Blog

Unleash 2018 and the dead-end, unoriginal job problem

Let’s commence with some typical Charney snark:

Ignore the second part; focus on the first.

That’s a real issue.

Continue reading “Unleash 2018 and the dead-end, unoriginal job problem”

How mentoring should actually work (on both sides)

What matters to me

SHRM has been talking about mentorship a good deal recently, including an article on “How To Find The Right HR Mentor” and another on “Elevating The Next Generation Of HR Leaders.”

This actually got me going down memory lane a bit to an article I wrote in October 2015 – seems like forever ago — about how to ask someone to be your mentor.

This is all very near and dear to me. It matters tremendously, and I sometimes wish more of us in executive-level roles would understand and embrace that. We had people who guided us and deflected politics away from us as we rose up. We need to pay that forward.

I work hard at taking time to coach several of my past staff members, startup founders from The Atlanta Tech Village, and recent graduates from my alma mater (UGA).

Continue reading “How mentoring should actually work (on both sides)”

Why Candidate Engagement Matters More Than Ever

There used to be a time when candidate engagement didn’t matter. If you didn’t get a call back from a company that you sent a resume to, that was that. Businesses didn’t have time to waste by engaging candidates who didn’t cut it.

But in today’s competitive talent acquisition market, businesses have to focus on candidate engagement in order to recruit top talent.

What is Candidate Engagement?

Candidate engagement is the experience candidates have with your business at each touchpoint through the interview process. While it can start when a candidate first applies for a job, it can also start when a recruiter reaches out to a potential candidate. It’s the actions both parties take to get to know one another before an offer is made. According to a study done by CareerBuilder, 80% of candidates use the hiring process to determine how a company will treat its employees.

It’s A Job Hunter’s Market

Over the past few years, the job market has generally improved for candidates as the number of job openings continue to increase. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that there were 5.6 million job openings in December of 2017 — during the Great Recession in 2008, there were just 2.4 million.

There is a caveat, though. Even though there are more jobs, there’s also more competition. There are more people in the job market right now — five generations, in fact. It won’t be long before Gen Z  starts entering the workforce en masse, and that generation is even larger than the Millennials.

With so much choice, it’s difficult for recruiters to find the right candidates. And yet, they are under more pressure than ever to fill roles. Every day that passes without a position being filled is a day of inefficiency for the company — and it can take months to get a position filled. Given this pressure, it’s important for recruiters to balance speed with making a great first impression on candidates.

Top Talent Requires Engagement

When you approach top talent, they know that it’s a buyer’s market out there for positions.

Candidates don’t have time to waste with an employer who takes too long to hire, doesn’t communicate, or gives a disorganized first impression. Even a rejected candidate can still feel respected and positive about not getting a role if it’s done in the right way. A negative recruiting experience can spread throughout an industry really quickly thanks to social media and job boards. Enough stories about poor communication, long pipelines, or even perceived bias will make top talent shy away from applying to a position in the first place. Worse, it can even decrease revenue. Candidates who are rejected poorly may also stop being your customer.

Technology Steps In

How can recruiters juggle the needs of the business with the consequences of irking the candidate pool? It’s a tough challenge. Burnout is a real problem in the recruiting industry. Fortunately, there are new technologies that recruiters can leverage to ease the stress of their roles and become more efficient.

Thanks to artificial intelligence (AI) — which gives machines the ability to perform “human-like” tasks — hiring managers can achieve high levels of candidate engagement without compromising their ability to choose the best candidates or creating a longer time-to-hire. AI-powered recruiting assistants allow hiring managers to do tasks like:

  • Automate high-volume, repetitive tasks like calendar scheduling and conference room booking (these take up to 20% of a recruiter’s time.)
  • Ensure accuracy, consistent communication, and reduce human error (AI can handle re-scheduling and multi-day interviews.)
  • Manage candidate evaluations and reduce time-in-pipeline.
  • Reduce time-to-hire and cost-per-hire, ultimately driving a competitive advantage because it gets talent in their roles and working on projects faster.

How AI Solves The Problems Of Candidate Engagement

Candidates want timely communication about where they are in the hiring pipeline, what the next steps are, and  if they are still under consideration for a role. Recruiters can provide this information, but fielding these calls is a real chore. By automating follow-ups, AI-powered recruitment tools ensure consistent, timely, and accurate communication. This keeps the interview process running efficiently, ultimately reducing time-in-pipeline by up to 78% and reducing time-to-hire by 51%.

