Recruiting software by BlackDog - recruitment news

Recruitment news

Using Messaging Campaigns to Spur Employee Referrals

ERE Articles, Mon, 12 May 2008

By Dr. John Sullivan & Master Burnett Employee referral programs are a lot like bottles of wine. Most companies have at least one, the vast majority of which are average or less than average, and only a few ever truly become exceptional. But the similarities don't stop there. When the blend of features is perfect, everyone talks about their experience with friends and family, and the producer ends up making a small fortune on a modest investment. Just as great wines go bad if not handled correctly, so do great referral programs. In studying the design of referral programs that produce phenomenal results, it became clear that the top-producing programs clearly do things differently and execute nearly everything at a level of quality most in HR could barely even fathom. One of the design elements that distinguishes programs producing more than 50% of an organization's hires from programs producing 20% is a program marketing strategy that hyper-segments the employee population and communicates with each segment in a much more effective way. Understanding Your Actual Referral Activity In organizations with informally managed programs, research shows that more than 60% of referrals were not initiated by the employee, but rather by individuals outside the organization approaching the employee and asking to be referred. Presumably, these candidates were hoping to avoid the 'black hole' of applicant death known as the career site. Given this high concentration of applicant-initiated activity, it is a logical conclusion that in programs where this is occurring, the percentage of referrals actually qualified would be only marginally better than the career site itself, which we know is often 1:1000. On the flip side, programs with formal, dedicated management often find that 1:5 referral is qualified, a significantly higher percentage by any measure. The plain truth of the matter is that lacking formal leadership, most programs take on a path much like that of a leaf in a windstorm; the external forces control the destiny of the leaf. The concept behind employee referrals is simple. Talented employees who desire to work alongside other talented people would seek out such talent, build a relationship with such talent, and eventually ask such talent to consider working with them. It's a concept that works really well in organizations that demonstrate both trust in and respect for employees that follow through on the concept, but few companies actually trust and respect their employees! The primary mechanism by which top-performing programs prove they trust and respect employees is by delivering a world-class program experience. One element that program participants in top-performing programs indicated was of value and that they would like more of was program communications. Communicating to Build Program Participation Assuming your organization is committed to demonstrating trust and respect for employees by servicing employee referrals in a world-class way, the next step is to drive program participation. This is a science that top-performing programs use to influence the flow of inbound referrals. For example, if five hires are needed in a specific job family in June, and the average cycle time to produce a hire is 30 days, and it takes five referral candidates to produce a single hire, then in many formally managed programs, a messaging campaign is initiated with the goal of producing 25 referrals in late April or early May. Not only are the communications tied to forecasted demand, they are designed in such a way to influence qualified referrals while discouraging generic referrals. The program marketing secrets we uncovered that lead to greater program participation include: Targeted messaging to hyper-segmented employee populations. Delivery of messages using a minimum of three different channels. Design of messages to provide immediate value to recipients beyond application to the referral program. Scheduling of messaging campaigns based on workforce planning forecasts. Each of these marketing program design characteristics is discussed below. Hyper-Segmented Messaging While an average program may draft employee referral program messages once a quarter, the message is usually generic in nature and broadcast to the entire organization. Top-performing programs, on the other hand, may generate thousands of campaigns a year, some of which may be targeted at only a small handful of employees. Segment messaging may include: Employee location Job family Job performance rating Labor type (employee, contractor, consultant, etc.) Tenure Previous employer Past referral success/failure Diversity characteristics Affinity group membership Management level Preferred method of communication Educational background (degree, institutions attended, etc.) While some messages are relevant to the entire employee population, the vast majority are not. The secret is to avoid 'dumbing down' messages to make them relevant to everyone and instead deliver extremely relevant messages to much smaller populations. It may seem like a lot of work, but the payoff makes it well worth it. Three-Pronged Message Delivery Another key learning from the research is that not all employees pay attention to the same channels of communication. Some people read posters, while others ignore them. Some people read every email, while others employ filters to sort out only the most important. Some people prefer face-to-face, while others require written materials. What the research shows is that you need to leverage at least three channels if you want your message to reach a majority of the employee population. What happens if you don't use at least three? The research shows 72% of employees were unable to recall basic program features when prompted, compared to 43% in companies using three or more. The key we found was the number, not necessarily the use of specific channels. While email was common among nearly all top-performing programs, there were a significant number of top-performing programs that do not leverage email at all, like construction companies. The most common sources of communication used include: Signs in public places (have you considered bathroom stall doors?) Email Websites Intra-office mail Voicemail broadcasts Team/Departmental/Functional meetings Mail sent to employees homes Payroll notices/Stubs Design Messages to Provide Immediate Value More often than not, even the best marketing efforts found among average programs involved messages that were informative but not of value. Top-performing programs, on the other hand, refined the ability to develop messages that had value outside their immediate application to the employee referral program. For instance, emails alerting employees in a specific location about mission-critical or hard-to-fill jobs may also contain guidance on how to use an online directory to find old friends or former colleagues. Because the process of how to find someone has relevance outside the act of making referrals, there is a much better chance the message will gain traction and lead to employees trying the activity suggested. Other messages might introduce funny facts about the organization or tips on using an employee benefit in an innovative way that prime employees with interesting stories they can tell others when talking about their employer. Some of the elements that can be designed into messaging campaigns to provide value include: A summary of key business performance indicators in a language the average employee could understand. Tips/guidance on tools and techniques employees can use to identify suitable talent. Wow stories that provide 'interesting' conversation material for employees to chat about with people outside the organization. Updates on what urgent needs exist and priming questions that might help employees figure out who they know. If I were to ask you a very specific question, say for instance, do you know any financial analysts that used to work for Bear Stearns, it would be much easier for you to answer quickly than if I were to ask you a very broad question. Messaging Campaigns Tied to Workforce Plans The final element that differentiated marketing of the employee referral program between top and average programs was the existence of a strategy to coordinate the delivery of messages with needed workforce activity. Several of the firms that best 70% of hires via their ERP year-over-year have proven that you can reverse-engineer what messaging is needed and when it must be sent to produce a targeted flow of referrals as needed. By using yield model calculations, program managers can determine how many referrals are needed to make a hire, how many referrals are generated in response to specific campaign types, what factors increase referral activity, etc. Combining this data with traditional staffing analytics enables the program coordinator to proactively manage the referral program, versus allowing the winds of the organization to control its destiny. Summing Up Managing a world-class employee referral program isn't something you do in your spare time. It requires a relentless focus on quality and execution, just like producing a fine wine. California wine producers proved years ago that wine-making is a science, not an art, and managing an employee referral program is no different. When it comes to program management elements that make a difference, program marketing is right up there with managing the participant experience. Marketing a program in a world-class way entails driving program participation to meet specific program goals and objectives. If you have a world-class experience but are not achieving significant referral volume, program marketing might be your issue. However, if you don't have a system for delivering a world-class participant experience, you shouldn't even be thinking about program marketing yet. The cardinal rule? You can't start with a crappy program and slowly make it better if you need mass participation to drive significant hiring volume.

