The New Law of Unintended Consequences.

Read a LinkedIn Post today about a company who added an identity verification step to their job application portal to knock out fake applications. Applications went from 1600 per day to 200. They were so very pleased with themselves. 

Adding identity verification might address an ontological (identity) error - “Hiring a Ghost”

But it doesn’t solve the epistemic (qualification) error - “Hiring an Actor” when real people submit fake or embellished details.

(Yes, I had to look up how to spell those two words.)

I would bet that this change introduces more Type I error - “Not Hiring the Great,” when strong candidates abandon their application after seeing the identity verification requirement that early in the process. 

Hell, I know great people that won't apply to jobs when the companies use Workday as their ATS. Adding friction might reduce volumes, but you'll likely also reduce average candidate quality. 

 I know I’m always *thrilled* to do another one of those ID verifications they’re - like CAPTCHAs, but with a walrus mustache. 

Recruitment is, and always will be, a people business. I believe that recruitment teams must use new tools and techniques to:
 1) Identify the most likely-to-fit candidates (since fewer than 1% of applicants are truly are qualified anyway) and dig in on those candidates using the time otherwise wasted spent on the rest.
 2) Authenticate those who move forward in the process, not with machines, but with documents, references and straight up human to human due diligence.

After all, when was the last time an apparition showed up to meet you for an in-person interview? I've interviewed many more actors than ghosts, but then again, the ghost stories are much more memorable. 
 
What do you think? Should we just make the application process harder?
How far do we take this - charge a refundable application fee?
Only accept applications by fax or (gasp) snail mail?