To comply with certain federal applicant tracking requirements many companies determined the most cost effective process was an ATS (Applicant Tracking System). Even small employers can access one now.
An ATS also contains the ability to scan resumes for key words and phrases, the employment application and self- identification of sex, race, veteran status, handicap, etc. The ATS is usually the first candidate-company interaction ….but…. the most impersonal, unforgiving and possibly the most prejudicial format ever utilized.
An ATS may help comply with legal requirements; however, the ATS has also eliminated the human cognitive ability to compare, reason and interpret a resume’s contents. ATS have a number of very serious flaws leading to potentially illegal recruiting presumptives. Boomers used to call it GIGO – garbage in garbage out.
A job description may be used to set up the key words and phrases the ATS program uses to scan resumes, however, most large ATS do this automatically. Unless the correct key words and phrases fields are populated (entered), the resume scanning results will be biased and inaccurate resulting in un- or under-qualified applicants!
Company and industry cultures develop their own unique sets of descriptive words, acronyms and phrases. If a job description or your ATS uses key words like: analyst instead of engineer; create instead of design; HR instead of People or Talent (or vice versa); international vs. global; die not dye or… any list of functions without cross over synonymous key words or phrases, most qualified people will NEVER pass through and be selected for interviews.
Furthermore, most company ATS stop looking (scanning) when a predetermined number (e.g. 20) of “qualified” resumes are attained - “garbage in (definition) and the garbage out (un- or under- qualified candidates)”.
This impersonal and GIGO effect is also a big part of the “Black Hole” I and everyone, including employers, talk about. However, there may be a more serious problem. How you manage your ATS may be blatantly illegal!
If the job board, career site, social network or sourcing methodology disproportionately excludes qualified candidates, experience and/or entire classes of candidates, protected or not, discrimination is at work. Unless bonifide occupational qualifications (BFOQ) exist for these errors your company’s ATS excludes and discriminates.
Regardless of your AAP (Plan) or AAS (statement) if your ATS is excluding, unintentionally or on purpose, you are excluding and discriminating. This affects the company’s brand reputation and company profitability! But, Wait…There’s More! This is potentially a BIG expensive legal problem!
Each ATS user is responsible for their system’s parameters, definitions, descriptions and results! The same questions and statements can be said of outside recruiter’s and recruitment firm’s (RPOs) methodology.
Just because these tools are used and their use expanding does not mean they are being used legally. Just because there have been no suits, judgments or precedents (yet) doesn’t mean these tools are not biased and discriminatory. What liability does the ATS supplier carry?
Software lacks the ability to compare, reason and interpret what isn’t stated or implied. Do you know if what your company is doing is legal??? Is your lack of oversight jeopardizing your firm, company or client?
We are seeing
rumblings (candidates) and EEOC/DOL investigations following 8-10 years of
legal non-enforcement. Determining the
bias, exclusion and discrimination effect of technology is only a matter of
time. Both federal departments and private
employment law practices are just now starting to look because of the perceived
discrimination against mature (protected) and unemployed workers (I believe
soon to be protected or incentivized for hire).