The Uneven Evolution of Corporate Recruiting

ERE Articles, Fri, 09 May 2008

Much of the hiring process from sourcing to closing to onboarding has changed significantly over the past 20 years. Much hasn't. And therein lies the problem. In some cases we're past Web 2.0, in other cases we're still using stone-age techniques to find, recruit, and hire top performers. One could contend that the Internet has been the reason we've lost the war for talent. Turnover has certainly increased, requiring companies to build large recruiting teams where only small ones existed before. More candidates responded to more ads on the big boards, so robust candidate tracking systems needed to be developed to manage the 100-fold increase in applicant flow. Significantly more effort was required to separate the good from the bad, as well as meet legal standards. As the 'me' generation emerged and the stigma of changing jobs became a non-issue, job mobility accelerated, adding to the list of challenges. Collectively, total costs have increased dramatically while cost/hire has probably stayed about the same. And there are probably some less obvious adverse impacts caused by the Internet, but since it's too late to put the genie back in the bottle, we'd better figure what to do with the mess we're in. Some solutions are emerging, but in situations like this it's always best to see the big picture first. At a pretty high level, here are the eight steps most companies use to fill positions and a quick take on what's changed and what hasn't: Open a requisition. Most companies still use traditional job descriptions emphasizing skills and experiences. These are useless for attracting anyone from Gen Y to the oldest of the baby boomers. Other than HR, who would actually market a product or service that emphasized the tech specs rather than the benefits for the customer? Skills- and experience-based job descriptions are like an albatross around your neck. Until you dump these, you'll never find enough good candidates. (Here's an article you might want to check out to discover the alternative.) Source candidates. This has moved from newspaper ads to big job boards to search engine optimization, talent hubs, social networking, and beyond. This is the area where the biggest advance has been seen. Of course, if ads are still boring, the impact of many of these Web 2.0 advances has been compromised. Regardless, companies that have taken full advantage of these new Web sourcing tools have seen a positive impact. They have seen a huge impact if they've added in some creative consumer advertising ideas into the mix. Qualify candidates. Other than adding in a pre-qualification assessment questionnaire, someone still needs to call prospects, qualify them, and get them interested. I'd even go so far as to suggest that the best people with multiple opportunities will eliminate themselves before succumbing to the impersonal online assessment. For example, on a consumer product/service level, how do you feel when you can't talk with a live person about something, whether it's important or trivial? Developing relationships up-front with top performers is a critical component of sourcing. Yet, in this area, companies have regressed dramatically as a result of using the Internet. Manage candidate data. Tracking systems have helped manage the data, but have had little impact on improving quality of hire or recruiter productivity. So on this factor, I'd contend that technology has just kept us even. Barely. Interview and assess candidates. Nothing has changed here. Most companies still use old-fashioned behavioral interviews that every candidate can fake, or managers still make important hiring decisions on gut feelings and emotions. While there are some new ideas out there, the HR department still seems to want to rely on stuff that was new in the 70s and 80s, but quite a bit outdated today. Here's information on a unique two-question interviewing approach that can't be faked. Recruit and close candidates. It's a new world out there, with counter-offers now considered appropriate, competitive offers the norm, and maximizing compensation part of the game. Unfortunately, most recruiters are still using old-fashioned transactional or unsophisticated selling techniques, with the candidates now calling the shots. Worse are managers who think selling or charming a candidate still works. As the supply for top candidates declines with increasing demand, more sophisticated solution and consultative selling techniques will be required. Yet most recruiting managers still think hiring a bunch of rookies or seasoned Lone Rangers to do their recruiting can be a scalable business process. Overall, the ability to recruit and close has been a net loss with too many recruiters doing their own thing. Keep candidates closed. It's not over until it's over. Nowadays, it's critical to maintain a formal bridging process between the time a candidate accepts an offer and the time the person shows up. This period is when buyer's remorse sets in, the pressure of a counter-offer increases, and other hungry recruiters start poaching your semi-closed candidate. Overall, this is another net loss area. Few companies are addressing this critical in-between period in any formal way, leaving it up to the manager and recruiter to figure it out. Onboarding new employees. Some positive strides have been made on this front. Whether it's formal training or clarifying job expectations up-front and tying these to a formal performance management system, companies are recognizing the importance of minimizing turnover and increasing employee satisfaction. Given this, it's fair to say that since the dawn of the Internet, overall recruiting and hiring performance has gotten worse rather than better. Some companies have bucked the trend by taking advantage of better sourcing tools to gain a market share and big companies have been able to use the Internet to leverage their employer brand. But since most companies have not modified their recruiting process in light of these changes, there are still many short-term opportunities available for those who want to quickly recover lost ground. For example, there is a major shift now underway on how candidates look for jobs, bypassing the big boards and going directly to Google to search for jobs. Getting to the top of the organic and sponsored listings is now the key to sourcing success, and Jobs2Web.com seems to have found the magic formula. They clone a company's website and search engine optimize each job posting to make sure it can be quickly found. On top of this, Jobs2Web offers RSS feeds and instant messaging to bring some level of relationships back into recruiting. Another example: job board aggregators like SimplyHired , Indeed , and Juju , which offer candidates one-stop shopping with access to multiple job boards and career sites. Make sure you feed your jobs to these aggregators to increase your exposure, but pay extra to get to the top of the sponsored listings. It's worth it if you select the right keywords. SimplyHired seems to be pushing the envelope on positioning, pushing job ads to smaller niche sites and places where people are just starting to look. Juju seems to be going after simplicity and low cost. Timing and ad positioning like this are becoming more important factors in sourcing, so make sure you're using these aggregators to get your postings found by the right people. I'd suggest you shift much of your job board ad budget and reallocate it to the aggregators. It will be money well spent. Few companies are up-to-speed here on some of these latest sourcing ideas, so this offers a great opportunity to quickly find more top performers. Jobs2Web and SimplyHired were both at the last ERE Expo, and if you didn't connect with them, make sure you do right away. While these tools will increase your candidate flow, you'll still need to upgrade the rest of your recruiting processes to take full advantage of these approaches, but we'll leave that for another day.

Talent Management: The New Buzz

ERE Articles, Thu, 08 May 2008

Over the past 20 years or so, corporations worldwide have focused on a variety of initiatives. The bulk was aimed at improving efficiency, increasing profit, and ensuring quality. They have ranged from business process re-engineering to Six-Sigma quality, and have been responsible for the productivity gains world economies have enjoyed, as well as for the lower prices and better quality of most products we use. These initiatives have changed our expectations. We expect everything we buy to work immediately with little to no need for an instruction booklet and last for a long time without the need for repair. We also expect products to be priced very low relative to how they were priced for our parents. Items such as televisions, cars, and computers are incredibly cheap compared to when they first appeared on the market, and prices continue to decline. All of these changes have come about because of the relentless focus corporations have had on a handful of focused projects based on experimentation and objective measurement. The focus has now turned to talent. As more organizations realize that it is service, innovation, and relationships that bring profit, the focus moves away from the manufacturing and production side to the people side. It is now HR's turn to be in the limelight and ensure the availability of needed talent and the overall quality of talent. Recruiters are central to that effort and many changes are underfoot. Recruiting as a profession is challenged to embrace a broader scope of work and to take responsibility for more sophisticated and complex talent analyses and development. Here are a few ways that recruiters should start thinking and acting about talent. These mirror the methods used by manufacturing, finance, and other corporate functions that have undergone transformations over the past decades. Become a Talent Solutions Provider, Not a Recruiter I am not advocating that you just put a new title on your business card. What I am advocating is a shift in your thinking. You do not fill requisitions, you do not source candidates, and you do not screen and assess. What you do is solve talent problems and make it easier for your organization to achieve its business goals. That may seem like a minor distinction, but it carries a depth of meaning. It says you are strategic and know the business issues and goals of your organization. You can push back on hiring managers who seem to be asking for talent that is not right for the direction the organization is headed. It also says you have knowledge of the talent market and can intelligently speak about the availability of certain kinds of talent with numbers and facts. Having the right frame of mind is the most important aspect of change. It will not be easy to begin thinking like a solutions provider rather than a 'slot filler,' but as long as that is your goal and you periodically assess whether you are moving in the right direction, you will succeed. Focus on Competencies and Hiring Managers' Requirements To quantitatively improve candidate quality and overall performance, a solutions provider needs to be able to define every position in terms of the competencies and skills that have been verified as necessary to accomplish the tasks of that position. You need to ask hiring managers to define the skills they need to hire, not the degrees and experience levels they think are appropriate. While degrees and experience may add depth to the final decision, it is skills and abilities that ultimately make the most difference. Skills and abilities are often referred to as competencies and there are standard competency lists available, such as the O-Net list of competencies available from the U.S. Department of Labor. These competency lists mean you don't have to hire specialists to develop them for you and make it much easier and less expensive to apply them to a variety of positions. Other ways to improve the sophistication and effectiveness of recruitment is to add more thoughtful analysis to the process. Here is what a few organizations are doing: Some organizations are using modeling techniques to determine whether it is more efficient to hire a replacement for a position or to train someone internally. The decision is made on data, not on the opinions of HR or managers. Some are calculating the impact one person has on profits based on a skills profile versus another person with a different profile. Some are looking at the attributes of successful performers and tying their findings back into the recruitment assessment process. Is this a perfect system? Not by a long shot at this point. As many readers have pointed out to me, these analyses and competencies are often too general or too simple to be really useful. However, it is more important to have an experimental mindset and begin to use and improve them. To wait until someone produces a better system will put you far behind the learning curve. Adopt and Start Using Talent Management Technology Technology ultimately frees you and informs you. It takes away administrative chores and does the routine better than you ever did. Most important, it gives you the information you need to make decisions. When you have data about sources of hires, time, and cost, and when you know who stays and who leaves, you can make much better decisions. You can defend yourself and be much surer that you are going in the right direction. Many large firms such as HP (hear Bill Kutik's latest  interview ) have implemented integrated systems to tie competency identification, development, recruitment, and performance management together. Buying and implementing a comprehensive HRIS tool is essential, and coupling that with a talent management system will make it even more useful. An HR or recruiting function without an HRIS and a talent management system is like a walk in the dark with a small candle. The next 10 years will be marked by the increasing use of quantitative tools and methods in HR and recruiting. Many of these will be 'imported' from other disciplines that have already been shaken to the core, such as manufacturing and finance. This period will be marked with process improvements, measurement, quantification of all HR processes, and implementation of Six-Sigma quality standards. It will also be a time marked by a rigor of thinking, and a challenging of assumption and beliefs that has not been seen in HR before.

