Blog

Video Interviews & Avoiding Lookism

So, What is Lookism?

Lookism – the practice of judging someone by their physical attractiveness – can and does result in discrimination against job candidates who are overweight, disabled, or considered unattractive. With the increase of video interviewing of job candidates, comes an increase in concerns about how these videos will exacerbate lookism in hiring.

What does the law say about lookism?

Few U.S. jurisdictions have legislated hiring discrimination based on appearance. In fact, Michigan is the only state to legislate lookism in hiring. Its Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act prevents discrimination based on height or weight.

U.S. cities that outlaw lookism in hiring:

  • The Santa Cruz (CA) City Anti-Discrimination Labor Law prohibits hiring decisions based on height, weight, or physical characteristics. Any firm operating within city limits must prominently display a poster detailing the law.
  • San Francisco (CA) Police Code Article 33 prohibits hiring discrimination based on weight and height.
  • The District of Columbia Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on physical appearance.
  • Binghamton, New York’s Human Rights Law prohibits hiring discrimination based on weight or height.

While the U.S. federal government has yet to definitively say that lookism is illegal, its Equal Opportunity Employment Commission has issued this stern warning: “Height and weight requirements tend to disproportionately limit the employment opportunities of some protected groups and unless the employer can demonstrate how the need is related to the job, it may be viewed as illegal under federal law.”

The European Union (EU) has only prohibited hiring discrimination based on race, ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation. Many of its 28 member countries have expanded protected groups, however. Belgium prohibits hiring decisions based on physical or genetic characteristics, France based on physical characteristics, and several countries based on “other characteristics.”

Hiring discrimination penalties can be severe. FedEx Ground paid $3 million in penalties, and Tyson Foods more than $2.5 million, in lawsuits brought by the U.S. Dept. of Labor. Matrix LLC lost to the EEOC and paid a $400,000 fine. In Germany, dozens of companies have recently paid government fines ranging from €23,000 ($26,919 USD) to €500,000 ($585,000 USD), for discriminatory hiring.  

The Impact of Video Interviewing on Lookism

In 2012, Office Team surveyed 500 employers about their use of video interviews. Two out of three used video to screen candidates very often, and another 12 percent planned to increase their “once-in-a-while” video interview use. In a 2018 LinkedIn survey of nearly 9,000 employers, 18 percent listed video as their most useful interviewing innovation.

There are nearly as many types of video interviewing processes as there are opinions on whether videos negatively impact fair hiring practices. Often, the timing of the video in the application process impacts bias as well.

Vendors such as SparkHire, HireVue, GreenJobInterview, and Breezy HR offer both one-way and live interview platforms.

A recent Futurestep survey of 700 hiring managers found that 75 percent were conducting live video interviews, while half were using one-way on-demand video interviews to narrow the candidate pool early on.

By way of one-way interviews, the employer provides a list of pre-screening questions for the candidates, who then uses the on-demand video platform to record their answers at their convenience. The live video platform is a real-time interactive conversation between candidate and recruiter.

Platforms that do not offer the video option can simply employ a bot to give the applicant the “feeling” of having a real time interaction.  With live video interviewing and screening – the interaction is not only real-time, but legitimizes the efforts of both the interviewer and candidate.

Some organizations are now marrying the video platform with SME. Relying solely on video communications with candidates does not yield the same level of predictive validity with video options alone.

According to Amanda Hahn, HireVue Director of Product Marketing, “Companies doing a lot of hiring primarily use on-demand videos as part of the application process early on.” “A firm hiring fewer folks typically would use a number of sourcing tunnels, introduce the on-demand interview early, but then have the live video as the first or second stage of the interview process.”

So, does it matter that the application includes an early video look at the candidate’s appearance?

Opinions vary widely, from “So what? Ultimately, they’re going to meet anyway” to “It’s awful. Candidates will get weeded out for race, ethnicity, looks, age and all sorts of discriminatory issues before they get a chance to interview.” Then there are those who point out that “A candidate for a sales, public relations, or media position, for example, who can’t put together a cohesive, personable presentation should be weeded out early, and video is a great way to do that!”

But what if that sales candidate gets weeded out because her nose is too long, or his teeth crooked?

Bealls, Inc., a Florida-based retailer with stores in 500 locations, hires for multiple jobs at any given time. Its human resource team is small, however. The time and cost-effective hiring solution turned out to be pre-recorded video interview questions by way of the RIVS platform to replace what had been an early round of phone screening. Each job had its own set of questions, and once the candidates recorded their interviews the recruiters viewed each, studied their resumes as well, and then created a short list of folks to invite to a face-to-face interview.  

Rather than weeding out candidates for their appearance, the videos managed to increase and better qualify the applicant choices.

“We’ve increased our candidate pool, allowing us to speak to more candidates who may not have had the best resume, but would be a good fit for Beall’s,” said Magdalena Wyko, Director of Talent Acquisition and Development at Bealls Inc. We used to talk to 15 people for each job. Now, we’re actually seeing about 48 people per job.”

Overall benefits to Beall’s of video interviewing include 20 percent more top performers hired, time to hire reduced by 56 days, and a 45 percent drop in cost per hire.  

Amy Rueda, director of strategic talent management for UCLA Development, is a proponent of video interviewing, because it saves her recruiting team time, money and resources. Cost of hire, with video implementation, has dropped from $10,000 per search to roughly $500.

Rueda scoffs at the concerns about discrimination.

