Why one application process does not work for every role
Application processes designed for desk-based candidates often exclude the very people organisations most need to reach for operational and frontline roles. A cleaner, caretaker, or support worker is unlikely to be sitting at a laptop during the day, may not have ready access to Word or a printer, and is far more likely to encounter a job advert on a phone during a break or after a shift. An IT professional or senior manager, by contrast, is typically desktop-based, comfortable uploading documents, and unlikely to be deterred by a longer form. Treating every role identically means either alienating frontline candidates with a desktop-first process, or under-serving specialist roles with something too simplified. Matching the application process to how the candidate actually works, not how the organisation works, is a straightforward way to reduce dropout.
Understanding why frontline and desk-based candidates need different application experiences, and what this means for candidate drop-out
Most organisations run one application process. Whichever role is advertised, whether it is a cleaner, a caretaker, a teaching assistant, or a senior manager, the candidate is directed to broadly the same form, asking for broadly the same information, in broadly the same format.
This works reasonably well for some candidates and poorly for others, because it assumes a single type of candidate exists. It does not.
Two candidates, two very different realities
Consider two people applying to the same organisation in the same week.
One is applying for a cleaning or caretaking role. They are unlikely to be sitting at a desk during working hours. They may not have a laptop at home, or ready access to Microsoft Word. They are far more likely to see the advert on a phone, on a break, on public transport, or in the evening after a shift. If the application asks them to upload a Word document, format a CV, or complete a form that renders poorly on a small screen, the process itself becomes a barrier, regardless of how well suited they are to the role.
The other is applying for an IT or specialist role. They are almost certainly desktop-based during working hours, comfortable navigating a longer form, and unlikely to be deterred by uploading a CV or completing a more detailed application. For this candidate, a longer, more thorough process is not a barrier. It may even be expected, since it signals that the organisation takes the role, and by extension the candidate, seriously.
The same process that works for one candidate quietly excludes the other. This is not a marginal concern. Hourly employees comprise 55.5% of the workforce, meaning that for many organisations, the majority of candidates they need to reach are not desk-based by default.
Why this gets overlooked
Application processes are typically designed once, by people who are themselves desk-based, familiar with the organisation’s systems, and comfortable with standard office software. It is a natural, unintentional blind spot. The process feels straightforward because it is straightforward for the person building it.
What is rarely asked is a more specific question: how is a candidate for this particular role actually going to encounter and complete this application? A cleaner scrolling a job board on their phone during a lunch break has a fundamentally different experience of a ten-field form than a candidate reviewing the same form on a widescreen monitor at their desk.
The evidence bears this out. Among hourly job seekers, 61% say that finding the right jobs to apply to is their biggest obstacle to employment, and 62% cite a lack of feedback from employers as a significant barrier. Lengthy applications and the inability to apply easily from a mobile device are consistently identified as direct contributors to candidate drop-off among this group.
What this looks like in practice
For roles that are more likely to attract candidates without regular desktop access, mobile responsiveness stops being a nice to have and becomes central to whether the process works at all. This might mean a shorter form, the ability to apply without uploading a formatted document, larger touch targets, and clear progress indicators so candidates know how much is left to complete on a small screen.
For roles that are more likely to attract desktop-based, specialist candidates, a longer or more detailed process is less likely to cause drop-out, and may in some cases be appropriate, provided it remains genuinely necessary rather than simply longer for its own sake.
The point is not that one approach is universally better. It is that the right approach depends on who is actually applying, and how they are likely to be applying from.
Why this matters
Every candidate lost at the application stage due to a mismatched process is not necessarily a candidate who was unsuitable. In many cases, they were simply unable to complete a process that was never designed with them in mind.
This gap is not a niche consideration. Deskless and frontline workers are estimated to represent around 80% of the global workforce, which means a desktop-first application process risks quietly excluding the majority of the working population from ever completing an application at all.
For organisations recruiting across a wide range of role types, from frontline and operational roles through to specialist and leadership positions, a single, undifferentiated application process is unlikely to serve all of them well. Reviewing how well the process fits the candidate it is trying to reach is often one of the simplest and most immediate improvements available.
Frequently asked questions
Talent attraction and employer marketing insights
Guides, frameworks and analysis for organisations recruiting in education, charity and the public sector.