Careers in Human Resources

Human Resources, Mon, 05 May 2008

As spring is fully sprung all around me, I am reminded that this is graduation time from many high schools and colleges. So I made providing some basic information about...

Employee Referral Program Killers

John Sullivan, Mon, 05 May 2008

Employee referral programs are the most powerful corporate recruiting tool, bar none. They can produce a high volume of quality hires who have been statistically proven to have lower rates of attrition. When designed well, they can not only be cost-effective, but they can produce one of the highest ROIs in the entire HR function. Firms with well-designed referral programs can tune them to produce over 70% of hires (AmTrust, for example, has reached 78%). However, there can be a dark side to referrals. Because the concept seems so simple, many program managers design their programs based on intuition, guesswork, and emulation. Unfortunately, while the concept truly is simple, executing it in a world-class way is anything but. As a result, most referral programs sadly underperform their potential by using numerous 'program killers,' or common components of a majority of corporate referral programs. If your referral program is struggling to produce a mere 30% of your organization's hires, I guarantee that you have more than one of these 15 killer elements as part of your program design: Responsiveness of the program. Nothing kills a well-designed program faster than slow or no response rates to employee referrals. If the person being referred doesn't hear something unique to their submission within 72 hours, they will become discouraged. If the employee making a referral doesn't get a similar rapid response, they will also begin to wonder about the program. If nothing ever happens, they will simply stop referring. This happens in a majority of referral programs. The first step in increasing responsiveness is to 'mark' referral resumes and to develop a system to immediately notify individuals and to screen all referrals within five days. Respond rapidly to the employee and the candidate, and be honest as to the reasons why someone is not selected. Delaying reward/bonus payment. Withholding payment of the bonus for 90 to 180 days post-hire is silly. Do sales people have to give back their sales bonuses if the customer stops buying after 90 days? Do you delay payments to staffing agencies or executive search firms? Well, of course not. So why should you treat your employees more harshly than you do your vendors? Rewards work only if they are immediate and there is no 'risk' of not getting them. Nothing discourages participation more than delaying the reward based on something beyond the employee's control. Paying half of the fee upfront is not an acceptable alternative. In addition, it's not the employee's responsibility to hire a candidate, only to refer them. Hiring managers do the final assessment and they determine whether the person is the right fit. If the person does quit prematurely, it's the manager you should blame, not the employee making the referral, because they have no control over how the individual is treated. Referral spamming. Designing a process that allows individuals to inundate the referral system with high-volume, low-quality resumes will cause the program to suffer or even fail. If you allow it, some employees will bring you stacks of resumes that they got from a recruiter friend or from the Internet. Although it's tempting to accept them, never accept large volumes of resumes or referrals. The reason for this is that the person giving a large volume of referrals cannot know them all, and one of the key design features for program success is that employees only refer people they know on a professional level. Unless it's an unusual circumstance, limit referrals to no more than three a month for many individuals. Excluding senior managers and HR people. The idea behind a referral program is to get as many people as possible scanning the streets and talking up your firm. To exclude anyone, especially highly visible individuals like senior managers and HR professionals, is not advised. Excluding them makes them feel like they are second-class citizens, and they will not refer at the same rate if they are excluded specifically from the program and the reward. If you're worried about these individuals referring people who are qualified just to get the money, then these individuals should be fired on the spot. The best programs allow hiring managers or anyone with a perceived conflict to 'opt out' of the bonus or donate it to charity. Allowing 'I found you' referrals. The idea behind quality referrals is that you seek out individuals and assess their work and their fit with the company over a period of time. However, as many as 60% of all referrals are not actually referrals but instead are situations where an individual proactively approached one of your employees (because they knew where they worked) and asked them to put in their name as a referral. In this 'I found you' situation, there is no in-depth assessment of the individual. In fact, the referral is made more as a favor because someone asked. The best programs require the employee making referrals to provide enough information about the individual to ensure they know them. Program rules should specifically prohibit 'I found you' referrals. Failing to continuously refurbish. Referral programs are essentially marketing programs and as a result, they lose their effectiveness over time. In fact, even the best designed programs begin to produce significantly lower results in as little as six months if the marketing materials and approach are not updated. So refurbish and re-energize your referral program at least once a year. No referral cards. Give employees 'referral cards' to hand to impressive individuals. The best referral cards include praise for the individual and an action statement that encourages them to apply for a position. Unfortunately, most companies have no cards or fail to replenish an individual's supply on a regular basis. No ATS marking. If all individuals being referred are required to visit the corporate website in order to apply, there is a significant chance that the source of the resume will not be 'marked' as a referral. In fact, some HR technology does not allow referrals to be 'marked' so that they can be given higher priority. And without prioritization, the slow response rate will quickly degrade program participation. Equal rewards for all jobs. All HR programs should reward performance, and referrals are no different. Referrals for hard-to-fill jobs and mission-critical jobs should get a bigger bonus than easy-to-fill jobs. In addition, there should be a supplemental bonus if someone turns out to be a top performer after they are hired. If you fail to include reward differentials, your key jobs will be filled more slowly or not at all. In fact, the best programs allow referrals only for jobs that are high impact or are hard to fill. No feedback on weak or bad referrals. Most employees have good intentions when they're making referrals, but if you don't notify them after they've made a particularly weak or bad referral, they have no way of improving future referrals. The best systems rate referrals and the individuals making them so that future referrals by this individual are given a higher priority as a result of their previous successful track record. Individual recruiters are allowed to 'ignore' referrals. It's not unusual for regular recruiters to ignore or pay little attention to candidates who come from employer referrals. It's generally an ego thing because they didn't initially 'find' the candidate. In any case, there needs to be measures and rewards that encourage recruiters to focus on employer referrals. Not tracking referral rates. Employer referral rates vary dramatically among departments in almost every firm. If the program manager is to increase participation in these underperforming departments, there needs to be a process to track and report participation by managers. In the best cases, participation rates are part of the manager's bonus formula. Big-dollar bonuses. Paying too much money can actually kill a program, as large bonuses incent employees to spend more time looking for referrals than doing their jobs. This angers their managers and eventually it will cause these managers to resist the program. Research shows that anything over $1,500 will generally have little impact on referral volume of quality candidates. Paying a miniscule reward. Do not embarrass yourself by paying a ridiculously small bonus. Yes, you can pay nothing or just have drawings for prizes and still have an effective program, but don't pay $50 or $100 for something that if you had to hire an external consultant to do would cost thousands of dollars. If you're paying significantly lower than the market standard, you will get push back from your employees who compare what your firm pays to what is paid by close competitors. Employee program manager turnover. Because of weak metrics, most employee referral programs are under-appreciated by recruiting, HR, and senior management. As a result, turnover rates among ERP program managers are quite high. Because the learning curve is steep, the replacement manager almost always 'damages' even the strongest referral program. In order to avoid this problem, the position needs to be given as much recognition and pay as necessary to encourage the program manager to stay in it for at least three years. If the person running the program views this position as one small step on their way to becoming an HR generalist, you have made a bad hiring decision. Final Thoughts Most managers in HR and recruiting view employee referral programs as simple to design and maintain. After years of research and studying over 600 companies, I have concluded that the exact opposite is true. Almost every firm has an ERP program but only a small percentage reach the full potential of well-designed employee referral programs. It's important to realize upfront that there are factors that lead to program success (which I've highlighted in previous ERP articles for ERE) but more importantly, there are factors that seem innocent on the surface, but when present, they can literally kill your program results in a very short period of time.