“I think people who argue that this tool can be used to discriminate are the biggest hypocrites to walk the earth,” she told Workforce. “It is an argument that doesn’t hold water. If you are an organization that is inclined to discriminate, you are going to do it whether it is in a video interview or in person. If you are not an organization that is inclined to discriminate, you are going to be looking for attributes that are key to the placement.”

Summit Law Group employment attorney John Chun told Workforce that employers should be cautious about their video interviewing techniques.  

“Video résumés are not necessarily riskier than face-to-face interviews, but a talking head on a video does offer more information about a candidate than even a photograph might,” he said. “A video can give the viewer clues to the candidate’s class, race, nationality and can also potentially reveal any disability the candidate might have.”

Amanda Hahn sees things differently.

“When I was doing my own phone screening for hires I deviated from the script all the time, so I wasn’t providing a consistent and fair experience for all candidates,” she told us. “And then part way through the hiring process, after a few candidates had already been interviewed, we’d tweak. Maybe we’d determine that we needed to ask more about this or that, and the entire interview might change. So, the first folks were evaluated differently.”

By comparison, on-demand video interviews are fairer, according to Hahn.

“An on-demand interview gives companies a consistent process where there wasn’t one before,” she said. “Now you are asking the same questions of everyone. You can evaluate the candidates one at a time or even study every candidate answering the same question.”

What do candidates think about video interviews?

EasyRecrue conducted a 2016 survey of 25,000 job candidates for its e-book The Definitive Guide to Video Interviewing. Researchers discovered that candidates were overwhelmingly positive about video interviews, in part because the process allowed them to get a better feel for the company. A whopping 82 percent of respondents had a positive opinion of the company because of its video interview process, while 76 percent either enjoyed or loved the experience.   

“Today’s younger employees expect the newest technologies, and smart, strategic video tactics are definitely a competitive advantage,” said Futurestep Vice President of Global Technology Solutions Mir Ali. “Video usage not only makes the candidate experience better, it ultimately increases the chances the right candidates are hired for the right roles at the right time.”

Defining Culture & Culture Fit

Culture fit is not about everyone thinking the same – it is about utilising the unique strengths of a group of a people, to achieve mutual goals in the most efficient way.

When we use the word ‘culture,’ we mean the social order of an organization: its collective values, drives, goals, and codes of behavior.

Culture fit is defined by Adrian Furnham, international authority on workplace psychology, author of 85 books and over 1,200 papers, as:

“…congruence between the norms and values of the organization and those of the person.”

Continue reading “Defining Culture & Culture Fit”

How To Use HolaConnect Chrome Extension

Hola Connect

Killer Chrome Extension: Easily locate email addresses, for free!

 

HolaConnect is a new Chrome extension that allows you to easily find contact information for people. It’s advertised as being free for life, and its main focus is to locate email addresses quickly and efficiently.

HolaConnect works on LinkedIn, among other websites, and makes the search for contact information much quicker. Once the Chrome extension is installed, you simply need to open it on a webpage and it will begin its search. A small window will appear displaying the name of the person you are searching for at the top, and information that has been found below.

  • Email addresses that have been found for the person are displayed at the top for quick access. There’s no need to click through multiple pages to get to them.
  • Any other contact info that has been found is displayed next.
  • HolaConnect also includes links to any social profiles that have been found, including Facebook and LinkedIn.

The best thing about HolaConnect is that it gets straight to the point. It only spends its energy and your time finding the most valuable information, and it displays that information in a clear and concise way. It’s a simple but useful tool, with no excess fuss! ~Noel Cocca

 

See what Dean Da Costa has to say below:

 

 

Not rocket science: For execs to care about onboarding, there must be a revenue connection

I’m pretty interested in onboarding best practices.

Might seem weird to you, because I’ve never worked in HR — and isn’t onboarding specifically the domain of HR?

That’s how it’s commonly viewed, yes, but in reality everyone needs to own it. More on that later.

I’ve been freelancing for 22-24 months, and I like that, but before that I had various office jobs for 13-14 years.

I only worked at maybe 6-7 places, sure, but I never saw a good onboarding process. Most were awful, actually. You know the deal: transactions, paperwork, a lunch meeting with your direct boss, and then on Day 2 a few no-context tasks are assigned to you.

Onboarding best practices? Not walking through that door anytime soon.

So eventually I got interested in it. Since I’ve been blogging, I’ve written a ton about onboarding, including:

Clearly I’ve spent some time here. I also wrote an article for College Recruiter once about onboarding best practices. (There are some additional examples in there, including Rackspace.)

Now we’ve got new research on onboarding, and it all underscores the major thing we need to remember.

Onboarding best practices and “the numbers”

A reality we cannot ignore: most companies are still run on spreadsheets and “the numbers.” Those spreadsheets are now digital (you’d hope) but anyone with any authority cares about one thing: “the numbers.” That’s all you ever hear out of the big meetings.

Here’s a new article — “Your New Hires Won’t Succeed Unless You Onboard Them Properly.” Concur with that title 100 percent. I’ve never been super successful in any corporate job. Part of that is me being an asshole, yes. But part is that I never had any idea what was going on, because the onboarding process was such a rushed farce.

In that article, there’s a link to some SHRM research that 17% of new hires can be gone within three months because of onboarding issues.

Now let’s tie “the numbers” to that concept.

The importance of the revenue tie

Let’s say someone in Product went to the boss and said, “I need $1 million for this process. But the return will be amazing.”

The boss mulls it over and ultimately gives him the $1 million.

Now, three months later, the guy from Product comes back. He says, “I lost it all. It’s gone. I need to restart.”

The boss would be livid.

And yet, that 17% stat is essentially saying that. 17% is almost 1 in 5. So almost 1 dollar of every 5 you spend on hiring/recruiting is wasted in three months?

