The easy apply feature on LinkedIn has made applying for jobs much simpler for both job seekers and employers. With just a few clicks, candidates can submit their profile for consideration. However, while easy apply has its benefits, there are some potential downsides to consider as well.
It leads to an influx of unqualified applicants
With easy apply, there is very little effort required for candidates to submit their information. This means recruiters are often inundated with applications from unqualified candidates who might not have applied otherwise. Sifting through applications takes time away from more qualified candidates.
According to LinkedIn’s 2021 Global Talent Trends report, 69% of talent professionals say they get too many unqualified applicants through easy apply. And 35% say easy apply has made it harder for them to find qualified candidates. This suggests easy apply has contributed to more “spray and pray” applications from candidates hoping to get lucky.
| Year | Percent of talent pros saying they get too many unqualified applicants from Easy Apply |
|---|---|
| 2020 | 63% |
| 2021 | 69% |
The increase from 63% in 2020 to 69% in 2021 indicates this problem has gotten worse over time as more candidates use easy apply.
It focuses too much on profiles over qualifications
With easy apply, candidates can submit their LinkedIn profile with a single click. But profiles often don’t tell the full story of someone’s qualifications. Key details about skills, experience, and fit for the role may be lacking.
According to LinkedIn’s research, 66% of talent professionals say they prioritize profiles over resumes when hiring. But 25% say they are unable to properly assess candidates through their profiles alone. Relying too much on profiles can mean critical information slips through the cracks.
Profiles vs Resumes for Assessing Candidates
| Factor | Profiles | Resumes |
|---|---|---|
| Detail on skills and qualifications | Less detail | More detail |
| Tailored to specific roles | One-size-fits-all | Customized |
| Chronological work history | Not always chronological | Reverse chronological order |
| Emphasis on responsibilities vs. impact | More responsibilities | Impact and metrics |
As this table shows, resumes tend to provide more tailored, detailed information for assessing candidates’ qualifications.
It focuses too much on speed over candidate fit
Easy apply makes submitting applications fast and simple. But this focus on speed can come at the expense of taking time to determine if a candidate is truly a good match for the role and company.
According to LinkedIn, 35% of talent professionals say easy apply has reduced their ability to determine candidate fit before contacting them. The emphasis becomes on reacting quickly rather than thoroughly vetting candidates.
This hasty process can lead to more mis-hired candidates who seem great on paper but are ultimately not a culture add for the team. Rushing to contact candidates from easy apply can mean not taking the necessary time to evaluate alignment with the role requirements and company values.
Impacts of Focusing Too Much on Speed
- Less thorough vetting of candidates beforehand
- More mis-hired candidates who seem good “on paper”
- Lower quality candidates making it to the interview stage
- Reduced ability to evaluate candidate alignment with role and culture
- Higher turnover from poor fit hires
It contributes to candidate ghosting
Easy apply makes submitting applications so simple that candidates will frequently apply to dozens or even hundreds of roles at once. But this can lead to candidates “ghosting” employers once they do land interviews.
According to LinkedIn, 66% of talent professionals say they experience more candidate ghosting due to easy apply. Candidates have applied to so many roles, they end up juggling multiple interviews and tend to prioritize the opportunities they’re most interested in.
This candidate ghosting ends up wasting recruiters’ time screening and scheduling interviews. And it can delay filling roles with quality candidates who are engaged in the interview process.
Impacts of Candidate Ghosting
- Wasted time screening and scheduling candidates who don’t show up
- Delayed interview process
- Repeat recruiting efforts to find replacements
- Negative candidate experience with unresponsive applicants
It skews metrics like applicants per open role
With applying being so frictionless, easy apply can skew various talent acquisition metrics for recruiters. One example is number of applicants per open role. When candidates spray out hundreds of easy applications, it can appear like there is more interest in a role than truly exists.
While more applicants per open role traditionally seemed positive for talent teams, too many low-quality applicants from easy apply can obscure the actual amount of qualified candidates interested in a specific role.
| Metric | Impact of Easy Apply |
|---|---|
| Applicants per open role | Inflated by unqualified candidates |
| Time-to-fill | Delayed by ghosting candidates |
| Cost-per-hire | Increased by unqualified applicants |
Beyond just applicants per open role, easy apply can adversely impact other recruiting metrics as well. This makes getting an accurate picture of the talent pipeline and process more difficult.
It clutters ATS and CRM systems
Easy apply directly feeds candidate information into recruiters’ applicant tracking and CRM systems. But when unqualified candidates flood these systems, it can negatively impact processes in several ways.
First, valuable time is wasted sorting and filtering through applicants vs spending time on more strategic initiatives. Next, cluttered systems slow down searching for qualified candidates already in the pipeline. Third, workflow automation and analytics suffer when there is “noise” from low quality candidates.
Adding screening questions and integration with assessment tools can help reduce unqualified applicants from easy apply. This prevents cluttering ATS and CRM systems downstream in the process.
It may discourage customized resumes
The easy apply process emphasizes submitting a LinkedIn profile vs uploading a tailored resume. While resumes require more upfront work, they allow candidates to customize their experience for each application.
Profiles take a one-size-fits-all approach and may discourage candidates from highlighting details like relevant skills, measurable results, culture add, etc. for specific roles. Easy apply means some candidates put in less effort upfront since their existing profile will suffice.
One survey by Jobvite estimated only 34% of candidates change their resume for each job application. Easy apply may contribute to more candidates relying on generic profiles rather than customizing resumes.
Customized Resumes vs Profiles
| Profiles | Customized Resumes | |
|---|---|---|
| Tailored to role | Generic | Role-specific |
| Emphasis on key details | Less emphasis | Emphasizes relevant info |
| Format and length | Fixed format | Flexible adaptation |
| Effort required | Less | More significant |
As shown above, customized resumes provide more value to both candidates and recruiters during the hiring process.
Conclusion
While easy apply can help remove friction from the job search process, it also has several downsides. Spray and pray applications from unqualified candidates, evaluating applicants too quickly, rampant ghosting, and other challenges can negatively impact recruiters.
Integrating screening questions, assessments, and recruitment marketing can help reduce applicants from easy apply. This improves quality while still benefiting from quick submissions. But the emphasis on speed over substance is likely here to stay unless LinkedIn fundamentally changes their approach.
In the end, easy apply has clear pros and cons. Companies need to weigh whether the volume of applications drives sufficient benefit compared to the various costs imposed on their talent teams. There are also opportunities to optimize processes to minimize the downsides of easy apply.