Millennials, Work Life Balance and Technology

HR Blog, Mon, 05 May 2008

One of the great things that came up at BU's Recruiting Roundtable is work-life balance. One of the points I made is in the difference between millennials and other generations in terms of work-life balance. For Xers and boomers, work-life balance is a 'sane' ratio of time spent at work versus not at work. Millennials, on the other hand, perceive work-life balance very differently--often by how much of their lives they can live at work. To wit, this interesting information reported on the searchcio.com : According to the survey, for example, 75% of millennials access Web-based personal email at work, compared with 54% of other workers; 66% regularly access Facebook or MySpace, compared with 13% of other workers; and 51 % of millennials access personal finance applications, compared with 27% of other workers. The article then goes on to talk about how to cope with this: How should the IT establishment respond? Not by yelling and telling, said Samir Kapuria, managing director, Symantec Advisory Consulting Services. "This is a large volume of people who use these personal technologies," Kapuria said. "Businesses need to ask themselves, 'How do I harness the capabilities of this tech-savvy group while also making sure of eliminating the risks associated with the use of this technology?'" Kapuria said there needs to be a council of people who understand the mind-set of the millennials and can measure the business's risk level through this lens, then identify the hard and soft skills required to remediate the risk. To read the whole article click here .

A Slower Economy, a More Diligent Candidate

Kevin Wheeler, Thu, 01 May 2008

It is getting harder to find senior leadership talent, key technical staff, and even mid-level management. At least, this is what I hear from key recruitment leaders I poll from time to time. I know of firms seeking vice presidents of sales and of marketing, and many looking for key R&D talent in sectors still largely unscathed by any economic slowdown (healthcare, pharmaceuticals, biotech, legal, and security firms). Good candidates are exploring options and taking a very cautious approach to employment. Many people's idea of work is changing. Rather than seek full-time employment, many people are interested in part-time employment, contract work, or even in spreading themselves between two or more organizations. This is partly out of a desire for more control and choice in their lives, but also out of economic security. Better to not put all your eggs in one basket. Generation Y has led the way in demanding more flexibility, but it has spread to other generations and will permanently change the way we recruit. Prove It to Me Mentality The first change is that many candidates are reluctant to work under the same conditions they would have a few months ago. Candidates are doing more due diligence and are taking the time to find out what a company's finances look like and what the prospects are for future funding. They won't take a recruiter's promise, or a hiring manager's either, of strong funding and good prospects. Many are savvy enough to do an extensive background search on the organization, even going so far as to comb through public documents, read analysts reports, and make phone calls to their stockbroker to help them decide. Recruiters are going to have to be very upfront about the firm's financial situation and be prepared to offset negativity with better pay or other benefits. This is new behavior for everyone except senior-level management, who have been operating this way for decades. In fact, the cascade of expectations down to lower-level employees may be a major legacy of the Internet age. I suspect that technical staff, managers, and even entry-level candidates will negotiate for packages that would have been offered only to vice presidents a short time ago. Free Agency While some feel that economic slowdowns end the trend toward free agency, I really believe it has accelerated the trend. More people than ever are trying out life as a contractor. Many will not make it and return to the corporate fold, but they will be wiser and better prepared to abandon ship than they were before. Many others will find they would rather work on their own than go back under the very insecure and fragile corporate umbrella. If you look at the top companies on Fortune's list of the '100 Best Companies to Work For' you will find that almost all are those that have not had layoffs or have increased the number of employees over the past year. Many are doing everything possible to avoid losing intellectual capital. They have CEOs who actively speak out about the value of talent. They have developed flexible schedules, benefit programs, and have taken other steps within human resources to improve their attractiveness to potential candidates of all types. Charles Handy, a management writer and educator who has written numerous books on the organizations of the future, predicted that up to half of some company's talent may eventually work as free agent, contracting to those firms as temporary staff, contractors, or part-timers. This will be a lasting change that is given another push forward because of the slowdown and the insecurity of corporate life. Recruiters and HR staff will have to accommodate these free agents. Our internal regulations will have to be modified to make the use of free agents easier and lessen the potential legal issues that arise when contractors are kept too long. A Return to Values Lots of candidates are seeking companies that hold values high and make and keep commitments to their employees and their families. There has been a growing awareness of the need for a more moral approach to how corporations conduct themselves. And Gen Y has much higher expectations than the boomers ever did. While shareholder value will always be a core concern of the management team, they will also have to understand how important employees feel that values are and how close a scrutiny they will give every corporate action and statement. Recruiters have to understand the values of the firms they work for and find better ways to match people to those values. They will have to also convince the management of firms that what they DO is just as important as what they say and that this emerging candidate pool focuses on actions almost entirely. Flexibility Finally, those entering the workplace now for the first time or who are coming back again are seeking a flexible relationship with the company. Free agency will become even more enticing than it already is, unless employers are willing to offer flexible benefit schemes, allow employees to work from home, provide time off for family events and other life events, and aggressively develop their people. Again, the Fortune list of the '100 Best Companies to Work For' points out clearly how those at the top of this list (which is actually probably 50 companies too long) focus on all of the points I have raised. Fewer workers will be willing to toil long, fixed hours for a shareholder-loving, employee-neutral management team and then be disposed of as the economy dictates.

New Policies - New Carnival of Human Resources

Human Resources, Wed, 30 Apr 2008

This is a heavy week for policies and job descriptions. I just produced a new paid time off (PTO) policy and just completed a paid vacation days piece today. I'm...

The Future of Recruiting: It Won't Be Anything Like Today (Part 2 of 2)