How is this possibly acceptable?

OK, let’s answer that question briefly.

It’s acceptable because …

… most executives don’t really care about HR, and — ironically! — it’s because they’re not good with “the numbers.”

So what now?

Let’s take this one in two parts.

Part 1 is that any discussion of “onboarding best practices” isn’t about checklists. It’s about establishing revenue ties for what happens when onboarding is bad. This is how you get buy-in. Most companies are still managed on cost-cutting measures, so whoever manages onboarding (HR?) needs to have a handle on costs. You need to know costs of recruitment, hiring, the onboarding process, turnover, etc. Then you can make a compelling (in the eyes of execs) business case for “We need to do this with onboarding because it will save us this much money.” Unless you can do that, you’re doomed from the start. The money tie absolutely needs to be there.

Part 2 is knowing what onboarding best practices actually look like. I’ve got three quick ideas for you there:

  • Read some of the articles linked above; some are mine and you might believe me to be an idiot, yes, but they all have lots of external research.
  • Here’s a meta-analysis of the best articles about onboarding and what they say
  • If you want a Cliffs Notes version of that meta-analysis, here it is: a lot of effective onboarding comes back to psychological safety of teams

How process nukes this whole thing

Most people hear a term like “onboarding best practices” and instantly think they need a series of processes and checklists. Sorry to be a dick here, but many HR people have a compliance-oriented mind — that’s why they gravitated towards that specific field. So of course that’s what they think when they hear the term.

The problem is, onboarding is such a powerful concept. You’re 32. You just changed jobs. This is going to be the one where you really shape your professional existence. Day 1, baby! Let’s do this! This is the new Amanda right here! And … seven hours of paperwork.

See how that would be demoralizing?

We love us some process, and that’s often well/good/fine. But for any onboarding to work — for it to be truly “onboarding best practices” — you have to root it in a place of:

  • Money/revenue/bottom line ties
  • Human psychology

Anything else you’d add on onboarding best practices or the general importance of onboarding?

HolaConnect Website Search

Hola Connect

Hola allows you to narrow down your search for leads

HolaConnect is a great site that allows you to search through people in a variety of ways. It is a very user-friendly tool and makes the search process straightforward and productive.

From the search bar at the top of the page, you can enter a variety of search terms, depending on what you are looking for. For example, you could search for a specific person by name, or search instead for all the people working at a certain company. Additionally, there is an advanced search option that allows you to easily specify a name, location, designation (role), and/or company. You can choose any combination of these to search by. This allows you to easily find, for example, everyone who is a developer at Amazon in Seattle.

Upon getting your narrowed-down search results, you can scroll through potential contacts and choose which you want to learn more about by selecting “View Profile.”

  • Contact information, such as email address and phone number, is conveniently located near the top of each profile.
  • Hola allows you to access information for 50 contacts for free each month.
  • Each person’s profile also contains a short summary, past companies, and education information.
  • Additionally, the profiles contain links to the candidate’s other social sites, such as LinkedIn and Facebook.

Hola also keeps track of your past leads for easy access later in the “My Contacts” section of the site.

While Hola does allow you to access 50 profiles for free each month, the search engine itself is used to find potential leads, which you can then research further using other resources. Overall, HolaConnect is a good option for searching, and worth having in your tool belt. ~Noel Cocca

 

See what Dean Da Costa has to say below:

 

Recruiters can learn a lot from movers

recruiting movers

 

Recruiting & Movers #TrueStory

It is Moving day. There are so few phrases that can strike fear into the heart of a human as this phrase and eventual day, well other than marry me or you are dying.  Some, the lucky few, who have not done apartment living or have been in the same place for extended times may not know this but it a painstaking process of packing, protecting, and culling your possessions.  That is not the toughest part though, no, that is actually moving the possessions to the next location.

One of the rarest times I want to pull out my man card is when young guys show up to lift those boxes, bed sets, shelves, and televisions. I want in too. I have prided myself on being a good worker and although I am somewhat self-deprecating I will state that I will pick up a box with the best of them no matter how heavy. Also, on this last particular move I needed out and wanted out in a big way but that is another matter for another day, I you want to know more find me some day and buy me a whiskey.  

This was not, by far, a big move for me.  I have done many moves in my lifetime so this was more about getting to the new place and setting up, well, just some sleep really after having to listen to loud neighbors at all hours of the night. I, being a chatty fellow, began a conversation with the movers. Small talk really as two of them were young guys and they asked me what I did for a living. Both were intrigued however I was more interested in the steps they were taking in order to make the move successful and done in the shortest time possible to save me the hourly rate.

I started to make a correlation between moving and recruiting when speaking with them.  In many ways the process is similar. How you ask? You know I love it when you ask me questions like that. So, story time with a three part verse.