AI is a major competitive advantage, as lost revenue from open positions can be recovered faster and employee morale will also rise thanks to the extra help from new staff.

Using AI to assist with candidate engagement is a win for everyone. It also means that AI will soon be an essential tool for companies that want to retain their edge in the war for talent. Companies that create better candidate experiences will attract a higher level of talent and have the ability to quickly process all candidates to find the best ones for the job. So, don’t leave candidates sitting by the phone or their in-box waiting for a response. Investigate how you can improve candidate engagement and how you can leverage technologies like AI to help.

Indeed Interactive: “Be well, work well” with PWC

Admittedly “Be Well, Work Well” wasn’t my first choice at that time slot — I wanted to go to something on building employer brand, buzzword though that might be — but the room for that deal was too crowded, so I walked into “Be Well, Work Well” and it ended up really cool.

I don’t want to belabor the overall point of work-life balance and conscious meditation, so I’ll break this up into manageable (I think) chunks about the topic. Let’s roll.

Continue reading “Indeed Interactive: “Be well, work well” with PWC”

Unleash 2018, Day 1: The tweet roundup

Some quick-hitters:

(True.)

(Equally true.)

(SNOW BEAST!)

(Their full potential! Their purpose!)

(Are execs still viewing HR a a cost center?)

(The inherent flaw of hierarchy.)

(Interesting.)

(True.)

(Also true.)

(Top stat is troubling.)

(Good analogy.)

(Have always wondered why more people don’t “get” this.)

Indeed Interactive: How BASF reorganized their talent acquisition team

Whenever you hit a talent acquisition/recruiting trade show, it seems wise to look for the sessions that promise actionable plans around a topic — as opposed to stuff like (not knocking these, per se) “Nice Companies Finish First.” We want that to be true — desperately, often — but the fact is, unless you’re a top decision-maker, I’m not entirely sure you get to decide whether the company is “nice” at scale. (You yourself should be nice in interactions with candidates and customers, of course.)

Anyway, that’s a long way of saying I was interested to see this BASF, 007-themed session at Indeed Interactive 2018.

So, what were the takeaways?

Continue reading “Indeed Interactive: How BASF reorganized their talent acquisition team”

The great promise: fast access to quality candidates. Can Indeed deliver?

hiring staff

Down here at Indeed Interactive for a few days, and the first new product launch from America’s largest job board is Indeed Assessments.

The promise of the product is the great promise of talent acquisition overall: faster access to quality candidates. In the blog post announcing the product, here’s what they say:

Developed by expert psychologists, Indeed Assessments uses real-life simulations, skills tests, work samples, one-way video and audio interviews and more to effectively and accurately narrow down your choices to high quality applicants with greater accuracy and in less time.

Meanwhile, Indeed Assessments also helps to democratize hiring by giving people an equal chance to showcase their qualifications when applying for jobs, so that they can more easily find the opportunities that are right for them.

Seems awesome so far.

Continue reading “The great promise: fast access to quality candidates. Can Indeed deliver?”

How beneficial is LinkedIn, truly?

LinkedIn benefits

Are there LinkedIn benefits? Sure. Do people make connections on there, convert them, close deals? Of course. This is the much-balleyhooed “social selling.” Does this happen as much as thought leaders want us to believe it happens? No. There are some people and companies who “get” all this stuff, of course. But by and large, a lot of companies are using 1991 funnel models, metric evaluations, and sales processes. Change is hard for people at the individual level. A company is often 1,000+ individuals. Try changing at that level. It terrifies most of us. We often bury our heads in the sand and ignore what’s happening, or listen to some consultant advice. You could probably gag a farm of horses with people claiming to be LinkedIn experts or extol all the LinkedIn benefits for you. Half those people probably lead their slide decks with “Have a professional-looking profile picture.” That passes as advice, somehow? People didn’t know that? OK, then!

I wanted to run through — quickly — a couple of problems with LinkedIn and the supposed LinkedIn benefits. Maybe we can make this better?