John Sullivan, Mon, 28 Apr 2008

Most corporate recruiting functions are far from strategic, and most recruiters are intensely resistant to change that. It's a fact that the business world is rapidly changing, and how organizations recruit talent will be forced to change dramatically as well. The corporate recruiting function of the future isn't likely to be created from scratch, because the risk of failure is just too great. Instead, when corporate recruiting makes a shift in strategy and composition, it will most likely follow one of the existing 'business models' that have already proven to be strategically effective. In part one of this article, I highlighted the business value-added model, which is the most likely future recruiting model. In this follow-up article, I highlight two additional models likely to serve as part of the foundation of many future corporate recruiting functions. Model # 2: The Sports/Entertainment Recruiting Model If you study a wide range of industries, you'll find that many industries are highly competitive, including finance, air transportation, retail, sports, and entertainment. However, of all the highly competitive industries, the two that rely most heavily on 'talent' as a primary reason for their success have to be the sports and entertainment industries. For example, in entertainment, adding a single 'star' to a movie or TV show can make it instantly successful. In sports, although all players make a contribution, it's generally top talent in a handful of positions who separate the winning teams from losing ones. If you're looking for a model to follow, it's hard to argue against the fact that you can learn a lot from studying the sports and entertainment talent acquisition and management models. If your corporate leadership philosophy is 'winning is everything,' this is the model for you. Powerful Reasons Back The Sports and Entertainment Models There are many factors that make studying the talent management approaches of the sports and entertainment industries an essential step in understanding the future of recruiting: Dollarizing the value of top talent. Both of these industries excel at putting a dollar value on top talent. Athletes and entertainment stars receive millions of dollars in compensation for as little as six months' work because both industries have taken the time to 'do the math' on the dollar impact of top talent. For instance, last year the Boston Red Sox spent $51 million just for the right to negotiate with Japanese pitching star 'Dice K.' They later paid another $50-plus million to sign him to the team that eventually won the world championship. In sports and entertainment, it's not the 'costs' (which are admittedly sky-high) but rather the ROI of talent that matters. An extraordinary focus on visible metrics. The best-selling book 'MoneyBall' demonstrated how applying 'fact-based decision-making' to what were formally 'emotional' talent decisions can make a team successful, even though their overall payroll is well below the league average. Baseball stands out as the perfect model for measuring the performance of talent because it actually posts each player's performance metrics on the scoreboard for all to see. I've helped many firms design HR metrics, but there is no better metric and performance-management approach to follow than professional baseball. It's also important to realize that top performers love visible metrics because of their intense competitive nature. Prioritizing positions. Rather than assuming that all positions contribute equally to a team or a movie success, this model uses statistics to identify which positions (when filled with top talent) have the highest impact on success. In the NFL, for example, everyone knows that the quarterback is a much more critical position than a punter. Not only are top quarterbacks paid $10 million per year but there are also at least two backups on the payroll. Planning ahead. Even college sports teams assume that talent will eventually leave the organization, so they plan ahead to continually recruit and develop replacements for as much as four years out. One insider even shared with me that one NFL team lists on a white board (for all coaches to see) the players who are currently on other teams they are targeting to 'poach' and bring into their organization within the next five years. As you can see in these four examples, the approach taken under the sports/entertainment model is more advanced and aggressive than 99% of the corporate recruiting models currently in use. It is the competitiveness and the aggressiveness of this model that makes it an ideal one to copy in order to survive in a talent environment that is likely to be at least 50% more competitive and aggressive than what corporate America faces today. 12 Elements of the Sports/Entertainment Talent Model to Adopt If your corporation decides to shift its talent acquisition and talent management models in the direction of the sports/entertainment model (which shares some elements with the business 'value added' and open-market model) here are 12 approaches: Global search. Much like the 'Champions League' in European football, this model would require corporations to identify, recruit, and retain top talent from literally every country around the world. Rather than shifting a large amount of the work to areas with a lot of talent (like India), this approach would target no more than a handful of top talent from every country. Continuous search. Rather than just looking for talent when you have an open position, following the sports/entertainment model, the talent acquisition process would be continuous. Just as college teams begin looking for talent in high school, corporations would also extend their search to pre-identify talent in its development stages whether the talent was in school or working at a competitor. Countering your competition. Most current corporate recruiting models are inward focused. Unfortunately, as the talent marketplace of the future becomes highly competitive, corporations will have to learn to do 'side-by-side' talent comparisons with their competitors. Firms will have to 'mirror' the sports model where teams compare their talent, paying attention to the competitors' employees. Star treatment. As global competition for talent increases, individuals in every industry who realize they are in high demand will begin to consider themselves to be stars. That means that in the future, the entire recruiting and selection process must be tailored to treat top applicants like 'stars,' sensitive to candidates' needs and high expectations. Managers and recruiters with big egos won't be successful in this environment where the candidate is king. Executives as recruiters. In the current corporate recruiting model, recruiters and hiring managers do all the work. However, when you're recruiting individuals who consider themselves to be stars, you'll need help from the 'big guns' to close the deal. That means that the CEO and key executives will have to step up and begin to play a key operational role in the recruiting of stars, just as they do in sports and entertainment. An emphasis on proactive poaching. The best players (those who can make an immediate difference in your team's performance) are currently playing for one of your competitors, so target 90% of your recruiting efforts toward 'poaching away' the very best from other excellent firms (the remaining 10% would come from college hires). This 'poach first' strategy requires a highly sophisticated recruiting and closing process, as well as great recruiters. Convincing well-treated individuals to leave a perfectly good job at a quality firm is 10 times harder than recruiting desperate individuals who are currently unhappy or unemployed. Brand consciousness. Both movie and sports stars want to work for glamorous directors and sports franchises. If your talent model doesn't build an employment brand as strong as the Yankees, the Red Sox, Google, or Manchester United, it will have little success with talent who wants to be in the spotlight. Relationship recruiting. Because both sports and entertainment stars realize that they have multiple choices in where and when they work, any corporate recruiting process that is built on the sports/entertainment model will emphasize the building of 'relationships' with the talent they target. These relationships must be strong because it takes a long time to build up the needed 'trust' that is essential in order to get these individuals to even consider your firm. Assessment. Following the sports model, corporations will need to adopt more realistic talent assessment processes that go beyond interviews. These assessment approaches might include 'tryouts' and problem-solving simulations. An emphasis on referrals. When you are recruiting 'star' individuals, don't under-estimate the power of employee referral programs. New stars might convince their colleagues to consider working at your firm, so invest in educating them on how to effectively convince their peers. Bidding for talent. Adopting the sports/entertainment model requires senior managers and compensation to realize that a majority of the top talent they are seeking to recruit will have multiple offers. This direct competition will require the development of an effective 'talent bidding' process. Currently, most executives philosophically refuse to 'bid on talent' but such shortsightedness will guarantee failure in the highly competitive marketplace of the future (Note: this and the following 'churn' element are both also part of the foundation of the open market or 'eBay type' talent model). Constant churn. Once athletes and entertainment stars learn that their careers may only last a few short years, many begin to lose their sense of loyalty to a single organization. In the future talent world, a larger percentage of individuals will also lose their sense of loyalty (some argue that the new generation has already lost it completely). This shift away from any interest in remaining with the same firm for a long period of time will require corporations to embrace 'free agency.' When talent begins to consider themselves as free agents, firms will face a continuous 'churn' of employees, where talent continually joins and then exits a corporation. The best corporations will take the position that it's better to have 'Tiger Woods' for one year than an average golfer for a lifetime. This means an added emphasis on retention, but corporations will also have to develop workforce plans that provide methods to get the most out of the talent during the relatively short time that you have it. It'll also be true that in a fast-changing world, employee skills will degrade rapidly. And this will require an increased emphasis on rapidly 'releasing' talent that no longer fits the competency needs of the corporation. Model # 3: The Open Market (or eBay) Talent Model It is no secret that more and more work inside most organizations is organized as project work, and as a result, the percentage of the labor force that is contingent in nature is growing rapidly. Today, it is not uncommon for organizations to have a workforce that is 20% contingent, up to 60% in some industries. Add to the contingent worker growth trend the fact that product lifecycles are getting shorter, a global labor shortage is accelerating career growth, and barriers to talent mobility are disappearing, and it becomes clear that the future workforce with be highly variable in nature and aligned to short-term need versus long-term plan. The basic premise of this talent model is that over the next decade, the forces mentioned above will refine the market for top talent such that competition for top talent will become so intense and visible that firms will essentially have to compete (or bid) in an “open marketplace' for top talent. Although many firms 'informally' bid for talent now (by making counteroffers), the open market model would make the bidding for talent more frequent, less subtle, and more direct. For those who doubt this possibility, it's important to look back to the year 1999, when for a short period of time during the 'war for talent,' there were instances where teams of top talent had agents and were actually bid on by competing firms. We now know that bidding for things of value has become quite commonplace on popular sites like eBay. A Closer Look at the Open Marketplace There are three primary forces that will contribute to the development of an 'open marketplace' for talent. First is the changing workforce. Even today, there are many individuals who don't desire long-term permanent employment at a single corporation, and corporations that routinely admit they don't need access to certain skill sets long term. Instead, a growing number of workers and organizations prefer working on a contract basis. Contract work allows an individual to essentially 'select' their manager, their project, the length of their employment, and their rate of pay. Second, corporations are attracted to contingent labor because it enables the organization to be significantly more agile and to restructure without incurring significant labor cost. Third, the Internet and technology makes it possible for the open market 'matching' between the needs of potential workers and available work. When combined, these factors set the foundation for a talent model where individuals frequently come and go as their interests change and as projects begin and end. In essence, an open market for talent that simultaneously suits the needs of both workers and the corporation. Incidentally, don't assume that this 'open marketplace' will automatically mean a dramatic increase in labor costs, because the attractiveness of the project and the project team are often at least as important as the labor rate paid. If your corporation chooses to shift its strategy to prepare for this open marketplace, here are key elements to adopt: Ideas come from everywhere. Under the traditional employee model, 100% of corporate ideas come from its own employees. As the talent marketplace continues to evolve, it will become more and more possible to obtain a portion of the needed innovations and ideas from 'non-employees.' Even today, firms like Google use competitive contests to gather product ideas. Procter & Gamble and IBM are leaders in getting ideas from both customers and partners. We can see this shift occurring quickly with the proven financial viability of websites brokering innovation ( mystarbucksidea.com , InnoCentive , NineSigma , yet2.com , and YourEncore.com ). The future of recruiting talent will require firms to develop new processes to leverage talent that doesn't formally work for your firm. Project marketing. Some firms are currently developing processes (Whirlpool is a leader here) where they 'market' available projects on a website so that external talent, internal talent, and even college student interns can apply or bid to work on short-term projects for monetary or developmental incentives. Working on these projects can also be used to assess 'unknown' talent in order to determine whether the firm should convert these individuals to employees. The internal posting of available 'part-time' projects can also provide opportunities to current employees that are seeking new challenges, as a way to develop skills in addition to those garnered via their current job. Bidding for talent. As the global competition for talent increases, it is highly likely that there will be online virtual marketplaces where you can literally 'bid' for talent, either as contractors or as permanent employees (there is a website, NotchUp.com, that allows you to bid online just for the right to interview highly desirable individuals). Final Thoughts Whether you agree with my premise that the 'future of recruiting' will follow one of the three talent models that I have outlined, it's hard to make a credible argument against the fact that the recruiting landscape will change dramatically in some direction. Like it or not, the future of corporate recruiting will, without a doubt, be significantly more competitive, more global, more electronic, and more business-like. Unlike in the past, the rate of change in recruiting will be so fast that if you don't act in advance, there just won't be time to catch up. It's time to think ahead and realize that the upcoming economic downturn will force almost every corporate recruiting function to dramatically change. Now is the time to shift your approach toward one that will make your corporation a dominant player in the 'future' of recruiting, so don't be caught unprepared.