  1. The intake meeting when the team got to my place the first thing the foreman wanted to do was assess the move.  He toured the apartment with a checklist and asking questions in order to asses if I needed extra boxes (which I really did), what was being moved, and to determine any extra costs that I may incur.  Sound familiar? We in recruiting should be doing the same thing; you should have a list of standard questions to ask the hiring manager to get to the crux of the role you are looking for. This is setting you up for an efficient search and better shot at filling the role saving you time.
  2. Packing the truck up was the next step of the process and possibly the most arduous. You see the boxes you have packed, the framed art, the glasses, etc. are going to be transported to the new location.  The foreman gave the crew instructions on what to bring down in a much dictated order. There was another list and everything was to be accounted for. Just like in recruiting this was tantamount to what you should do as well.  Setting up time to work on reqs, which one should go first, second, etc. Easiest to hardest, oldest to newest for example. This should make you time more efficient and your searches and resume reviews time better spent.
  3. Unloading is the really fun part. Yeah I just laughed out loud as well. Especially when you are going up a very long flight of stairs.  However, once again the men had a technique. The crew and I had sort of bonded as I have done this so many times I know how to pack and, well, I regaled them with stories and jokes. I saw this as the interview and onboarding process. Also, candidate experience. This was a painful process both physical and mental for both parties so why not keep it fun? As in everything and not being able to be in every room the team asked, other than the boxes that were labeled where I wanted things placed, like beds, the couch, TV etc. Sort of like setting up an interview, interviewing, and making choices. Life is all about choices.  They were going to be efficient and I was going to have things placed where I wanted them and they in turn would be able to get on to the next job.

When we were finished I signed the paperwork, sort of like signing an offer letter excepting the delivery of the offer. I smiled, and although we were all tired from the days’ work and I wanted a shower and to sit down I offered them cider — a local brewery here in Portland, Two Towns makes some great cider.

 I had forgotten to get cash for a better tip so I had hoped this would make up for it to some extent.

Movers, the people who do the actual work, are paid like fast food workers and have very long hours, especially in the summer. You know like most RPO employees are paid.

We sat on my new deck, laughed and learned about each other a little more. All in all a good day and that is all we can ever ask for. As always a #truestory.

How To Use Uproc for LinkedIn

uproc linkedin

 

Uproc makes LinkedIn more functional

 

Uproc for LinkedIn is a Chrome Extension that quickly pulls information from a LinkedIn page for easy access. It only works on LinkedIn, but it is able to locate a lot of information and is definitely worth adding to your collection.

When you open the extension while on a LinkedIn page, the found information appears on the right side of the screen.

  • Uproc provides a phone number for the person, sometimes personal and sometimes from their company.
  • The extension also locates email addresses. It may find a personal email, work email, or both.
  • The job title or position of the person is listed.
  • Uproc can also pull out other online information, like a personal or company website, or social media links.
  • General personal information, such as gender, birthday, and address, is also made easily available.

The amount of information that Uproc finds can vary from person to person, depending on what is available.

While the utility of Uproc may be limited to solely LinkedIn, the information retrieval it provides makes it worth having. The extension works quickly and makes the results easy to access and read. Uproc is a valuable addition to the research process. ~Noel Cocca

See what Dean Da Costa has to say below:

 

How far are we with texting as a candidate engagement driver?

texting

OK, some personal factoids up front just for a little bit of context: I’m currently 37, best I can tell via doing the math. I was married/with someone for about eight years who was my age. That ended in early 2017. Now, past the midpoint of 2018, I’m with a 29-year-old. Why should this matter? Well, in the grand scheme, it shouldn’t. But I can tell you the dividing line between “37” (when most people have kids, mortgages, a certain career track, etc.) and “29” (when oftentimes they don’t) is pretty big in some respects. One of the biggest between current 37 and current 29 is texting. I text. I mean, I’m a human being. I get it. I’m not always all about the emojis and whatnot — nor do I know what they mean all the time — but a 29-year-old at present texts like whoa, as does a 24-year-old.

Is this article about generalizations about generations? No. I try to stay away from those, although admittedly I might have just done it. (Oops.) Instead, it’s about the basic realization that everyone seems to text, it seems to be normative the younger you go down the chain, and … shouldn’t it be a more active part of recruiting?

Continue reading “How far are we with texting as a candidate engagement driver?”

Cry Me a River: You think THAT’S How Harassment Works? 

#metoo recruitingdaily

You think THAT’S How Harassment Works? 

A few weeks ago my pal Derek Zeller wrote a post called “The Sexual Harassment That Never Happened.”

I got just a bit worked up.

I had to take a break, refill my coffee, take a short stroll, have some chocolate and then read it again. Nope; still worked up. Perhaps a more accurate description is that I experienced a wee bit of sadness and a massive tsunami of annoyance.

Now one thing I always appreciate about Derek is how he injects his personal experiences into his writing; I’ve read some pretty powerful posts from him over the years. But this? Like eavesdropping on a reunion of frat-bros, complete with chilled beers and way too much Drakkar Noir. A safe haven of shared camaraderie where they could scratch themselves unabashedly and lapse into stories about uppity women.

In the post, Derek shares the story of his friend (I shall call him Joe) who works in human resources. One day Joe was having a work meeting with a female colleague (Sherrie) who was experiencing some stressful situations at work. In an attempt to cheer her up and make her feel good about herself Joe told her “Hey Lady! You look lovely today!”

The next day, Joe’s manager (presumably also in HR) requested a meeting and, as Joe entered the room, he found his manager sitting alongside Sherrie. Joe was shocked to hear that he was being “accused” of, as he characterized it, both sexual harassment and “misogyny.” (definition of misogyny: dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women).

The manager told Joe “Sherrie said that you said … ‘hey BABY, you look lovely today, and she was quite taken back.’”

Joe got flustered, stammered out some answers, but also decided that no matter what he said he wouldn’t be believed because…” now ALL men are labeled, everyone is angry now, and if you are not there is something wrong with you. There was no formal complaint put forward, and in fact, the woman who brought it up was uninterested in even filing a formal complaint towards him, yet other women felt that a verbal lashing was needed and he was put to the whip. The female manager thought that it was necessary to voice something although there was no precedent since there was no formal complaint made, just some hearsay and the need to have to feel angry all the time and demand re-education.

