See you there!Alise
We are happy to have been contacted by Samantha Barth, Board Member and Program Manager for Northwest Recruiters Association. She has invited us to join a panel discussion about the importance of providing a quality candidate experience in today's competitive marketplace. The event takes place Thursday September 20th. We'll be in good company, among the likes of Judy Wright, Employee Engagement Director at Safeco and Matt Youngquist, Founder of Career Horizons.
The Northwest Recruiters Association has been conducting a series of lunch panel discussions, each focusing on a distinct perspective in the recruiting process. So far, the group has held a panel discussion to explore the perspectives of the hiring manager and the recruiter. Next to be ventured in our September session is the view of the candidate. Later in the year, the final view to be explored will be that of the recruiting leader. So far, each of the sessions has been sold out. Apparently, they take this whole recruiting thing pretty seriously in Seattle.... (grin). Thanks to you Samantha for reaching out to us! We'll look forward to frequenting our old stomping grounds and meeting some incredible professionals.
Technorati tags: Northwest Recruiters Association, candidate experience, selection and hiring
On Friday I had the exquisite opportunity to lunch at Pei Wei with Moises (pronounced moy-SAYS) Lopez. Turns out we both like to pen a word or two on blogs, both live here in the Dallas area, and both speak some Spanish and Portuguese. Oh, and we both ordered (and loved!) the Mongolian Beef with Fried Rice. How's that for a fabulous start?
But on closer examination, it also turns out we work in very similar arenas within recruiting. Moises makes his magic by sourcing top talent at PDS Technical Services, which serves clients across the nation with long-term contracted staffing. He makes it his business to know all the inner workings of the various industries in which he sources in order to procure the best talent as quickly as he can. And to find talent before his company really needs it -- now, that's strategic.
Meanwhile, we at Improved Experience are all about collecting and then translating candidate experience data into recruiting intelligence. Stuff you can use to make intelligent, data-driven business cases. Stuff you can take to the Board Room. All so you can more competitively position your company in today's hiring-challenged world by improving the recruiting process, by crafting more targeted outreach programs, and by shoring up your employment brand initiatives.
For both Moises at PDS Technical Services and we here at Improved Experience, the power of knowing -- or, recruiting intelligence -- drives everything. For Moises, the power of knowing manifests itself in creatively finding great and often passive talent so recruiting professionals can open the dialogue and begin the all-important courting dance which ultimately culminates into a placement. Improved Experience's power of knowing as third party researchers lies in serving our clients with real-time, benchmarked feedback from their talent pool. Data-minable by demographics and job search motivations, the result is recruiting intelligence.
Moises and I both agree -- working on the strategic side of things is fun! And helping to put those strategies into action is what allows us to be of value to our clients. We were thrilled to discover that what began as a mutual interest in blogging also translated to a common business focus. Together we realized that sourcing and recruiting intelligence have the same objective: to empower a company with actionable data that drives its lifeblood initiative of finding and keeping great talent. Who'd have thought we'd have so much in common -- outside of our obvious great taste in food?
Technorati tags: recruiting, sourcing and recruiting, recruiting intelligence
In a recent conversation about the importance of understanding job seeker perception of employers, the heart of the discussion was this: With the exception of the small percentage of those they might want to hire anyway, why should an employer care about what job seekers think as a whole?
Why indeed, unless perhaps the broader laws of competition apply to hiring and retention in your world, too.
Let’s take a look:
Sound familiar? Gee, I wonder why. You can almost replace the words “Customer” and “Business” with “Employer” and “Job Seeker” and not skip a beat.
On one hand, companies that know in advance the precise identity of the person who will be hired really don’t need to spend resources on those who won’t. Their time and money are no doubt better spent on initiatives deepening relationships with the chosen few.
For those of us without a crystal ball, however, the process of attracting, selecting and retaining talent is a complex one. Mostly because it is not a process at all – it is a relationship. And let’s be honest; knowing who we want to hire (much less retain) is relatively impossible until discovery of that relationship is underway.