LinkedIn Benefits Issue No. 1: Active users

This is the dirty little secret of LinkedIn. It has a huge user base, but only about 1 in 5 of those users check it monthly. Now, 1 in 5 of a huge number is still a huge number — I’ll give you that. But: here’s a situation I just had. About 8-10 months ago, I was messaging one person a day on LinkedIn, just as a networking play. This week — essentially a year later — I heard from two of those people. “Hey, what’s up?” It’s like, “Uh, I messaged you 10 months ago. Now you get back to me?” If that happened on email, people would literally light their entire body on fire and run through the cubicle rows screaming bloody murder.

This is all logical, of course. You would regularly go on LinkedIn if you were a recruiter, a “thought leader,” or looking for a job. If you don’t fit those three categories, you almost never would need to log in.

LinkedIn Benefits Issue No. 2: It’s not really that professional

Facebook is boring as hell now (Trump this, Trump that, maybe a baby picture here or there), and it’s a major driver of depression. So eventually, you figure it’ll get beaten by Snap or something we haven’t seen yet. (User base is huge, yes. It will take time.)

LinkedIn has no clear competitor, plus Microsoft owns it now. Glassdoor, Indeed, and similar sites that have the “scale” to be LinkedIn don’t have all the supposed LinkedIn benefits. But here’s the problem: LinkedIn is honestly not that professional. Because of social media automation suites, a lot of people share the same stuff to Facebook (personal) as LinkedIn (professional), so all the time I get updates about kid’s soccer tournaments. Then there are number puzzles, bikini shots, spammers, and people who use self-publishing to talk about an award they just won. (That’s not what self-publishing was invented for.)

It’s hard to be construed as “the professional network” when all this kind of stuff is flying around all day long.

LinkedIn Benefits Issue No. 3: Recruiters seem confused by it

Written about this before. This is just a sample based on my experiences and those of my friends/family. But if I’ve interacted with 150 recruiters on LinkedIn (I probably have), maybe 3-4 of them “get it.” Most send canned messages, or know nothing about you even though tons of stuff is on your profile. (I have an “All-Star profile,” if you care.) If this site is ultimately a tool for recruiters, and recruiters are using it in a canned, impersonal way, well, I fail to see the LinkedIn benefits therein.

I don’t actually think LinkedIn has made recruiting that much better, because while entire conversations on a topic can take place in Messenger or Twitter DM, you basically have to leave LinkedIn to develop that relationship. It has to move to email or phone, and oftentimes that’s a long, sloppy process because of that “I don’t check it so much” issue above. In the case of recruiters, the issue is “I’m so busy” because they’re probably juggling 94 canned interactions at a given time.

LinkedIn Benefits Issue No. 4: Lots of noise

LinkedIn would be an awesome site if it was a place you could log on and find good job advice, jobs catered for you, etc. But because LinkedIn had to make money and prove growth to investors, it could never be that. Consider how many things are posted to LinkedIn each second. It’s massive. I’m sure Microsoft looked at that and said “BA-ZINGA!” But an average person trying to navigate their career in uncertain times? It’s just a miserable cacophony of noise and people up-selling you.

LinkedIn Benefits Issue No. 5: Their sales side

Small sample size for me, but every time I’ve interacted with LinkedIn sales teams, they are total KPI-chasers who just want to get the sale. I guess there’s nothing wrong with that. A few months ago, when they rolled out ProFinder, I wanted to be featured on it. I got a few messages from some guy at LinkedIn asking me to search for other people. When I replied and asked how I could be searched, I got crickets in return. It’s always amazing to me how these companies claim to be “customer-first” and “service-driven” and clearly just view most people they interact with as wallets with fingers. A true shame.

Final thought: I know a bunch of people. I have something like 2,200 Facebook friends. (Admittedly that means nothing.) Of those 2,200 people, I bet I see about 50-75 active on LinkedIn. I really feel as if most people, in the regular slog of day-to-day work/etc., just don’t see any value to it unless they’re in an active job search.

What say you on LinkedIn benefits, real and imagined?

Unleash 2018: What panels should get you hyped?

Big week in the talent acquisition road show warrior world, because both Unleash and Indeed Interactive are going down at the same time. (Both start tonight with people getting in to Vegas and Austin, respectively.) This post is going to focus on Unleash; my colleague Ted Bauer will be down at Indeed and I’m sure he’ll be blogging for us from there in the next few days.

