Candidate Experience in the Hospitality Industry

Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash

Series: Recruitment, AI & HR in the hospitality industry · Post #8 of 90

#Recruiting #Hospitality #HotelIndustry #Catering #SkillsShortage #SpeculativeApplication #TalentPool #EmployerBranding #HR #Recruitment #NewWork #EmployeeRecruitment #Leadership #Hospitality #HospitalityIndustry #HRTrends #Career

Candidate Experience in the Hospitality Industry

Why we lose candidates – and still wonder about the skills shortage

In many hotels and hospitality businesses, the shortage of skilled workers is talked about as if it were an external force of fate. That's convenient, but it's wrong. The hospitality industry likes to talk about service. About hospitality. About emotion. Yet, at the very point where the first contact with prospective employees takes place – during the recruitment process – many people experience the exact opposite:

Silence.
Long waiting times.
Standard emails.
Impersonal rejections.
Automated responses.

Or even worse: no response at all.

However, poor application processes destroy more than just opportunities. As a result, the industry does not have a talent problem, but a systemic problem. Today, any organisation that confronts applicants with long forms, unclear processes and delayed feedback not only loses talent, but also credibility as an employer.

The so-called candidate experience is still an underestimated factor at many companies. At the same time, it is becoming increasingly clear that:
Poor application processes not only have financial consequences – they also affect candidates' psychological well-being.

When application processes become a source of frustration

A typical scenario:

A candidate invests several hours in their application.
They tailor their CV and cover letter to the specific role.
They submit all their documents via a complex system or by email, perhaps even in hard copy, neatly filed in a folder, and hand them in during an in-person visit.

Then – nothing happens.

Or, weeks later, they receive a standard rejection (automated, but in any case uninformative).

No explanation.
No feedback.
No appreciation.

Studies show that this very experience is not an isolated case, and they identify expectations and consequences:

• According to a study by CareerBuilder, 83% of candidates expect clear communication during the application process. At best, this communication takes the form of a standardised, automated acknowledgement of receipt – if it takes place at all.
• A study by Glassdoor shows that over 50% of applicants share their negative experiences publicly – for example, in reviews or on social media.
• The Harvard Business Review describes candidate experience as one of the key factors for employer branding and long-term corporate success. And yet, even corporations that are supposedly well positioned thanks to AI tools and, in most cases, well-staffed HR departments, ignore this finding.

In the hospitality industry, there is intense debate about the shortage of skilled workers. At the same time, application processes are becoming increasingly standardised, automated and controlled – with or without the use of AI.

There is a disconnect here.

Because, while we are looking for more staff, we are designing processes (whether manual or automated) that result in the loss of precisely those staff – often before any personal contact is even established. In the hospitality and catering sector in particular, candidate experience is not an 'HR issue'. It is an operational and cultural factor that has a direct impact on the length of time a position remains filled, the quality of candidates and, ultimately, the success of the business. In an industry where service is everything, a poor application process acts as a warning signal: if the application process is stressful, what will day-to-day work be like?

Recruiting is increasingly operating like a matching system

In one of my recent posts, I described the parallels between dating apps and recruitment in the hospitality industry. Algorithms compare profiles. Systems prioritise matches. Mismatches are filtered out. What sounds efficient has a clear consequence: what someone can do is no longer the primary consideration. What matters is how well a profile matches the search parameters. This is not a minor issue. This is a structural filter.

Data provides clarity – and, at the same time, obscures

In another article, I pointed out that, while figures provide guidance, they never capture the full picture of reality. This is particularly evident in the field of recruitment.

• Systems analyse keywords
• Processes measure lead times
• Dashboards show supposed efficiency

What is not captured:

• Personality
• Development potential
• Interpersonal skills
• Leadership skills in day-to-day operational work

The consequence is logical: if in doubt, anything that cannot be measured is not taken into account.

The candidate experience becomes a by-product

In practice, for applicants, this means:

• Time-consuming application processes
• Standardised input forms
• Long waiting times
• Often, no feedback

Or an automated rejection without any explanation. This is often justified on the grounds of efficiency. In reality, however, it is a quality issue. Because the candidate experience is not just about how a process unfolds. It describes how a company treats people before they even become part of the organisation – and, in most cases, afterwards as well.

The impact on candidates is underestimated

Job applications are not purely formal processes. They are associated with:

• Expectations
• Uncertainties
• Financial decisions
• Personal development

When feedback is not provided or processes lack transparency, this has been shown to lead to:

• Frustration
• Withdrawal from application processes
• Declining motivation

Studies and market analyses (including LinkedIn Talent Trends and Glassdoor Candidate Experience Research) show that negative application experiences not only lead to candidates withdrawing their applications (including 'high-potential' or 'suitable' candidates), but also affect how a company is perceived in the long term.

In the hospitality sector, there is an additional factor: many candidates are also guests, regular customers or influencers. Therefore, any negative experience during the recruitment process is not only a staffing issue but also a brand issue.

However, the impact of inadequate processes is not evenly distributed across various applicant groups; unfortunately, it is concentrated among the target groups in the recruitment world who particularly often experience products and brands as guests: because they have the time, the income or the commitments in their current sphere of activity that enable them to experience the hospitality company or the hospitality business whose team they wish to strengthen.

Women's applications often feature non-linear CVs, periods of part-time work or career breaks, which more frequently result in profiles that do not conform to the expected patterns. The system detects deviation – not competence.

Career changers: In many discussions, the importance of career changers for the sector is emphasised. However, this is often not reflected in the processes. Experience gained outside the sector is rarely valued equally – even though it often provides precisely the skills that are lacking internally.