Making the case that experience only matters for some is more than a little short-sighted. It’s impossible to know who is disengaging until it’s too late – and in this age of viral networking you don’t know who that person knows, either. This is a dangerous game to play.
Now compound the issue when supply and demand for talent shifts to the candidate’s favor; suddenly a company finds itself in the position of applying even more resources to bring that same talent onboard. The ramifications of this go straight to the bottom line, as that which decreases efficiency negatively impacts profitability.
You can argue whether or not you believe that we're in a war for talent, but you're already competing for them with every contact. Transparency - the art of openness, communication and accountability - may truly be the next great competitive differentiator for talent, because it sends the message that you're listening and you want to earn the respect of those you employ. Transparency builds trust - and isn't that what great relationships are made of?
Technorati tags: recruiting hiring employer_brand
One of the most exciting changes I see in recruiting today is a general shift in perceiving job seekers as customers rather than as transactions to be processed in a system. To be sure, it is still a small shift in awareness – but a very powerful one.
Recruiting can learn a lot from our friends in Marketing, specifically as methods relate to taking incremental steps toward building strong, loyal relationships with customers. Seth Godin, who spoke last month at the ERE conference in Florida, was an early pioneer of Internet marketing methods; the phrase “permission marketing” has become a common one in business circles since the release of his book in 1999 under that same name.
The premise of permission marketing is quite simple: turn strangers into friends, and friends into customers. The litmus test for this is also simple: does every marketing effort create a learning relationship with the customer? Does it invite that person to start communicating with you?
The beauty of correlating this concept with recruiting is almost a no-brainer. We get clear about the combination of skills and abilities that fit within the hiring environment, and then we design every recruiting effort to engage a candidate (the “stranger”) in a dialogue over time that turns them eventually into a hire (the “customer”). A bonus is that they may in fact become actual customers of the business – but that is food for another article.
The beauty of “Permission Recruiting” is also in the outcome: it places the company in a position that I like to call “Right of First Refusal.” This means that regardless of the candidate’s relevance for hire in a specific requisition, you have provided an experience that gives your company the right to say “no thanks” before the candidate does. In fact, the candidate’s experience is so good that you turned them into a friend - and friends become good referral sources in the recruiting realm. It is a circular argument.
The challenge of “Permission Recruiting” is that it commits us to behaviors that provide results over time. It is not a band aid approach to hiring, as it requires discipline and planning. In pure relationship terms, it is the difference between going steady and playing the field. If you want variety, the transaction method works just fine; however, if you seek a long term relationship with another human being, you must first define what you are looking for and then be willing to invest the time and energy required to obtain the results.
Visit Recruit.net to find Australia jobs.
Jack Yoest says that there are seven reasons why the military is having so much trouble recruiting these days (eight if you count Iraq, and the link to his post is below if you want to read it). It got me thinking about the global shift toward candidate-driven markets, and how prepared companies really are to compete all-out for talent once again.
Do me a favor and don't whine to me about politics when you read this. Sometimes suspending your frame of reference can be refreshing (or at the very least interesting in the clinical sense).
Jack's Seven M's for Military Recruiting (or what I like to call Tough Love for the Private Sector):
Muscles. "Political Correctness" has done more than create an even playing field for men and women in the Army; it has "gender normed" training, lowered the proverbial bar of physical excellence, and made the Army soft as a result.
All hires are not created equal. To treat them that way is about as silly as making engineering candidates take finance exams to get a job in marketing. Figure out what the business needs in terms of talent to get the job done, then recruit, select, hire and onboard with the riveted agenda of making that person productive ASAP. When you're done with that, measure, fix what isn't working, and go back to repeat step one.
Marketing. Sending a message of individualism has taken the teeth out of military culture. Social engineering has turned the Army into a group of solitary independents instead of a collection of teams acting as one unit for one mission.
