This can be for a variety of reasons: they cannot convey their potential successfully in a CV; they are average; or, increasingly, they are over-qualified. Whichever category the applicant falls into, rejection may well breed resentment towards the recruiting company. In these circumstances there is not only the human factor to be considered but also marketing implications.     More often than not, an insensitive rejection letter from a personnel department will generate bitterness. A letter that causes this reaction sabotages the efforts of the marketing department, which is inevitably trying to promote market share and greater profit margins.
    The increasing use of the negative option letter - one which imposes a time limit stating that if the company has not contacted the applicant by a set date, then the application has failed - is becoming an easy way out for personnel departments overwhelmed by the response to a particular recruitment advertisement
    When subjected to this impersonal approach the applicant tends to feel resentment against the seeming indifference. Research carried out by SSR for three major employers assessed the potential effect on a company's future performance if prospective job applicants are handled "badly".
     The research closely examined one recruitment advertisement, which appeared in the local newspaper, for a uniformed security officer, offering a salary of £10,000 per year. There were 1,000 replies. Of this number 97 per cent received a negative option letter, with nearly half of the applicants considered over-qualified.
     At the end of the recruitment drive, SSR got in touch with 100 of the rejected applicants; 35 had asked their wives to shop no longer at that store. Based on this group's average spending this meant a weekly

.
.
revenue loss of approximately £1,750 or £91,000 per annum. Hitherto, almost all had been loyal shoppers to that store. Further losses through rejected applicants' recommendations to family and friends were not calculated.
     The research also considered an organisation advertising in a quality newspaper for an operations manager for a building services company offering a salary of £15,000, plus a car. More that 300 replies were received and 5 per cent of the applicants were interviewed. Negative option letters were sent to 75 per cent and 20 per cent received a letter after ten days stating that the position had been filled. However, they were told that their applications would be retained for further consideration.
    A sample of the 20 per cent who received letters was selected and interviewed. The feeling of resentment in this group was not as pronounced as it was for the group that received negative option letters. Nethertheless, a proportion of those applicants, if and when re-employed and made responsible for purchasing building services, felt that they might discriminate against the company. The potential loss in such circumstances is incalculable.
     SSR also monitored a building society that placed a local advertisement for a uniformed security officer on a salary of £11,000 per annum, using the company's corporate logo and asking applicants to write to the central office.
    More than 800 people responded. Of these 40 per cent received no reply; 50 per cent received a negative letter; and 10 per cent were sent an application form with a negative option rider stating that if further contact was not received within ten days they had failed in their application. The research evaluated the procedures. 		.
. nfortunately, those candidates that applied were not aware of the society's
age discrimination in this case. They considered a person of 45-50 would be most suitable for the post but as an equal opportunities employer they felt unable to state this fact in their advertisement. They had also failed to insert other qualifying criteria.
     Forty two per cent of all applicants were under 28, and of those, 50 per cent had never taken out a mortgage. It was then calculated that 168 individuals in this group would at some stage be first time housebuyers. Given the inducements and rivalry between building societies, this particular personnel department had probably reduced the effectiveness of its local branch for two years.
     Research of this nature should ring alarm bells in all marketing departments and more sensitivity on the part of many personnel managers is essential. The potential damage that rejection letters even to those on lower salary scales could have on a company's future sales is formidable.
    Advertising should be precise, and where excessive response is predicted further criteria should be included in the advertisement: for example applicants could be asked to turn up on a certain day.
    The problem specifically relates to lower paid workers and not just because this is the area where huge numbers of applications are received. Senior executives tend to perceived the negative option letter as an acceptable way of dealing with an influx of job applications - even when they are the recipients. Generally, they have been involved in recruitment and will probably view this method of rejection as good time management.
    There is no good way to reject applicants, but it should at least be possible to let them know that their response was given full attention. For the cost of a stamp, and the time taken to write a few conciliatory words, the applicant can be left with a reasonably favourable impression of the sender.

Amended from article:

The writer is Managing Director,
SSR Personnel Services Ltd ,
Peter French
(020 8626 3100)