New Sample Letters

Human Resources, Sat, 26 Apr 2008

Human Resources related letters and samples of all kinds are supplied on this site. Sample policies, procedures, checklists, and forms are also provided for your personal, not commercial, use. I...

Your Recruiting Success Depends on How Well You Manage Managers

Lou Adler, Fri, 25 Apr 2008

In a recent ERE article I made the case that a tipping point was close at hand for converting recruiting and sourcing into a scalable and systematic business process. As a judge for ERE's annual recruiting awards, and someone who has worked with companies around the world, I'm convinced that most recruiting leaders are starting to realize the need for consistent processes, workforce planning, metrics, demonstrated results, a consumer marketing-based approached to sourcing, trained recruiters, and the effective use of technology. The justification for a tipping point is based on the idea that many companies are now implementing these types of integrated recruiting and hiring systems. In the article, I suggested that one huge obstacle remained: getting hiring managers onboard. A few readers believed this could never be systemized, and recruiting would forever remain more art than science. This article will demonstrate otherwise. Here are the typical problems with hiring managers as they relate to the recruiting and hiring process: They don't want to spend time with their recruiting team. They often make interviewing mistakes. Many are not good at recruiting top performers. They over-rely on skills and qualifications before seeing candidates. They're not willing to invest the time in exploratory meetings with passive candidates. They won't prepare for the interview. There are probably other items that could be added to the list that are equally relevant, but the idea is that unless hiring managers are better managed, end-to-end hiring results won't improve. The question remains…does it take art on the part of the recruiter to work through these issues, or can science prevail? My success as a full-time headhunter for 20 years was based on overcoming these identical hiring manager issues. But when the process I used to pull this off is studied, it's pretty clear there was little art or magic to it; it was all science. In 90% or more of the cases where I prevailed, despite these exact hiring manager challenges, with hundreds of different managers filling positions from entry-level to executive, the methodology was always the same. When others (hundreds, not a few) used the same methods, they also had similar and successful results. This is all science. Test This Theory Yourself I recommend that you try out the ideas described below on your next assignment to see whether you get better results. First, stop using traditional skills-based job descriptions to attract and qualify candidates. Instead, ask the hiring manager what he'll be telling the newly hired person what she'll be doing on the day she starts. The list of tasks and expectations generated by this line of questioning is referred to as a performance profile in Performance-based Hiring lexicon. An example best illustrates how this works and how it can be systematized throughout a company. About 10 years ago I conducted a VP Marketing search for a high-tech telecommunications company in the Silicon Valley. It was the first of many searches for this company. The CEO was unsure that I was qualified to handle the assignment, but he started the discussion by telling me the person selected had to have 5-10 years direct telecomm experience, a BSEE from a prestigious school, and must have an MBA from an Ivy League school. Then he asked me what experience I had finding this type of person. I didn't answer the question. Instead, I asked him to tell me why a top person as described would want this job. He was flustered, but putting a client on the defensive is a good thing to do to gain a slight edge. Once I had some reasonable big-picture strategy, I then asked the CEO what he'd be telling candidates their primary role would be in achieving these company objectives. It took about 15 minutes to get a reasonable answer. He told me the VP Marketing would be responsible for preparing a five-year product roadmap, taking into account the company's technical expertise, the evolution of the Internet, and the key competitors, constrained by available financial and technical resources. I then asked if I could find a top performer who had accomplished something comparable, but didn't have the Ivy League MBA and the exact background, if he'd a least meet the candidate for an interview. 'Of course,' was his response. As a result of this 'aha,' we placed six senior-level executives with this firm over the next two years. In each case we used performance profiles, rather than job descriptions, to define the real job. Eliminating job descriptions is the first step in managing managers, and replacing art with science. Interviews as a Way to Collect Evidence The next aspect of better ways to manage managers is to convert the interview into something more than a popularity contest or an assessment of technical or intellectual brilliance. This starts by recognizing the superficiality of adding up a bunch of yes/no votes of interviewers who are unprepared and making narrowly based assessments. Instead, have interviewers use the interview just to collect evidence, not make a judgment. As part of this, narrow the range of focus of each interviewer from evaluating everything to evaluating just a few things (e.g., technical competency, organizing work, or managing outside teams). A deeper (rather than wider) focus will naturally increase accuracy. Then for the yes/no decision, don't add up the votes. Instead, have the entire interviewing team formally share their evidence in a deliberative manner. Since every other important business decision is made this way, this is not too far-fetched an idea. (Here's an article for more on this type of hiring decision-making approach.) A short time ago, I had the opportunity to present this evidence-based candidate evaluation idea to a VP HR of a Fortune 1000 company. He thought it wouldn't fly at his company, since managers wouldn't support it. I then asked if his company had a formal expense reimbursement procedure and if his managers supported this. He gave me a puzzled look, and responded with an obvious 'yeah, what's your point?' I then asked a more reasonable question regarding the formality of his company's capital appropriation request policy and how non-budgeted business expenses get approved. His answer involved using a very formal procedure directed by the CFO. My question to him, and to you, is obvious: 'If the CFO doesn't need manager support to implement expense controls, why does the VP HR need their support to implement a policy far more important…the hiring of top talent?' While support is nice to have, good systems and appropriate controls are sometimes needed to offset inappropriate behavior. You'll also get the support you need if the rules are easy to use and help managers make better decisions. It just might not be right away. Managing managers one-on-one is art, but managing them all can be science. It starts by implementing two simple procedures. The first is to eliminate job descriptions for hiring purposes and replace them with a clear definition of what the person taking the job needs to do to be considered successful. The second is to eliminate the crude process of adding up a bunch of poorly considered yes/no votes and replace it with an evidence-based assessment process. To enforce it, also make managers responsible for the quality of their hiring decisions. This is not art. It's just common sense coupled with sound business practices. And if you track your hiring successes and mistakes and see improvements in both, you'll get all the support you've ever wanted.

Social Networks, What a Mess!

