A job seeker laments the lack of manners shown by many companies.

Kate from Sydney writes: "I wish to express my concern, frustration and disappointment with the non-courtesy of employers who advertise for staff.

These are samples of my experiences, which may resonate with other frustrated applicants: non-acknowledgment of job applications; non-return of phone calls; bluntness, indeed, utter impoliteness in the way information is reluctantly offered about the advertised position; advertising part-time positions, accepting applications, then changing the status to full time; increasing propensity of employers to expect applicants to have their own ABN, thus the onus on an employee to be paid via an invoice; advertising part time but actual employment is based on casual hourly rate, thus avoiding paying public holidays or leave; no available position description; and non-advice or follow-up of progress of job application, even when promising to do so.

"Am I expecting too much to ask employers, including employment agencies, to implement Courtesy - note the capital C - during the job selection process? The objective of an employer or agency's advertisement is to attract applications. All applicants who take the time to submit an application are deserving of an acknowledgment and follow-up."

The short answer to Kate is - based on past and current trends - yes, you are expecting too much from the employers and agencies.

However, I see no reason why things cannot change and I see an opportunity for clued-up companies to improve their services to applicants.

It is probably fair to say most employers and agencies had traditionally seen recruitment as an exercise in whittling down, as accurately and economically as possible, a large number of applicants for a small number of positions. Because demand from applicants outstripped the supply of jobs, little cost was associated with alienating unsuccessful candidates in the manner experienced by Kate. There were plenty more like Kate to choose from next time.

However, increasingly, there is a dearth of suitably qualified candidates in the market, typically for skilled positions.

This has created what consultant McKinsey dubs the "talent war", as companies have to compete for the best candidates. Companies are more willing to spend more time and money in attracting candidates and treating them all well.

Similarly, recruiters often bemoan the shortage of quality candidates. The decent recruiters have lifted their game when it comes to the management of job candidates.

But there is always more that can be done.

To my mind, there is a fantastic opportunity to provide a brief and focused feedback and coaching service to unsuccessful candidates.

Applicants want to know why they are unsuccessful and what they can do to improve. It is not rocket science.

Usually, candidates are unsuccessful because their application was misdirected, given their skills and experience (career-direction coaching is required); they failed to make a compelling case in writing (application-writing coaching is required); they failed to make a good impression in the interview or there was slippage in their story between stages of the process (interview and strategy coaching is required); they had poor referee reports (referee management is required); or they were strong but someone else was stronger (motivational coaching is required).

If recruiters are serious about attracting a strong pool of candidates and developing a relationship with that pool, there is a business case - as well as a case based on Kate's demand for good manners - to support applicants.

Such a service would be attractive to employers of choice who want to be associated with high-quality recruitment practices.

Jim Bright is professor of career development at ACU and a partner at Bright and Associates career management consultancy. Send emails marked "FOR PUBLICATION" to brightside@jimbright.com.