Playback speed
×
Share post
Share post at current time
0:00
/
0:00
Transcript

Indeed: How small UX decisions contribute to hiring misses

When it comes to decision-making, simplicity wins

TLDR: WATCH THE VIDEO (click above)

We tend to hire from our network, i.e. from friends or friends of friends.  In a study that analyzed data from 14 million+ applicants, employee referrals accounted for 30%+ of overall hires and nearly half of internally sourced hires.

Why? It could be that our network has the very best people in the world, who are the optimal fit for the job.

It could also be because we do what’s easiest.

Imagine “Matt” and I went to the same school. Matt wants to work at my company and asks me for a warm intro to the hiring manager. I’m not great friends with Matt, but I’ll do him a favor. The hiring manager now has to decide: she can sift through 200 resumes from Indeed… or interview Matt. What’s easier? Matt.

Today we’re reviewing what happened when I posted a job on Indeed. Spoiler alert: information overload. 200 resumes. When an abundance of options overwhelms us, we default to inaction. Or, in the above case, to hiring Matt. We’ll walk through what went wrong. And we’ll explore how simplifying choices and their framing can improve user engagement (and also make hiring a lot less stressful). 🔍

The cognitive load of hiring

The psychologist and author Barry Schwartz calls this the Paradox of Choice: faced with the sheer volume of decisions, we stick with the status quo. No wonder hiring managers take the simpler route of asking a few friends for referrals. 🤔

The other downside of choice overload: it leads to worse decisions. One study of employee health plans found that most employees choose what’s called a “dominated option”. This means a better option exists, but they opt for the more expensive or worse one. So if I don’t give up altogether and reach for my network, when I finally pick a candidate, it’s unlikely I’ll choose wisely.

What should brands do about this? Schwartz pointed to the success of Trader Joe’s. Trader Joe’s offers fewer choices compared to a typical American grocery store ( 3,000 products vs. 35,000+, respectively). Trader Joe’s limited selection reduces the cognitive load on its customers. The strategy seems to be working; they made $13.3 billion in revenue in 2022. 

Plot twist: Should they make it harder to apply? 

What can Indeed and other hiring platforms learn from this? One obvious answer: they should decrease choice! In the teardown, I give a play-by-play of how this could work. Doing this seems like a no-brainer.

But there may be a hidden issue here. When I vented about this wild choice overload to a restaurant owner, he said he appreciated getting so many candidates for his open positions. 

I was shocked. Why would you want to review 200 resumes?

He explained that Indeed makes it so easy to apply that most applications aren't serious. People are trigger-happy and applying to dozens of jobs a day. Since most candidates will ghost him for the job interview, he has to schedule dozens to get one person to actually show up! At this point, someone like “Matt” looks really good to him. 

How to solve this? Indeed could require candidates to do assessments (writing samples, small tasks). This would make applications harder, and fewer people would apply. Or they could introduce penalties. Imagine being banned from applying to new jobs for two weeks if you ghost an interview! The resulting reputational hit could encourage better behavior across the whole platform. 

All in all, Indeed has a tough challenge. They need to solve for both employers and employees. If they make applying for jobs too easy, employers will get frustrated and resort to hiring within the networks. If they make applying for jobs too hard, employees may become taxed or stay unemployed longer. The main lesson is (always) design for your friction. When you add friction, behavior changes.

Simplicity rules

A cardinal rule of behavioral design is: make it easy. Whether you’re a hiring platform, an e-commerce site, or a fintech, if you want to increase user engagement and satisfaction, you’ll likely benefit from simplifying choices and choice architecture. 

Insights from the teardown:

🏋🏽 Why you should reduce cognitive load in your users’ decision-making

🌍 What choice overload and decision fatigue mean for user choices

🛠️ How simplifying choices can improve user engagement

Thoughts? Decisions? Share them—and stay tuned for the next teardown.

Have a friend who would enjoy these teardowns? Click the button below to refer them (& earn some great rewards)👇

Refer a friend

Questions about your product? Email kristen@irrationallabs.com.

Want to increase conversion, retention, engagement? Reach out to Irrational Labs.

We design products that change behavior, using behavioral science. Check out our case studies to see it in action.

Product Teardowns
Product Teardowns