Kevin Wheeler, Thu, 24 Apr 2008

Are you overwhelmed with the hundreds of new tools, applications, websites, and services that have sprung up over the past few months? Social networking sites such as Facebook and LinkedIn are all the rage. Some recruiters are charging forward with Twitter and other SMS-type tools. Websites are being revamped with videos, blogs, and simulations. Recruiters who are not using any of these tools or who are not remaking their websites feel as though they are falling behind. Other recruiters are feeling confused and uncertain over how to effectively decide whether these tools are useful or just a waste of time they don't have. As a profession, we are faced with too many tools and very little experience or wisdom in applying them effectively. Recruiters are confused, as are the senior management teams of most organizations, as to which technologies are essential to winning the talent war and which are fads. Some recruiters rely entirely on Internet search or on job boards. Others are busily creating new interactive websites and writing blogs. Some are reverting back to telephone and face-to-face meetings out of frustration and confusion. Tools and services are often purchased because the salesperson did an effective job in selling the benefits of their product, or because the recruiter is afraid that they will lose their competitive edge if they don't have the latest tools. Unfortunately, recruiters rarely have a clear strategy on how to deploy and integrate technology into their recruiting process. In order to steer technology choices, you need to understand what is happening in the world of recruiting technology, and there has to be an appreciation for the evolutionary nature of all technology. Four Technology Rules to Implement Here are the most important technology rules that every prudent recruiter should follow and understand. Recognize that technology evolves faster and faster. Whatever software or Internet application you are using today will most likely have evolved significantly within one year. It may have been upgraded, it may have evolved or merged with some other technology, or it may simply be superceded by a better concept. You always need to understand this when you invest in a technology. Never purchase any technology without agreements and understandings about how and when upgrades and changes will be made. Always be willing to 'pull the plug' if a technology seems to be going nowhere or does not meet your needs. Have a backup strategy and don't rely entirely on any tools or technology until you are certain that it works for you. When you first hear about a new technology or tool, use Google to search the Internet and find out what others are saying about it. Log into forums or consult sites such as Geoff Petersons' StaffBytes , which is a fantastic listing and commentary on emerging tools and technologies. Use your own networks to seek out in-depth information or just survey your colleagues to see who else might be using the tools or technology. Have a technology strategy. Take a step-by-step approach, perhaps starting with a base-level solution that will allow you to handle administrative tasks and automate the transactional side of your work. The tools that handle this are usually applicant tracking tools, and I consider them to be foundation technology. You might then focus on branding and attraction tools that could include a more interactive website, email campaigns, a blog, and other similar tools. From that, you could move to Internet search and talent pool development using Facebook or LinkedIn. Most medium to large organizations could perhaps implement two of these at the same time, but lay out a project plan and set milestones to track your progress. Look for 'out-of-the-box' tools and technologies that expand your capabilities. All early tools copy what is done in some other way. For example, early applicant tracking systems simply scanned in resumes, duplicating paper electronically. These early systems rarely add anything new. Over time, the products evolve and become more aligned to their own unique capabilities. Always seek tools that do more than you can do with existing methods. Think outside the traditional and be open to vendors who offer products that seem to break the established molds. They are probably onto something pretty good. Firms like Itzbig, Checkster, SkillsSurvey, Job Fox, Twitter, Ning, and Standoutjobs all offer innovative solutions that are worth looking into. Create a way to sort or categorize technology. Even though the world of technology can be confusing, most products fit into categories that then help you decide what might be best for you. I fit most of these into one of six categories: Branding or Attraction; Sourcing; Talent Community Development and Relationship Management; Assessment; Administrative; and Onboarding. Branding and attraction includes your career site, email, or other outreach campaigns you do along with videos on YouTube, for example, or a corporate profile on Facebook. Sourcing technologies would include any tools and techniques for finding people on the Internet, such as Google. Tools such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and Ning are social networks and are useful both for sourcing candidates and for maintaining relationships with them. Tools such as Checkster and SkillsSurvey help conduct reference checks and assess candidates. By putting the technologies into categories, it becomes much easier to decide how relevant they are to your needs and strategy. If you can't figure out where a tool fits, ask the vendor and have a discussion that educates you and helps build your ability to make tough decisions. Technology is an essential part of being a modern recruiter. Most recruiting will revolve around the Internet, social networks, and the related tools that make this work. We will be communicating with candidates over email, SMS, and IM. We will be assessing them with simulations and other tests, and we will be checking their references virtually. No one will be untouched by technology, and having a coherent and well-defined approach to adopting new tools and technologies will be important to your happiness, peace of mind, and success.

The Future of Recruiting: It Won't be Anything Like Today (Part 1 of 2)