See why I got riled up when reading this?

Joe works in HR. My guess is he’s not a very capable human resource professional though so I’m going to break it down for him and give him a few general guidelines to which most human resources professionals ascribe:

  1. The employer gets notification of a workplace conduct issue; this could be an employee discussing with a manager, the filing of a formal complaint with HR, an employee placing a call to a 3rd party/hotline, or something that just happened to be overheard at the water cooler. The issue could be unlawful discrimination, harassment or perhaps a violation of company policies, rules or standards of conduct. The issue, in fact, could be as pedestrian as “Bob and I just don’t get along because Bob is an asshole when he does X, Y, and Z.”
  2. IMPORTANT NOTE: there does not need to be a “formal complaint” (which Joe didn’t seem to understand) in order to investigate a workplace conduct issue.
  3. Most companies, with the task being spearheaded by a member of the HR team, will investigate complaints about employee behavior and/or potential misconduct. An HR practitioner, trained to be fair and objective, will start with some fact-finding; this may include gathering evidence and information and, yes, TALKING TO PEOPLE.
  4. The purpose of the investigation, put very simply, is to determine (a) did the conduct that was alleged actually occur? and (b) if it DID occur, what is the impact and significance?

 

So no matter how, when or why Sherrie brought up the issue that she was taken aback (uncomfortable?) with what Joe said, her employer had an obligation to look into it. The boss lady (I’ll call her Pam because it’s the perfect HR name) was not only protecting her company (i.e. failure to investigate or address such a matter could have led to bigger issues) but was also ensuring that Sherrie – an employee! – felt her concerns were addressed. An employee mentioned conduct that may be creating an intimidating, offensive or hostile work environment? Of course, Pam needed to investigate.

Note that Pam did not tell Joe he was accused of harassment nor did she tell him he was a misogynist. We’re not quite sure what precisely happened to wrap up the meeting but my assumption, based on the rest of the story, is that Joe was neither disciplined nor was there any other sort of adverse employment action.

You know what Joe needed to do? Something that was apparently beneath his common HUMAN courtesy to do? Joe needed to say….”Sherrie, although I don’t recall making that comment in exactly the way you remember it, I do apologize if I caused you some discomfort. Please be assured it will never happen again but, if it does, feel free to let me know right away.”

I wonder if he did?

In April of this year, Pew Research Center released a poll (US) and 51% of the respondents said that recent developments have made it harder for men to know how to interact with women in the workplace. According to a survey commissioned by the Lean In initiative, the number of male managers who are uncomfortable mentoring women has more than tripled (from 5% to 16%) since the #MeToo movement first started back in October 2017.

Men are scared that what they say will get them in trouble in the workplace? Too bad. Women have been scared for decades (centuries!) that what they said or did in the workplace could result in demotions, lack of opportunities or being stereotyped as everything from the “office mother” to the “office slut.” Women have been groped, grabbed, degraded, assaulted and even raped in their workplaces. Yet, as highlighted in this NPR survey, “while men experience sexual harassment as well, the prevalence is higher for women, as is the intensity of those experiences.”

But our protagonist Joe, poor Joe, was so bereft that a female co-worker deigned to mention that she was made uncomfortable by a comment of his that he ended up leaving his company and finding another job.  Poor Joe became “cold and distant.” Poor Joe’s soul was crushed and at “the thought of speaking to a woman, even a smile or kind word never came from his lips again, dying a slow death of humiliation all for the sins of others and the arrogance of those who did not want equality but superiority.”

Give me a freakin’ break.

It’s because of people like Joe that we have findings from the LeanIn Initiative’s survey that:

  • Senior men are 3.5 times more likely to hesitate to have a work dinner with a junior-level woman than with a junior-level man—and 5 times more likely to hesitate to travel for work with a junior-level woman.
  • Almost half of the male managers are uncomfortable participating in a common work activity with a woman, such as mentoring, working alone, or socializing together.

Thankfully though women, and the men who care, have finally had enough. We have a voice; a strong, collective, POWERFUL voice and we are never going to put that genie back in the bottle. We’re letting ourselves be heard and will no longer sit idly by and let the poor, wounded, men (like Joe) blame the evil, sneaky, shifty, wimmen-folk.

Is Joe still working in HR? I would guess he is. It does make me wonder though; does he interact with female candidates “alone?” What happens when he needs to talk to, counsel or advise a female employee? Can his crushed soul and wounded spirit handle doing his job?

As for Sherrie? I am PROUD she spoke her truth and let her voice be heard. #NeverForgetSherrie

#MeToo

Editor’s Note:  The original article published by Derek Zeller can be found HERE

 

Maybe it’s time we end the job-hopping stigma as recruiters

Human Resources has been chasing ‘the seat at the table’ for probably three generations now, but many organizations still treat it as a compliance function and many outright ignore it. From a senior management standpoint, the reasoning is simple: HR doesn’t generate revenue. (Although there are many ways to change that.) From a rank-and-file perspective, I’d argue that most people can’t see the first word of the term ‘Human Resources’ in action; it often seems like they’re not operating according to human principles and ideas, but rather just according to process and protocol.

One key example of this is that tons of recruiters you’ll meet or interact with still exist according to an idea that job-hopping is bad in some way, or that it shows you’re flaky, not committed, can’t focus, etc. Many recruiters also love the ‘linear resume’ (no gaps), but that’s also something that from a sheer human standpoint should be dying out — so someone wanted to go to Switzerland for a few months at 25, right? Does that mean they’re somehow a less qualified candidate than someone who sat in the cubicle for those same five months? In reality, they’re probably a better candidate because they expanded their worldview a little bit. Many recruiters miss this boat.