The entire Unleash agenda is pretty solid, as you’d expect. But here are some of the ones I’m most hyped to see.

Continue reading “Unleash 2018: What panels should get you hyped?”

The Growth Divide: HR/Ops and employees are far apart on reviews and engagement

employee engagement

A new study called The Growth Divide suggests that companies aren’t exactly cultivating growth when it comes to employee satisfaction with performance review processes.

The title, Growth Divide, refers to a gap between what business leaders believe is necessary to compete, grow market share and revenues with their business operations, and what employees believe is necessary to contribute, grow professionally and thrive with their career operations.

See, while some 94 percent of HR and operations executives think employees are perfectly happy, the reality is most employees find their company’s review process to be outdated, generic, infrequent and incomplete.

This disconnect is causing both employee and company performance to whither, stunting growth with dissatisfaction and lack of communication. To create and manage a more nurturing, growth-oriented environment, here are five critical ingredients your company needs to thrive:

Continue reading “The Growth Divide: HR/Ops and employees are far apart on reviews and engagement”

UpLead:  B2B prospecting tool

UpLead Review

There are a ton of tools in the market that are used in both sales and recruiting. The most useful features of this particular tool are the ability to pull up data on entire companies. Let’s say your client wants you to recruit out of a particular competitor. This tool allows you to pull up email addresses and phone numbers for complete company directories. UpLead has over 30 million contacts from over 200 countries.

 

 

Flexibility: The tool is primarily a database and search tool. Currently, only they only have a Salesforce integration.  If you already own a contact list you can upload a list of emails, phone numbers or company URLs to be excluded so that you aren’t receiving any duplication from UpLead. The product is still developing. I would like to see more integrations. For staffing companies, connecting this tool with a CRM would be extremely useful. For Sourcers in the corporate environments, an integration with applicant tracking systems would eliminate the need for manual data entry.

Ease of Use: The search functions are very easy to use. The Use Interface is beautiful and crisp. You can filter over 50 fields to get the data you are looking for. LinkedIn doesn’t have as many fields. All records come with both email and phone number. With most contact tools, you rarely get both. Email seems to be the most common form of contact information. I would like to see more recruiting features and this develop into more of a recruiting tool where you can add projects you are working on.

 

 

Pricing: The pricing is fair and comparable to other products on the market.  There are no contracts or setup fees. The pricing is transparent and starts at $49 a month for 200 leads. With the more advanced plans such as Professional and Enterprise plans, you can add unlimited users. You can cancel the contract at any time. They do offer a discount of 20% on yearly plans. Unused credits roll over to the next month.

“very helpful for technical recruiters and sales teams in the technology field”

Cool Factor: There aren’t very many tools that track technology used. UpLead tracks over 2500 different types of technology. You can get data on what technologies the company uses. This is very helpful for technical recruiters and sales teams in the technology field.

Sourcing tool boxes need multiple tools in order to complete projects and be efficient. Currently, my sourcing toolbox has over 25 tools. I am considering adding this one to my toolbox on a permanent basis.

 

 

 

Pouring One Out: A Requiem For Glassdoor

pouring one out glassdoor

I.Prelude.

There are a lot of companies out there that actually walk the walk. Glassdoor, for a long time, was one of the good guys; they practiced the same sort of radical transparency they preached and were the rare company to actually champion the employee over the employer.

Of course, when you’re a startup, it’s pretty easy to live your values, but even as Glassdoor grew from another online recruiting startup into one of the industry’s most ubiquitous players, they remained focused on their vision of giving workers and candidates a voice.

Consider this Business Insider Profile from 2015, when Glassdoor had already grown to over 450 employees, opened a gorgeous, gleaming new headquarters in Marin Country with a killer view of the Bay, and become a major force within the recruiting industry and one of the darlings of the money men down on Sand Hill Road.

Still, this was their public positioning – and, from my experiences, a pretty authentic reflection of what their company culture, and leadership, still represented not that long ago (albeit three years is more or less an eternity in the world of startups in general, and recruiting related ones in particular).

Speaking of founder Robert Hohman (who you could still call Bob back then without getting your hand slapped by some publicist), the glowing feature reveals:

When not running the company or coding the site, he’s playing StarCraft with his two expert-level sons.

