A growing percentage of job advertisements now require candidates to prepare responses to Key Selection Criteria (KSC). It can be found, in most cases, within the advertisement itself, or candidates will be instructed to go to the company website to download the position description and within its very pages will be the KSC.
The application process for these types of job advertisements will require not only an accompanying coverletter and résumé, but will also require a separate document that lists candidate responses to the KSC. This usually requires multiple pages of documents and more effort in thinking about how one specifically meets the set criteria. If a candidate is not an expert in preparing KSC responses, then asking for professional help, or staying in for the next few nights to get them right becomes a necessity.
Now before jobseekers go rushing off spending their entire weekends preparing all these documents, I wanted to share some observations. I have discovered common themes and frustrations with KSC requirements. At the same time, I have listed solutions to prevent jobseekers from wasting their time and effort:
1. There is a high incidence of “fake” jobs. I have found that many vacancies have “internal candidates” also applying for the job. This means when the vacancy is advertised publicly, then to most of us, we think it’s an equal playing field, when it really isn’t. Why are these jobs advertised in the first place, most people ask? It is extremely frustrating. From a HR perspective it is political correctness and equality laws going too far! When candidates request my assistance to write a KSC response sheet, the first thing I ask them is whether they have called the manager/ officer in charge of the vacancy (usually found at the bottom of advertisement) to ask them if the job is real. I ask them to call the organisation and ask if there is someone already “acting in the job” or if there are “internal candidates” also applying. If there are, I tell my clients to not bother applying. Now to many people this may be a defeatist attitude, however, I’m a realist. I’ve worked in organisations, where 99 times out of 100, the internally-referred candidate gets the job. Period. So the lesson here is plain and simple. Check first by calling before wasting time preparing documents for nothing.
2. KSC responses differ from organisation to organisation. When I consult with candidates, I also ask them if they have checked about what format is required for the responses. I ask them to call and get back to me. I don’t proceed with anything, unless they find this out as this could mean, once again, misguided effort. The 3 most common formats are:
- The STAR System (Situation+Task+Action+Result)- candidates need to give a specific historical example, which demonstrates factual evidence to each criterion. This is most common with universities and government organisations.
- The Summary System- candidates need to address all the criteria in a summarised format within a single page, making references that cover all criteria. Some federal government departments and corporate organisations use this format. This system can also be applied within the coverletter. The actual advertisement will point out that “only applicants that have addressed the criteria” will be considered. So addressing the criteria within the coverletter is necessary.
- The Overview System- candidates need to write “overview points” to each criterion listed. It could include specific or general examples that give a continuous / holistic overview of experience gained from a variety of jobs and not just one job. It means that under each criterion, there could be several short dot points / sentences that highlight a “history” of demonstrated experience.
Quite explicitly, it is easy to see how frustrating it can be to write responses to KSC. Personally, I’ve had candidates whom I have assisted miss out on job interviews, because they were specifically told by employers they responded to the KSC in the wrong format, which is really a terrible excuse. In this case, I think there is too much emphasis on the technicality of KSC responses within the recruitment process where high-calibre candidates have missed out due to misjudging the process. Damn shame!
3. Some jobs clearly have unrealistic expectations. I’ve been assisting candidates for many years and have discovered that some jobs are just plain ridiculous in what they ask for. I’ve read advertisements where rather than asking for just experience they have been specific about the number of years. Some have asked for experience using unique software that can only be found within the set environment, so as an outsider one pretty much doesn’t have any chance getting in. Some have asked for experience in processes or systems within a unique environment, which to most candidates, means an explicit no, despite clear, transferable and highly-regarded credentials. I often think that these advertisements and criteria have been created, because the employer already has someone in mind. They have manipulated the recruitment process to minimise the possible competition in a supposed open and equal playing field. Fair? Definitely no! However, how will we ever find out? In such situations where advertisements and selection criteria are clearly biased, I tell my clients not to bother. Or if they are persistent, then I want them to make verbal contact with the recruiting officer, to ensure some verbal guarantee the job isn’t fake or rigged.
Every jobseeker knows the amount of effort that goes into preparing KSC responses. The effort can prove to be aimless and misguided if the proper due diligence is not performed. The public perception of alleged bias, unrealistic expectations and perceived snobbery in processes, is indicative of recruitment processes gone mad.
If employers really want to simplify recruitment processes and regain public trust and confidence in their brand, then they need to use private recruitment companies. Period. Private recruitment companies exist for the very reason of maintaining integrity in all aspects of the recruitment process. They don’t need over-complicated KSC to judge and assess the right candidates. There is a recruitment company for every industry out there. So HR departments or business managers really don’t have any excuse not to use the services of an external recruitment agency.
On a final note, the “jobs for mates” assessment that surrounds many institutional and governmental jobs won’t go away until there is an explicit and transparent shift in how KSC is used to identify and select suitable talent. However, until that happens, or more organisations decide to use external recruitment agencies, then the responsibility lies with candidates properly addressing KSC. Therefore, the lessons learned from the home truths about KSC, can only serve as a positive motivational tool for jobseekers to how being accountable can ensure every piece of effort counts.