Companies, like sports, are either individual or team oriented. KNOW WHICH ONE YOURS IS. And use that knowledge to screen for cultural fit. Cultural fit enhances productivity, which can be measured and improved. There's a step one for this bullet point, too; when in doubt, go back to visit it.
Money. Patriots aren't motivated by cash - they aren't mercenaries. Sign-on bonuses are a bad recruitment strategy.
Substituting pay for passion is a bad idea. It increases your training budget and requires that you recruit for the same positions again when your new hires run down the road at the first sight of blood (or a pay increase somewhere else). Want people to stay for all the right reasons? Then recruit them with those reasons. But don't start recruiting at the last minute and expect to underpay the competition. Build the relationship AND the job offer over time, and let your competitors compete on price.
Mirror. In an emphasis to build self-esteem, the Beret (formerly the coveted headgear of elite units only) is now worn by every soldier in the Army.
If you don't have to work for it, you didn't really earn it - and if you got it gratuitously, where's the pride in it? Your company stands for something (and if it doesn't, you're probably already looking for a new job yourself, in which case you're the LAST person who should be recruiting for the business)...figure out what that mission is, and go find people who believe in it as much or more than you do.
Mother Earth. Being green is leaving a mark: "the Army can't recruit, but it can recycle," while terrorists are sawing off the heads of US soldiers.
Get real. Or rather, get real focused on what's important. If you feel like you are spending time rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, then your attention is on all the wrong things. Risk and compliance have their place in recruiting - but it is NOT in the driver's seat. If your hands are tied, you can still recruit...but I can promise that it will take longer, cost more, and produce marginal results.
Mensch. War fighting is a violent activity requiring violence from men. Sensitivity training guts that emphasis. If you want winners, there must be losers.
Mensch is about character, or more specifically about the character you want around you when you're in the heat of things. Recruit and hire people with the fortitude to do what needs to be done, say what needs to be said, and take the company to a full blown WIN. People who will reach higher, work smarter, and do what's right instead of what's easy. Of course there will be losers; let them be on the competitor's payroll, not yours.
Momma. There should be no soft, feminine side to life in the barracks and trenches.
Buck up, you big baby. Your mom doesn't work here, and that means you'll have to be accountable for your own contribution as a recruiter. If your recruiting organization doesn't have a strategy, make this one yours: clarity, outreach, selection, hire, onboard, measure, improve.
Now get out there and hire someone today.
Jack Yoest's article can be read in its entirety here.
Technorati tags: corporate recruiting recruiting hiring
Michael over at Recruiting Animal is always making me think about something interesting (thanks, Michael).
His post here about applying triage to candidate relationship management actually makes a lot of sense when you know what you're doing. Come to think of it, most things in life make a lot of sense when you know what you're doing.
But what if you're going about your happy little life and - BAM - along comes a candidate in pain. Better yet, along comes a WHOLE BUNCH of them. They are all clamoring for your immediate attention, some of them with sad faces, some of them appearing quite justified for being there at all. What do you do, Recruiter? I repeat, WHAT DO YOU DO????
Over the years, a lot of really smart people have researched and written generally accepted practices for triage in emergency situations:
Wow - sounds a lot like conducting an interview, doesn't it? The biggest room for argument among recruiters lies in that last point, because its so darned hard to get all of us to agree on one protocol or guideline.
When you meet a candidate the first time you don't know if they're an A-lister, or hanging out with Kathy Griffin on the D-list. Even if they are referred by someone you respect and admire, you still don't know enough about them to make an intelligent recommendation to a hiring manger until you go through the process of finding out.
I like the logic that comes from ranking people in terms of attention required; lots of resources can be used more efficiently after that. I just think it's important to remember that triage is a process, and not the decision itself.
I agree that there is inherent risk in giving candidates a better or worse experience because of "The List" they are on. On second thought, that idea sucks. Wouldn't it be better to focus on giving a great experience to every candidate while moving them through a process that efficiently meets both of your needs? Then you don't have to worry about who you've dissed along the way.
Technorati tags: recruiting hiring
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 |
Recent Comments