In fact, Glassdoor wouldn’t even be around if it weren’t for StarCraft’s older, sister game, World of Warcraft …

“I took a year off and played World of Warcraft. Every day. I would pat the kids on the bottom every morning, send them to school and then I would dominate as an Orc Warrior.”

That’s because in 2006, Hohman quit a fabulous job as president of Hotwire to do nothing but play the game. Full time. For a year.

And the second he hit the highest level, the itch to play was scratched, and he needed a new thing to obsess over. So he launched a startup.”

OK, maybe (and probably), this origin myth is totally BS. But I’m fairly convinced there’s some truth to it, too. Because this was a company that was engineered to actually disrupt the recruiting industry, rather than create solutions for problems that aren’t really that real, like so many other point solutions or online platforms.

Also, let’s pause for a minute and consider how badass it is, PR creation or corporate hyperbole be damned, that one of the most formidable, well-financed and highly publicized challengers to the online recruiting establishment would go on the record as having been inspired by WoW.

Glassdoor was built by great programmers who were the ultimate industry outsiders, with roots far from the same small group of Dave Duffield disciples and they’re reheated, me-too “next generation” product plays. And that’s why it worked so damned well for so long. It gave employees a real voice and put employers on notice in public.

And I, for one, was all in. It might seem improbable that the CEO of one of Silicon Valley’s hottest startups would, as the BI post put it, “still personally code for [Glassdoor] at night.” The piece continues: “His head of engineering “puts up with me,” Hohman tells us, and then explains he’s still “a good software engineer.”

Pour one out, I guess. Just make sure it’s Santori Whiskey.

Part II: The Rise.

True story. I’m in Amsterdam, on a drizzly day at the HR Technology World Congress (now Unleash) at the RAI. I have nothing better to do, so I head over to the afterparty, where I’m the first person who’s not a Glassdoor employee to arrive.

And it stayed that way for a really long time. It was me, and like a dozen publicists, marketers and event coordinators becoming increasingly frantic at the uneaten trays of really expensive catering for what had been billed as a “VIP Event” that was so exclusive, it actually required printed invitations (no lie).

Blame the rain, the confusing directions from the convention to the nondescript bar across the street, whatever – it was a long half hour. Eventually, a small crowd trickles in, and with the last few stragglers, Robert Hohman walks in, much to the shared relief of his employees, whose event has been billed as a meet and greet opportunity with the man himself.

And the thing was, he still didn’t think of himself as the man, that much was clear. He grabbed a plate of food and headed for a corner, where I happened to be sitting. We’d met before, here and there.

We talked gaming. He apologized for being late. Dude, you’re the CEO of Glassdoor, it’s good…and thanks for the open bar.

He told me it was because he lost track of time (and missing a bunch of analyst briefings) while hiding out, personally coding the French language localization of Glassdoor that was set to launch the following week.

And I thought this is as real as it gets. Bob cared about that company, and I couldn’t be cynical about a company that was, effectively, the anti LinkedIn – and a role that the company relished. Obviously, I did, too. Taking sides is convenient.

Their positioning was that they stood clear dichotomy between good and evil, transparency and opaqueness, privacy rights versus personal data resellers.

I bought in, a little too much, probably, considering another anecdote from around the same period in Glassdoor’s development that should probably have sent up a red flag for me before I mistakenly predicted that they’d beat Indeed in the battle for the future of job boards.

At the iTalent competition at the 2014 HRO Today Forum in Philadelphia (video below), Glassdoor was a finalist who, believe it or not, ultimately lost in a pitch competition to a panel of investors and analysts after already raising a mindblowing $50 million Series E.

The result was surprising, considering many other finalists (including the ultimate winners, Joberate) had challenged the unfair inclusion of Glassdoor in a startup competition – these were overruled, as the only qualifications were that the company had to be venture-backed, pre-IPO and in the talent technology space.

The reason, however, was simple: Lauren Cort, at the time the Director of Channel Relations for Glassdoor (read: their primary liaison into the recruiting and staffing industries), couldn’t answer a simple question from one of the judges after a pretty slick, well-rehearsed pitch.