Another target group is the over-50s, who can offer experience, stability and leadership skills. At the same time, this is a group that is often less visible in standardised processes. Not because they lack skills. It is because they are presented differently. Or because the job specification states that particular emphasis should be placed on cultural fit in an ambitious start-up with a predominantly young team (i.e., too old). Not infrequently, stability (i.e., no longer malleable, or at least not easily so) and experience (i.e., higher salary) are also criteria that are sought but not remunerated or catered for.

The next systemic rupture: the end of speculative applications

In another article, I described the consequences of effectively abolishing unsolicited applications. Many companies now only accept applications via standardised systems. The justification for this is often data protection or process security.

However, the consequence is a different one:

• Applicants can no longer position themselves individually
• Motivation is replaced by forms
• Personal connections are lost.

This is a clear departure from the logic of the hospitality industry. Because this industry thrives on personality – not on standardisation.

A contradiction that is rarely acknowledged

The hospitality industry expects the following from its staff:

• A focus on service
• Attentiveness
• Empathy
• Individuality
• Quality in all visible and non-visible areas of work
• Friendly, open-minded and effective communication with guests

During the recruitment process, candidates often experience:

• No communication at all, or at most, standardised communication
• A lack of transparency
• Little commitment
• Bulk processing
• A complete lack of appreciation

This contradiction is not an isolated case. It is systemic. And, in the meantime, it has become economically relevant. Because a poor candidate experience has direct consequences:

• More applications are abandoned
• Decision-making times increase
• Suitable candidates drop out

At the same time, the shortage of skilled workers is repeatedly identified as a key problem. Against this background, a legitimate question arises: Is the problem really down to the market – or to the (unexamined) processes or process components?

Competency architecture – yes, but not set in stone

A good candidate experience begins long before the interview. It starts with an honest job advertisement: outlining responsibilities, working hours, team structure, development opportunities, salary details and realistic expectations. Unclear or overloaded adverts generate mistrust – and, in a competitive candidate market, mistrust is the quickest way to fail.

Then there is the issue of accessibility: if applicants can only apply using complicated forms, you will lose some of your target audience at the very first point of contact. Therefore, mobile-first applications, WhatsApp options or very short application processes are not a luxury but a competitive factor.

And, above all, speed is key. These days, if it takes you 5 days or more to get back to candidates, you are not competing with other employers, but with the candidates' patience – and that is in short supply. Prompt confirmations, clear timeframes and a reliable next step often make the difference between a candidate accepting a job offer and dropping out of the process.

Companies that aim to find the ideal candidate by using job requirement profiles and a competency framework are far ahead of those that still rely on job descriptions drawn up in the late 1980s. And yes, believe me, those job descriptions still exist. After all, a waiter is a waiter, isn't it? Even if, in the interests of socio-political correctness, the job advertisement now includes the parenthetical addition '(m/f/d)'. But why exactly does a service staff member in a traditional hotel restaurant need at least five years of experience in high-end hospitality? Are their specialist knowledge, their advanced training as a sommelier, and their ten years of experience in the hospitality industry not enough? Are these professional skills, and above all the 'hospitality gene', not sufficient when combined with 'on-the-job training and training on the standards' within the business? Why is it absolutely essential for the new GM to have experience in the five-star hotel industry? She, the potential manager, can provide training, can lead, can handle figures and budgets; she has an extensive network, is a consummate host and loves the industry. Isn't that more important than a hotel management team holed up in a 5-star office, where they have already spent the last few years?

Boards of directors, management teams, and divisional and departmental heads often present HR departments with requirements of this nature, which are then 'shaped' by HR managers or recruitment teams. These requirements are rarely questioned. If Ms or Mr X wants a candidate of this kind, then that's the way it is. As a result, the search is for applicants and potential new employees who: 

• are young and therefore malleable
• have a university degree but little practical work experience (even in the case of dual study programmes) and, as a result, are somewhat more expensive in terms of salary (because they are graduates) than people with a traditional apprenticeship, but still less expensive than those with work experience
• have at least five to ten years of relevant professional experience in this or that field, but please with the salary expectations of a recent graduate
• can demonstrate a wide range of additional training, further education and professional development (perhaps this could even save the need for another position), but do not want to be remunerated separately for these qualifications
• are flexible and resilient, i.e., willing to work overtime and to calmly handle stressful situations arising from the inability to fill vacancies in a timely manner
• And so on, and so on. 

Spoiler: These days, the fruit basket no longer lures anyone out from behind the stove, and the job wheel has also had its day.

Conclusion

Candidate experience is not a 'soft' HR issue. It is an indicator of how consistently a company puts its own values into practice and scrutinises not only its requirements but also the benefits it offers. It reflects the company culture. If you want to attract talent in the hospitality industry, you need to view recruitment as part of your service culture. A good candidate experience is not a 'soft' factor, but a measurable lever for time to hire, cost of vacancy, application quality and employer attractiveness. And it is the candidate experience that determines whether interest actually leads to collaboration. Or not.

Therefore, the most impactful candidate experience in the hospitality and catering sector is not a complicated one. It is clear, human, swift and fair. It is a direct indication of how a company is led as a whole. What matters is not whether a company is 'high tech'. What matters is whether it acts reliably, respectfully and promptly. Small and medium-sized, owner-managed businesses often do not have a large HR stack. This is not a disadvantage, as long as they play to their strengths: closeness, personal touch and decision-making ability. A brief, personal conversation, prompt feedback from the owner or management team, and a straightforward application process often have a greater impact than any elaborately configured recruitment software. 

We are not just losing skilled workers or managers or applicants in general.

We are losing trust!