The job-hopping stigma has been around for a long time. Is it about to change, though?

The New Face of Job-Hopping

Before we get into this, obviously realize a couple of factors:

When you put those three things together, here’s what you come to:

  • Different workforce
  • But, they’re broke
  • Companies by and large don’t give a crap

And that brings us to how we can shift job-hopping to a positive thing:

There are a lot of arguments for jumping ship every few years. The economy isn’t what it used to be—and never will be again. Workers who stay with a company longer than two years are said to get paid 50% less, and job hoppers are believed to have a higher learning curve, be higher performers, and even to be more loyal, because they care about making a good impression in the short amount of time they know they’ll stay with each employer.

Job-Hopping and Salary

So let’s start with economics, because from a Maslow perspective (“hierarchy of needs,” which also might be a crock), we need some scratch in this life. (I know this all too well, as I’m currently unemployed.)

The fact is — and I’ve seen this at dozens of jobs — when you stay at a place for a while, you can become “an executor” for the top dogs (“He/she is a company person!”), which typically means you do a bunch more work, see your family and friends less, and pretty much don’t make an additional cent. (Although maybe your bonus is slightly larger, which is nice.)

See, tenure should be a good thing — it should mean a person is learning, growing, and possesses a lot of institutional knowledge about that specific place. That should be fiscally rewarded. Oftentimes to senior leadership, tenure just means “Here’s a person who can run point for me for about a decade until I’m ready to raise them one salary band.” Talent strategyand talent pipelines are very messed-up at most companies.

That’s all a long way of saying: If you want to make more money, you probably need to job-hop.

See above about the negative savings rate? Yep.

Job-Hopping and Learning Curves

Now, there’s also this:

“I think that the most important, critical change in people’s mental outlook is to view employees as smart contributors from the beginning,” advises McCord, who now coaches and advises companies and entrepreneurs on culture and leadership.

That’s Patty McCord, former chief talent officer (head of HR) for Netflix, a relatively innovative company. She also said this:

“If we changed our perspective and said, ‘Everyone here wants to come in, do a great job, and contribute,’ then they either fit or they don’t,” she adds. “You build skills faster when changing companies because of the learning curve.”

So here’s the shift we’re discussing:

  • Old Model: Stay at a place 40 years, get that gold watch
  • New Model: Jump every three years, ‘hit the ground running’ (also a farce), build skills, contribute, leave for something else

This shift is actually very logical, because since the 1950s I’d argue companies have evolved from ‘a safe space that protects employees’ to ‘mega-institutions that protect their bottom lines.’ I had a job once where I had an issue with some superiors and had to go through HR, right? I had an HR lady tell me “Our job is to protect senior management.” I actually think that’s potentially illegal to say, but I didn’t push it. I just slinked back to my cubicle.

So the shift, again, would be:

  • Old Model: Veteran grinders
  • New Model: Hired assassins rotating in and out

And look, if companies don’t really care about talent — and many claim they do but really don’t — then this model should be perfectly fine for everyone involved. We just need HR to catch up with how we hire and evaluate resumes.

Job-Hopping and Productivity

There are a few more pieces to this puzzle, starting here:

People used to think that the longer you kept an employee, the more worth they are to you, because you train them and they get used to their job and then they do it. But, in fact, an employee who stays on the job and isn’t learning at a really high rate is not as engaged, so they’re not doing as good work. So it turns out, the employee who stays longest, you get the least work out of, and the employees that job hunt are the most receptive of becoming extremely useful, very fast.

This seems logical to me. If you’re moving a bunch and you’re trying to make an impact at each place, those are steep learning curves predicated on doing good work and proving yourself. If you’re at a place 10 years, you run the risk of (a) homophily and (b) becoming actively disengaged.

That said, this is all “you run the risk…” stuff. Plenty of people work at a place 20 years and love every day, and plenty of people job-hop and despise it. These are constructs; every individual is different in terms of their needs and wants out of work.

We generally know these things about work and job switching from research:

Job-Hopping and Purpose

If you want to see a cool video about why purpose matters (especially at work), watch this from Stanford Business School and Jennifer Aaker.

So now we’re at a place where we’ve somewhat established that:

  • Job-hopping can lead to more learning, and faster
  • Job-hopping can create a world where people want to make an impact quickly
  • Job-hopping can help with your personal bottom line (salary)
  • Job-hopping makes total sense given how much employers really care about ‘talent strategy’

Job-Hopping and On-Boarding

The final piece of the puzzle, then, is on-boarding. If someone is only going to work for you for three years, six months is 1/6 of their time there. That’s 16 percent! So you need an effective on-boarding approach to make sure the first six months aren’t a wasteland, or you just lost close to 20 percent of a person’s productivity for you. Thankfully, we know a couple of things about on-boarding better:

So there we go — I think we just figured out how to bust a few holes in the ol’ “Job-hopping is bad!” HR narrative. What say you?

What exactly is machine learning in a recruiting context?

Here is the thing really; we do not have AI, IMO, not yet. We have ML (machine learning) which means code does things for us — code that we write.  Machines do not have free will; neither do I when it comes to dating now that I think of it, but they do what they are asked to do. It is simply, simple. Yet we have the buzz word commandos out there, who are thought leaders, that love to drop these two little letters to impress an audience that has no clue about tech. yet Pandora’s Box has been opened and off to buzzword bingo we play. Everyone have their markers?

The terminology has been a misused misnomer for a while now so I thought I would do a little research on the actual meaning.