John Sullivan, Mon, 21 Apr 2008

A while back, I was asked to give a presentation at Google's main campus in the heart of the Silicon Valley on the future of corporate recruiting. The audience was a combination of Google recruiting staff and recruiters from other organizations in the community that Google was interested in getting to know better. Looking back, I realize that there is probably no better place to hold a discussion about the future of recruiting than at the one company that is proving daily that they are dedicated to pursuing a model that is effective first and foremost. While some might argue their approach is inefficient, Google's powerhouse 'recruiting machine' is demonstrating that to truly make evident a value for top talent you might just have to abandon all that you know and experiment. While Google is by no means the only organization struggling to develop new models of tapping top talent globally, they are one of the most visible companies helping to lead the way in a profession crying out for transformation. A groundswell of forces is forming that increase the probability of a different future emerging every day. With a downturn in the economies of most developed nations and moderate to significant growth in the economies of developing nations, it is likely more than ever that established recruiting functions will once again suffer funding challenges while upstarts invent new models rendering the remnants of the established functions archaic. Deep cutbucks in recruiting budgets will all but eliminate opportunities for established functions to experiment and further entrench the myopic process and efficiency focus that renders competitive businesses incapable of competing for top talent. When moderate growth returns, those companies surviving will rebuild their functions, the best opting to adopt practices empowered by current sociological and technological trends. If you'd like to know what that 'rebuilt' corporate recruiting function is likely to look like, read on. The Current Recruiting Model Few corporate recruiting functions in existence these days have been designed from the ground floor up to leverage aspects of the environment in which they operate. Rather, most evolved piece-meal by benchmarking against other corporate recruiting functions, which were also developed incrementally over time in an ad-hoc manner. Despite years of criticism, there has been little demand for change from within. Corporate recruiters and managers are so busy on a day-to-day basis that there's often little time to step back and examine the overall function, or to evaluate other strategic business models that could be successfully applied to corporate recruiting. As a result, even though superior talent-acquisition capabilities are at the top of nearly every executive's 'need list,' most recruiting functions receive weak financial support and relatively low performance ratings from their executives. Recruiting is not alone in developing under this slow evolution process. Many other 'overhead' functions also developed slowly over the years without a grand vision or even a theory to support their development. However, the last decade has brought sweeping innovation to other overhead functions like procurement, inventory management, production, quality control, and customer service. I predict that the next function to make that transition into becoming a business profit center and powerhouse will be corporate recruiting. Over the last decade, I have had the tremendous opportunity to evaluate the recruiting models of over 100 firms ranging from small upstarts to gigantic global conglomerates. A dramatic transformation must occur if corporate recruiting is to rise to the level of the most impactful people-management function. Rather than continuing on a slow evolutionary path, corporate recruiting and talent management must make a dramatic transformation following one of three basic models, including: The business 'value added' model. The sports/entertainment model. The open market or 'eBay' type model. Factors That Will Force Recruiting to be Dramatically Different In addition to the fact that there are now emerging 'role model' business functions to copy from that have already made dramatic transformations, there are also a number of business, economic, technological, sociological, and demographic factors emerging that will 'force' corporate recruiting to undergo a dramatic change. Individually, they might not be 'news' to most readers, but together they will be a powerful force: Globalization. As more firms become truly global in nature, there will be an increasing need to place 'work' close to talented workers. With that globalization, recruiting will no longer be focused on a single country. Instead, most firms will need the capability to recruit workers to produce and sell products in numerous countries around the world. The value of innovators increases. Because of the high margins associated with innovation and first entry (e.g., the iPod, the iPhone, the Wii), the relative value of 'game changers' and talent that can innovate will continue to increase. This increased need for innovators will force organizations to shift away from the current practice of primarily targeting 'productive and efficient workers' toward the much harder goal of recruiting and retaining innovators. Instead of filtering out talent that doesn't fit a mold, organizations will instead seek talent capable of breaking the mold. Rapid copying. It's become a fact of corporate life that successful products are now copied by other firms at an astonishing rate. Unfortunately, as obtaining information from around the globe becomes easier, best practice solutions and business processes will become even harder to keep secret. This rapid copying of people management processes will require every recruiting process in every leading corporation to continually innovate and improve if the firm is to maintain a competitive advantage in talent. Remote work. The spread of technology and cheap communications now makes it easier for remote workers to be productive, no matter where they might be located. The spread of remote work means that firms can now recruit workers in literally every country around the world, without the need for physical relocation. Higher fuel prices, political instability, and global warming issues will also force most organizations to come up with new 'remote' work options that reduce travel. Technology. The growth of business software and metrics scorecards allows every business function to shift toward 'data-driven' decision-making. Education. The growth of Internet learning, coupled with the strengthening of educational and university systems in many areas around the world, now means that well-educated and well-trained individuals are available in many more countries than ever before. Rather than being concentrated in a few industrialized countries, educated, talented, and skilled workers can now be found in numerous global locations. Knowledge work. As more and more corporate work shifts from physical labor toward becoming knowledge-based, it is now becoming possible to shift a larger amount of work to regions where the 'talent is' or where it wants to live. More substitutes for employees. As technology improves, it becomes easier to replace work done by people with work done by machines and technology. In addition, work that had traditionally been done by 'employees' can now be shifted to partners or outsource providers. Some firms like IBM and P&G have even begun to gather product improvement innovation not solely from 'employees' but also from customers and vendors. The changing workforce. There is little denying that demographic trends (i.e., the aging workforce, declining birthrates) as well as shifting attitudes toward work among new generations will impact future recruiting. Unfortunately, these trends mean that the simple recruiting and retention tools that were previously successful will become less effective as the needs and expectations of those in the workforce change and become more diverse. Diversity hiring and retention targets must be expanded and the definition of diversity will have to adapt to a more global definition that reflects the profile of the firm's current and potential customers. Increased consolidation. Corporate mergers continue to increase, and as a result, the size of corporations will also increase. This results in increased challenges in global branding, recruiting, and retention. Unlike at small firms, larger corporations will also have increased financial and technology resources that will allow for the development of radical new approaches to recruiting and people management. Labor costs. As global competition for talent increases, the time it takes for cheap 'local' labor rates to increase to match the global wage rate will become shorter and shorter. This will require firms that desire to maintain any labor cost advantage to move their work more often to other regions. A second option is to focus on recruiting a higher quality and more capable worker whenever obtaining lower labor costs becomes an unrealistic alternative. A Snapshot of the Business 'Value Added' Talent Model I forecast that the recruiting/talent management model that is most likely to emerge (from among the three models) is the business 'value added' approach. The basic premise of this model is that recruiting and talent management processes must be developed to 'mirror' the highly successful business process models that are already in use in corporations. Should you think that this business approach is purely theoretical or that it's not feasible, it's important to note that a few firms have already made significant efforts toward developing many of the elements of the business 'value-added' model: Goals. This new business model will shift recruiting goals away from 'filling seats' and closing requisitions. Instead, the model will have more strategic goals which will include increased workforce productivity, increased innovation, increasing workforce capabilities, and improving people ROI by prioritizing jobs and placements to maximize the business impact. (Google and Apple have been leaders in this area.) Leaders of the function. Because recruiting will become a true 'business' function, it must be led by individuals with backgrounds in other successful business functions like supply chain, CRM, product branding, finance, measurement, market research and sales. Their 'outside' experience in developing processes that have a demonstrable business impact will allow them to view recruiting and talent management in a new light. In addition, their experience in 'risk-taking' functions will allow them to take bolder approaches that can provide a competitive advantage (Cisco, Intuit, and Sun served as role models in this area). Talent management processes. In the future, recruiting and talent management processes will be similar to and as a result, will more easily mesh with other business processes. Recruiting processes will be developed from supply chain models (the talent pipeline) and from CRM (the customer relationship 'touch point' model applied to both candidates and employees to ensure a great experience). Time-to-market processes will serve as a model (to reduce the 'time to fill' for critical jobs and high-demand candidates) as will market research processes (for identifying candidate 'job switch' needs and criteria). Service level agreements will be borrowed from vendor management processes to ensure that hiring managers conform to the hiring process and standards. Recruiting metrics will shift from the traditional 'transactional' metrics toward business impact metrics where the 'value added' impacts of talent management on increasing revenues can be more directly demonstrated (Aimco and FirstMerit Bank set the tone in this area). Branding. Much like Google has become a talent magnet by building its employment brand through Internet and media exposure, the business model will focus the largest portion of its resources on ensuring that the most desirable talent around the world view the firm as a place that 'someday, they would love to work at' (Google, MGM Grand, Ernst & Young, and Starbucks are role models here). A recruiting culture. In a recruiting culture where every employee is a 24/7 talent scout, it partially shifts 'ownership' of recruiting to those who are most impacted by a bad hire. As a result, a world-class employee referral program will become the second key linchpin in the business model strategy. The fact that proactive and focused employee referrals generally produce the highest volume of hires, the highest quality hire, no negative diversity impacts, and the longest retention rates are additional reasons to focus on referrals. Employee referrals are also superior to other traditional recruiting 'sources' because employee referrals also include a candidate skill assessment and a 'cultural fit' assessment component (AmTrust, Edward Jones, Turner Construction, Intel, and Quicken loans are leaders in this area). Data-driven decisions. The approach will use models, analytics, and predictive tools to increase workforce productivity and innovation. Yes, it's true that 'human resources' will be managed less like an 'art' and instead more objectively, much like other corporate resources. Utilizing data and statistics rather than intuition will allow decisions on sourcing, candidate assessment, and candidate closing to be continually improved. Recruiting will also utilize the Six Sigma model to identify and quantify recruiting and hiring errors. Quality of hire. This standard will not be the same corporate-wide but will vary depending on the priority and the business impact of the job. There will also be a focus on identifying the 'sources' that produce the best 'on the job' performance. Generally, this means a focus on effective sources like event recruiting, contest recruiting, recruiting boomerangs, and having a powerful corporate careers website (leaders in this area include Microsoft, Deloitte, Ernst & Young, Valero Energy, and Aimco). Pre-need hiring. This business model will include a proactive component that continuously identifies top talent for key positions, regardless of whether there is a current position opening. Identifying key talent in advance will also allow for long-term 'relationship recruiting,' essential when attracting currently employed individuals who are in high demand (professional football and EA set the direction in this area). A predictive component. Because all great business processes are forward-looking and attempt to avoid problems, this model requires processes that 'warn' managers in advance when hiring and talent management problems will soon negatively impact an individual manager's business results. In addition, managers will be 'alerted' by the recruiting function whenever 'sudden' talent opportunities arise either internally or externally (Valero Energy, Intuit, and Aimco are role models in this area). The appropriate labor source. Recruiting and talent management will take a broader role in advising senior management on which type of labor is most appropriate for each business situation. Rather than just 'hiring employees,' the function will recommend when it is more appropriate to instead use outsourcing, contingent workers, and even when it's best to replace 'employees' with technology (Valero Energy leads the way in this area). An expanded role. Rather than limiting the role of the recruiting function to simply recruiting and hiring individuals, the business model requires the recruiting and talent function to broaden its responsibilities. Expanded areas of responsibility would include executive search, workforce planning/forecasting, onboarding, internal placements, and retention for the first six months on the job (Microsoft, WellPoint, First Merit Bank, and Memorial Health are role models here). A shift away from finding. In its simplest form, recruiting has four major elements: branding, finding candidates, assessing candidates, and selling candidates. Current recruiting models place a large amount of their resources on 'finding' or sourcing potential candidates. However, as a result of the growth of information systems and the Internet, the process of identifying or finding top performers and innovators is becoming increasingly easy. The new model will utilize new and developing information systems including social networks, consumer information, customer information, credit sources, niche job boards, professional association membership lists, and even sales leads to find prospective candidates. Finding individuals around the world will become relatively easy, so the next focus will be on improving candidate assessment (primarily online and /or utilizing simulations) and secondly on the use of market research tools and sales approaches to increase the successful 'closing' rate of highly desirable talent (FirstMerit Bank, ANZ Bank, Citigroup, Whirlpool and Microsoft are leaders here). Silo integration. Interdependent HR functions like recruiting, relocation, compensation (for offer letters), on-boarding, and retention will be tied together with shared metrics, shared information sources, and interlocking rewards. These and other tools will be utilized to ensure cooperation and a smooth workflow between these often silo'ed units. Individual managers will have their bonus directly tied to talent management results, which would include diversity, retention, developing, and sharing talent as well as new hire quality (Sodexo and Aimco lead the way in this area). Next week: Part 2 of this series will highlight the 'sports/entertainment' and the open market 'eBay' talent models.

Visa, MasterCard, American Express, and Discover card accepted.
Site Map
© Copyright 2006, BlackDog Recruiting Software Inc.
PO Box 3004 Crested Butte, Colorado, 81224
Contact us: go4recruitingsoftware@go4.bz
Phone: 970 349 0364