After spending 7 minutes talking about how they were empowering job seekers and employers with total transparency into the job search process and what working there’s really like – never charging job seekers or employers for this unprecedented workplace visibility – the question was obvious:

“How, exactly, are you planning on making money?”

Crickets. Still, it was a good question.

Yesterday’s news that Recruit Holdings, the Toyko based conglomerate that owns Indeed, had acquired Glassdoor for $1.2 billion proves that Glassdoor, in fact, never really had a very good answer. I’m not yet sure Recruit does, either. But it’s something.

Whatever the Japanese equivalent to a Hail Mary is, I guess.

Part III: The Fall.

The combined entity creates what should be, on the surface, at least, a dominant player in the online recruiting space. Consider that Glassdoor was second only to Indeed in terms of job seeker traffic in the US according to the most recent Comscore data, and you see the obvious economy of scale and potential reach available to Recruit.

And yet, make no mistake about it, this was very much a marriage of convenience; this has always been a market where there’s been more than enough room for plenty of competitors. At one point, believe it or not, there were over 6,000 paid niche and general job sites listed in the United States alone.

Monster and CareerBuilder both ran Super Bowl commercials that went viral (before that was really a thing), Dice plastered every bus in New York with OpenWeb advertising, the Phoenix Suns played in Jobbing.com arena, and The Ladders was an official sponsor of the US Open.

This was the golden age for job boards, and each succeeded because they effectively posted original content, owned their own distribution or behavioral targeting networks and used these to build unique, proprietary candidate databases that were really the core of their overarching business strategy.

Then, along came LinkedIn, and quickly this “professional network” had most practitioners and pundits convinced that job boards were dead – as early as 2007, according to a quick Google search. The reason was that LinkedIn was building a proprietary database far bigger and more accurate than that of any job board, and recruiters and employers go, obviously, fish where the most fish are – and are exceedingly willing to pay a premium to do so.

LinkedIn, to their credit, were the first to realize that job postings were a commodity; it took the company years to launch a full premium posting product for employers, focusing at first on monetizing sourcing and direct candidate communications. For years, any recruiter could (and did) just integrate a job feed to their LinkedIn profile for free, which seems weird now.

And why not? When you have the candidates employers need, you don’t really need to focus on the front of the funnel. Job postings are temporal and transactional; a person’s profile, their personal information, that’s where the real long-term value really lies.

That data, unlike job postings, has utility beyond recruiting. This is why Microsoft not only purchased LinkedIn for a whopping $28 billion but already are integrating profile information into its core B2B products, most notably Office 360. They were also entrenching against the same sword of Damocles that was constantly hanging over the head of the number one job site in North America: the inevitable entrance of Google into the talent acquisition market. Microsoft bought LinkedIn before this happened.

Part 4: Epilogue. 

Indeed and Glassdoor, unfortunately, were too busy competing with other job boards – and each other – to realize the real threat looming on the horizon was the exact same one they’d doubled down on in the aggregator business.

Indeed was built on a brilliant model, but a perilous one. Their “innovation” was kind of a dumb trick called deduplication. They didn’t really own original inventory, but because they figured out how to fool search engines into recognizing content from other sites as original, they were able to index and optimize their way into the top organic result on pretty much every Google search.

This led them to become the top job site in the US, but of course, not all of that traffic was organic. Every job board, by the time Recruit acquired Indeed in 2012, had moved to an aggregator model, essentially pirating the same job posting content and competing with each other to rank higher on Google’s algorithm.

This was great for Google for two reasons: career sites were one of the primary cash cows for their advertising business, and they were able to collect historical and performance data on literally hundreds of millions of job postings that Indeed and its ilk had built their businesses on.

All it would take was a simple algorithm change, and Indeed would be out of business. The founders of Indeed had to know this because they had the same victory as Glassdoor: they exited before reality really set in.

So, Indeed sold itself to Recruit Holdings, whose primary interest in Indeed seemed, at the time, to be a favorable f(X) exchange rate for dollars to yen and a desire to diversify their core HR technology holdings beyond the steadily shrinking and rapidly aging Japanese market. Indeed knew they didn’t have the cash or the portfolio to be a stand-alone company, at least not a competitive one, in the world of recruitment advertising over the long term.

