LinkedIn’s Universal Apply Button Great for Small Employers But Horrible for Large Employers
The big news in the job board world this week was the introduction by LinkedIn of what it is billing as a Universal Apply button.
How does it work? Employer career sites, job boards, and anywhere else a job posting ad appears can now be modified to include the above button so that candidates who have a LinkedIn profile and actually care to use it (two very different groups) can click the above, click another couple of times to confirm, and their LinkedIn profile information is sent to the employer as an application. The benefit to the job seeker is convenience as they save a lot of time by not having to fill out field after field of information that they’ve already provided — maybe — to LinkedIn.
That sounds pretty good and I think this button will prove to be popular with some employers, but I also believe that most in the recruitment industry have overlooked the legal problems it will create for large employers. For virtually all employers who are federal contractors (basically any employer with more than 50 employees), the federal government has a âguilty until proven innocentâ policy with respect to anti-discrimination practices. Employers must prove that their employment practices are not designed to be discriminatory and also that those practices do not have a discriminatory effect.
Many and perhaps most of those employers have decided to shield themselves by not resume searching as they canât feasibly record each and every search, the people who came up in the search results, and the resumes those people had at the time of the search. Similarly, those employers require all candidates to apply at the employerâs web site using the same process. If some candidates can apply one way and other candidates another, then the employer will have the burden of proving that the candidates in both groups are the same as far as race, gender, age, etc. go or that the minority candidates were put at no disadvantage. Good luck proving that.
So I question how any employer which is subject to an audit by the OFCCP (the federal office which regularly sues large employers and makes them prove they arenât discriminating) can use this LinkedIn universal apply button. Third party recruiters (headhunters) will love this as it will make it easier for candidates to apply to their job postings. Rogue corporate recruiters or organizations which are ignorant or have chosen to ignore the law will also love this button. But for the vast majority of Fortune 2000 and federal government employers, this button is going to need to go unused.
I certainly understand LinkedInâs desire to make their apply button ubiquitous and some employers will feel the same way, but I can also foresee significant resistance by job boards and other sourcing tools and employers who actually track the source of their hires.
If an employer posts a job to Monster, Careerbuilder, CollegeRecruiter.com or any other job board, that employer should want to know how many applications they received from that posting and how many of the applications turned into hires. But if the employer includes the LinkedIn apply button, who gets credit? I suspect LinkedIn even though the candidate read the posting on a different job board. And by âdifferent,â yes, I am referring to LinkedIn as a job board. Anyone who still doubts that doesnât understand their business model or is naive.
So why should an employer care whether LinkedIn gets credit or Monster etc.? Because it should influence how that employer spends its recruitment advertising dollars moving forward. If they end up with the mistaken belief that LinkedIn is driving its applicants because of the apply button taking credit away from Monster etc. then the employer will spend more money on LinkedIn and less money on Monster. That will end up hurting the employer and Monster and benefiting LinkedIn. That isnât in the employerâs best interest.
I applaud LinkedIn for the innovation and for those employers who donât spend money advertising their job openings then the source of hire isnât all that important. More and more, that group seems disproportionately skewed to third party recruiters. They typically spend far less money advertising positions than do corporate recruiters and that makes sense because third party recruiters donât add much value if all they do is advertise an opening and then screen the applicants.