In short, the best answer is that: Artificial Intelligence is the broader concept of machines being able to carry out tasks in a way that we would consider “smart.”

Machine Learning is a current application of AI based around the idea that we should really just be able to give machines access to data and let them learn for themselves.

Continue reading “What exactly is machine learning in a recruiting context?”

Part 2: Technical Recruiting & Assessments, What’s Working.

Part 1 of this series can be read here. 

Technical workers such as engineers, programmers, mathematicians, and developers are among the most difficult and costly to source, assess and hire. As of 2016, the U.S. had roughly 3 million more STEM jobs available than skilled workers to fill them, according to the Randstad STEM Study and Insights Report. In its 2018 U.S. Salary Guide, noted staffing firm Hays, Plc, reported that two-third of the surveyed information technology (IT) employers faced a skills shortage either moderate or extreme. Of these 3,000 executives, 89 percent reported negative impact on business productivity, staff turnover, and employee satisfaction, because of the skills shortage.  

Clearly, recruiters and hiring managers must hire well, and quickly, for technical positions.

The two most efficient methods of recruiting for technical jobs are:

  • Skills assessments
  • Sourcing and engagement of passive candidates

Skills Assessments

Technical skills assessments, when introduced early in the hiring process, devalue immaterial characteristics such as school, location, appearance, former employers, gender, and ethnicity. Rather than enabling unconscious human bias, the skills assessments get right to the nitty-gritty of hiring well – the “can you do the job?” parameter.

Assessments are beneficial in several ways, as they:

  • Accurately gauge whether the candidate can perform the necessary job tasks, through detailed job-related questions, or interactive video
  • Reduce application drop-off rates, by reducing the time each candidate spends in the application process. Many assessment services such as Appcast, ICIMS Talent Platform and SmartRecruiters report on applicant drop-off rates and locations and assist with application editing as needed.
  • Curtail discrimination, by bringing to the fore qualified candidates otherwise devalued by recruiters whose unconscious bias swayed them towards candidates with ‘big-name’ employer history, Ivy League education, or membership at the recruiter’s gym. Assessments, when consistent from one candidate to the next, provide well-documented, easily retrievable proof that discrimination did not take place.

University of Toronto researchers, in their 2017 Discretion in Hiring study, studied the application process, productivity and turnover of 400,000 candidates, and 91,000 hires assigned to 445 managers at 15 firms. Their year-long research determined that “managers who appear to hire against test recommendations end up with worse average hires.”

Virtual simulation assessments allow company executives to create an interactive day-in-the-life video. Typically, the candidate must respond to task requests, and interact with video characters posing as customers, clients, co-workers, or management. The simulations mimic real-world job tasks, and let candidates realistically view the responsibilities of the position. The game-like interactions reduce applicant drop-off by keeping the candidate engaged.  

Numerous firms – cruise lines, manufacturers, airlines, financial service providers, and others – have reported a minimum 50 percent reduction in turnover, and several millions of dollars in hiring costs saved annually by virtual job simulation testing.

Development Dimensions International conducts virtual skills testing for an automotive manufacturer’s assembly-line hiring efforts. The technical assessments replace the manufacturer’s time-consuming and costly process of sending an assessment team to the plant to test applicants.

“The company can test everything from how people tighten a bolt to whether they followed a certain procedure correctly to using a weight-sensitive mat on the floor that, when stepped on at the wrong time, will mark a candidate down in a safety category,” Scott Erker, Development Dimensions’ SVP, told HR Magazine.

One airline executive talked to Orlando, Fla. Fox News affiliate WOFL about his airline’s success with EASy Simulation, an Employment Technologies simulation testing platform.

“I would rather hire a pilot based on that pilot’s ability to fly the plane, as opposed to that pilot’s ability to answer some questions on a test,” he said.

Sourcing & Engaging  Passive Candidates

According to a recent study by LinkedIn and the Lou Adler Group, active candidates represent 5 to 20 percent of the total talent market, while casual job seekers, known as Tiptoers, make up another 15 to 20 percent. The remaining 65 to 75 percent are passive candidates. These passive candidates are especially critical to U.S. employers in technical industries, where the unemployment rate is a mere 2.5 percent. 

Filling technical positions must include strenuous and ongoing sourcing of and engagement with passive candidates, not only because the bulk of the candidate pool is currently employed, but also because the process works. According to Lou Adler’s latest hiring sourcing survey, a whopping 85 percent of hires are made through networking. Seven times as many passive candidates accept jobs discovered through networking, compared with those proactively applied for in response to job postings.  

There are multiple ways to source and engage passive candidates:

  • Predictive analytics vendors, such as Leoforce and Engage, that analyze the job fitness of social
    profiles, and help determine those that might be willing to change jobs.
  • Participation in online talent or news communities, such as Techmeme, and HackerNews, or creation of your own.

What’s a talent community? BraveNewTalent strategy director Master Burnett defines it as “a group of people that share an affinity for an organization, profession or skill that connect, share opinions, exchange information, and collaborate using web tools”

  • Social networking

Prominent business network LinkedIn recently introduced Open Candidate. This feature allows any employed LinkedIn member to quietly indicate that she or he is open to new opportunities, without alerting the current employer.

While LinkedIn is generally top-of-mind for employers and recruiters who want to reach passive candidates, Facebook is exceedingly important as well. On Facebook, 67 percent of job seekers research prospective employers and search for openings. Also notable is that only 54 percent of competitor employers are searching for candidates there (as opposed to 93 percent using LinkedIn.)

Others to consider: Twitter, Pinterest, Reddit, Quora, Digg, Instagram, and Snapchat.