Sadly, Glassdoor finds itself resigned to the same fate. The company, so long rumored to be preparing itself for an IPO, was sold in a fire sale which illustrates just how rapidly Google Jobs has completely decimated the SEO and content mixture upon which recruitment advertising had largely been predicated.

The problem is, you can’t beat Google when it comes to job postings – and since over 80% of job searches start at the site, they’re fully in control of the front end of the funnel, where Indeed has been so successful (so far). Glassdoor, with its industry-leading repository of company reviews and salary data, will certainly increase Indeed’s reach past the point of application while allowing it to sell more targeted ad space further down the funnel – and at a higher cost.

Whether the amalgamation can succeed comes down to how robust a candidate database the company can build, a capability both Indeed and Glassdoor were way behind the market on adopting as an integral product offering. Of course, in a GDPR world, actually doing anything with that application or candidate data seems suspect at best.

Just one month ago, while announcing a rate card increase, Glassdoor sent active prospects an email touting their relative efficacy against Indeed, with several links to articles or third party studies stressing Glassdoor’s applicant quality over Indeed’s quantity.

Today’s follow up email: it’s not an either/or. Which every recruiter pretty much already knows, honestly.

Sales collateral and materials from both sides seemed to suggest each entity considered the others as their primary competition; the days of LinkedIn versus Glassdoor have long since passed.

At the time of its acquisition, Microsoft paid an estimated $60 per LinkedIn monthly user; compare this to the $21 per monthly user that Recruit is paying for Glassdoor, and you can appreciate this exit event is a pyrrhic victory for all parties, at best. But it’s realistically about half the amount Glassdoor could have reasonably have expected to raise in an initial float only 12-18 months ago.

Sure, 1.2 billion is nothing to sneeze at, but it’s also only slightly more than Glassdoor’s estimated valuation during its most recent round of funding, which pegged its overall worth at a billion dollars. This may seem like a fair exchange, but it also means neither company has much optimism in long-term growth, and like Monster and HotJobs!, may ultimately be an attempt at borrowing time by buying traffic. This approach is unsustainable because that traffic will ultimately be controlled (and priced) by, you guessed it, Google.

Which, for the record, probably made yesterday’s news even sweeter for the search giant, since Google Capital was an early Glassdoor investor – and ostensibly saw a pretty decent payout as a result.

Talk about feeling lucky.

Make execs understand sourcing with one small vocabulary shift

understand sourcing

Man, it’s kinda depressing how everything in business that could have meaning somehow became a buzzword. Today’s example: “talent sourcing.” Let me set up a few things for you.

  1. Regardless of how you feel about the Baby Boomers, they were the most-educated generation in U.S. history.
  2. Now they are largely beginning to retire and/or, well, die.
  3. Now look at the perceived fastest-growing jobs between 2014 and 2024.
  4. 8 of 15 require an Associate’s Degree or less.
  5. Final little piece of the puzzle: automation getting to scale and employment protection issues.

This is what you’re left with. If you were to conceive an American child this evening, there’s a good chance that said child has no clear career path around age 22 — which is when the career path commences for many. The basic life path is changing. Some people are out there having real, honest discussions about it — but most are burying their head in KPIs. This is probably less than stellar for our futures.

Into this cluster mess walks Mr. Talent Sourcing. Typically this is some “HR pure play” (heard that in a meeting once) whereby someone presents a “strategic plan” — it’s really just a shitty PowerPoint — and claims that’s the “talent sourcing play” for the next few years. Meanwhile, every time a new job opens, the hiring manager covers his ass by throwing HR under a train. No one speaks of “talent sourcing.” Instead, everyone lights their hair on fire, does a little Post and Pray, and hopes the ATS delivers a big win. The ATS whiffs, screening out the best people, and it’s time again to rinse and repeat the All-Bullshit, All-The-Time hiring process mess. Talent sourcing? My ass. The hiring process is completely broken.

Continue reading “Make execs understand sourcing with one small vocabulary shift”

What does recruiting operations look like right now?

recruiting operations

Recruiting operations is one of those disciplines that means different things to different people. To some, it’s a side project for the most analytic-minded recruiter on a team. To others, it’s the role of a dedicated team member with analyst and coding skills. No matter how this responsibility manifests in the org chart, what unifies the foundational thinking of recruiting operations is: making it work.

Continue reading “What does recruiting operations look like right now?”