  • Teaching free on-site or virtual classes. This might be through a local university or community college’s Continuing Education program, online via teaching platforms such as Udemy or Skillshare, or even as a special event for local high school students.

In the Complete Guide to Attracting Passive Candidates, TransTech IT Staffing Sr. Technical Recruiter Shilpi Agarwal Basu, talked about connecting with passive technical candidates by way of content sharing.

“I track all the latest market trends,” she wrote. “If I meet a Data Analyst, I share articles with the latest Hadoop and big data news. If I meet a UX Designer, I share articles about the latest design methods. Most appreciate the information and the thought, helping to build the foundation for a bond.”

TransTech colleague Emily Adams offered tips on social networking for recruiting passive candidates.

“Sending out job ads is not enough,” Adams said. “I post original TransTech content or articles I find online that are relevant to IT and career search, sharing them with my network and prospects. The goal with that is to show I’m not just asking for people to help me. I want us to be able to help each other.”

Long-time recruiter and former Sungevity VP A.J. Mizes doubled the size of his solar energy firm by luring and hiring 45 employees in 30 days. He found that sourcing passive candidates had to include smart company branding.

“Employer branding is freaking huge,” Mizes told Technical Recruiting Best Practices conference attendees. “We get a ton of comments based upon [Sungevity’s day-in-the-life] video. We hired a video company to come out and interview employees, asking them ‘Why do you like working here? Why is it unique?’ Every applicant tells us, ‘I watched your video and it was so cool.’”

Both technical skills assessment platforms and ongoing engagement of passive candidates represent a much-needed attitude change for recruiters and hiring managers. Post-and-pray, the traditional method of one-time searching for job candidates by posting a job notice, hiring, and then discarding other applicants, is no longer a workable option.

“Don’t ghost anyone,” CodeSignals recruiters warned in their Definitive Guide to Skills Based Recruiting. “The candidate who isn’t right for your company might know several others who are …  Sharing actionable feedback with them helps them retain positive opinions of your company.”

As the number of unfilled technical jobs increase, the need for quick, efficient hiring methods will increase as well. Machine-based technical skills assessment tools and ongoing engagement with passive candidates will be the two best tools in a technical recruiter’s tool box.

Do you REALLY have a talent pipeline, guys?

According to the annual survey of the Forum for Inhouse Recruitment Professionals in the UK, creation of talent pipelines has been an important priority for inhouse recruitment leaders for the last three years.

The reason it remains a priority is because almost no employers or agencies actually know how to create them.

Continue reading “Do you REALLY have a talent pipeline, guys?”

How to not become a trade war casualty

tariffs

 

Tariffs and Talent Acquisition

The year started off great for hiring. Between the administration’s deregulation binge and tax reform, profitability estimates climbed for companies in power and energy, manufacturing,   financial services, retail and real estate, to name just a few. When tariff talk began generating headlines in March, enthusiasm quickly dampened in solar, semiconductors, and other industries caught up in the escalating trade war with China.  

Now, the trade wars are broadening. On June 1, the U.S. imposed a 25% tariff on steel imports and a 10% tariff on aluminum. To retaliate, Mexico quickly slapped tariffs on $3 billion worth of U.S. goods targeting agriculture. Canada is digging in with tariffs on $13 billion dollars on U.S. imports including steel, aluminum, whiskey, washing machines … even peanut butter. China is imposing tariffs on $50 billion worth of U.S. imports and the EU, too, is planning tariffs on a  long list of products.  

Are we facing a jobs-killing trade war? Although tariff talk may ultimately be a negotiating tactic to get higher priority items fixed, we will be facing job losses for manufacturers downstream from steel and aluminum, assuming they are kept in place.  

Continue reading “How to not become a trade war casualty”

Is recruitment marketing even strategic anymore?

Quick hit here, but check out these stats from Bullhorn’s “The State of Recruitment Marketing in 2018:”

  • Eighty-seven percent of global staffing and recruiting firms do not have a chief marketing officer, and nearly three-quarters (75 percent) of global staffing and recruiting firms do not have a vice president of marketing.
  • Forty-five percent of respondents said their firm’s marketing leader does not control a budget, while 46 percent of respondents said their firm does not have a cohesive marketing strategy in place for the year ahead.
  • The top three marketing tactics cited as being allocated a higher budget year-over-year include: social media presence (organic) (60 percent), email marketing (50 percent), and job boards (50 percent).
  • Channels that at one time would have been deemed highly important are now being given a lower budget include direct mail (37 percent), career fairs (36 percent), and pay per click job ads (34 percent).
  • For companies that had representation from a chief marketing officer or a vice president, they identified marketing automation and email marketing as their top two marketing initiatives. The organizations that had less-experienced marketers relied on social media and job boards for driving candidate engagement.

None of this is necessarily surprising, but it’s all a little bit terrifying nonetheless. 45% of firm marketing leaders don’t even control a budget? If you don’t control a budget in most organizations, even mid-size staffing ones, you’re essentially worthless to the decision-makers. So do the guys setting the financial agenda care about recruitment marketing? It’s possible they don’t, especially since organic social media presence — which has been waning for a half-decade — is somehow being tied to extra budget allocation. Feels like non-strategic lip service.

Bullhorn CMO Gordon Burnes and I chatted about these results briefly, and he admitted it’s a much different landscape these days in terms of job boards, but oftentimes agencies don’t understand marketing ROI and want to find ways to reduce costs on that side. All true, but all somewhat sad too.

What do you think about the current state of recruitment marketing? How “strategic” does it feel at most places?