Blog

A Recruiting Maxim: Prior Success Does Not Guarantee Future Results

This is the talent dilemma that occurs when your team is not winning. Whether to change or keep your leaders in place is today’s discussion.

This past week, sport imitated life when the National Football League’s New York Giants benched their long-time quarterback Eli Manning. This comes after Eli had started 210 straight games, over 14 seasons, during which he led the Giants to two (2) Super Bowl victories.

His awards date back to his time as a collegian at Ole Miss (aka, the University of Mississippi) where he was awarded multiple honors including the Maxwell Award as the country’s top collegiate football player in 2003. This four-time NFL Pro Bowler also has been a force in the community, especially with his work for children’s cancer. He was recently recognized as the Walter Payton Man of the Year in 2016, an award presented annually by the National Football League that honors a player’s volunteer and charity work, as well as their excellence on the field.

So, what does this have to do with talent management?

Why would the Giants bench a player that has been the face of the franchise, won two championships, and been an exemplary example and leader on and off the field?

From a talent executive standpoint, the data would point out that Eli Manning’s stats have diminished each of the past four seasons despite taking his team to the playoffs this past year. And, maybe that should be the only information used by the team in making this decision.

However, there are numerous intangibles in this talent dilemma that can’t be measured in an exact or even objective way:

  • For one, the Giants had a rash of injuries to their starting receivers this year, along with a tremendous amount of criticism about other teammates who were underperforming. These factors may very well have influenced the very statistics used in making this decision.
  • There is also the argument about the emotional toll it takes on the other players in the locker room in replacing one of the best quarterbacks ever to wear a New York Giants uniform. How does his benching impact the rest of the team?
  • Additionally, there is this question — are the backup quarterbacks anywhere close to the capability of Eli or does that even matter?

Other businesses have faced a similar talent dilemma

Many businesses of all sizes are faced with similar situations.

A key member of senior management excels at their role for many years and then their performance falls off. Maybe their performance stays stagnant, but the business has poor results. All the data points to a deterioration of performance, and results are visible to their management team, board and stockholders.

So how do you make this decision and when do you pull the trigger? Who makes that decision, and what are the consequences?

Of course, there is no stock answer to this talent dilemma. But remember this: How you play out the decision and the discussion is as important, and arguably as impactful, when executing a change in leadership as the change itself.

Eli Manning is a prideful man and handled a difficult decision with professionalism, even turning down an offer to start the game (and then be replaced) so that the backup quarterback Gino Smith would be afforded the best opportunity to get prepared and be in a rhythm from the start of the game.

A bad decision communicated badly by management

The same cannot be said for the team’s management. Rumors of a change had circulated for weeks.

When the change was made, it was sudden with minimal preparation for communicating it to Eli or to the team. It was the equivalent of HR doing a termination with no warning and providing the “cold as ice” conversation. You know what I’m talking about — say as little as possible to avoid litigation down the road even though the executive in question has been a loyal and productive individual throughout their tenure.

The sports media world is feasting on this like a Thanksgiving turkey.

A few years ago, Eli’s older brother Peyton (arguably one of the greatest quarterbacks to ever play the game) went through a similar scenario. The Indianapolis Colts released him and he went on to win a Super Bowl with the Denver Broncos a couple of years later. A similar fate may await Eli with trade talk looming for his future.

The lesson in all of this?

It’s that data doesn’t always dictate finite decisions. Intangibles need to be considered. and if you do pull the proverbial trigger, do it with some dignity and respect. Otherwise this talent dilemma may just come back to haunt you, as it will probably come back to haunt the New York Giants.

Shut Up and Listen: 7 Things to Know If You Want to Work in Recruiting

Greg Johnson (@RecruitinGreg) had a simple question on LinkedIn the other day where he asked the following question:

I get a lot of messages from people that are wanting to get into recruiting asking for advice. These are some of my favorite conversations to have! So, what’s your advice?

I love the topic, and now that I’ve been in recruiting for more than 22 years, I feel semi-qualified to answer it.

7 things to know if you work in recruiting

There are a lot of opinions about what recruiting is, what it could be, how it should be done. Is it about people, tools, or metrics? Here are my thoughts on that (Note: my response to Greg at the time was an EP; this is the full album with hidden bonus tracks):

  1. First, no one should get into recruiting as his or her first “real” job. How can you have empathy with job seekers and be committed to getting them to a better place if you have no frame of reference? Work somewhere else for 3-5 years, get a sense of work dynamics and yeah, gain some maturity. Because …
  2. Being mature is really important. No one should work in recruiting without a huge amount of empathy and patience. Those are THE key soft skills to being successful. You also have to be able to resist the impulse to tell people what they’re doing wrong with their career until you fully understand their path and if (IF) they really want to hear it. Pick one of the following three phrases, whichever one works, and use it as your mantra with your boss; with your peers; with your internal and external customers; with your candidate (especially with your candidates):
    • “Listen more than you speak.”
    • “Be still and know.”
    • “Shut up and listen.”
  3. At first, stay away from jobs that are recruiting AND sales. Starting off in your career as a “jack of two trades” DOESN’T mean “master of none” — it means sucking at both. “But Paul, recruiting IS sales” is the usual pushback I get to this. That may be true for some, but probably not for most. And for newbies trying to work in recruiting? It’s a recipe for disaster.
  4. Forget everything you THINK you know about recruiting, because it’s probably wrong. Don’t see owning a job requisition as something that makes you special or better — see it as a duty that you have to do your best to be worthy of. See every req as Mjølnir and you’ll be fine (Look it up!)
  5. A TON of people on Greg’s post said “trust your gut.” I love my fellow recruiters, but y’all couldn’t be more wrong. How can newbies trying to work in recruiting have a gut? If you’re just starting out, do the reference checks YOURSELF. Call people at the company who AREN’T the people the candidate listed. What if someone passes all that but you still feel hinky about them? Write a note and check in on them six months later. Adjust gut accordingly.
  6. Every hire should be a win for the organization and a win for the person — EVERY one. Get the person as much money/time off/etc. as possible. Get the company the best person for the amount of money they’re willing to spend. Yes, you get EXACTLY what you pay for.
  7. Here’s the most important thing to remember — people do three (3) things in this life, and they are sleep, work and “other.” How many of us are lucky enough to influence a THIRD of someone’s life? Or, someone’s HAPPINESS? When people complain about the “bad recruiters” who don’t communicate well enough, or often enough, or vent about the “idiot” hiring managers who hired someone else even though they were CLEARLY more qualified, you need to know that these are all expressions of “why am I being denied happiness?” So, be kind to these folks. Don’t take it personally. Do your best to communicate at all times. Under-promise to people you interview, then over-deliver whenever possible. Don’t take the easy way out. Stand up for the candidates you believe in, and your customers as well.

A career that can reward — but also can punish

Recruiting has given me a career and a ton of personal satisfaction. But, it’s not for everyone.

If you DO decide to work in recruiting – DO IT. It’s a career that rewards passion, commitment and truthfulness. It also punishes the disinterested, the “half-assers,” the equivocators.

Think long and hard before choosing. I hope you choose well.

Say Hello to Yello: Recapping the Top Takeaways from #HRTX Chicago

What does the future of recruiting look like? How can I create a killer employee value proposition (EVP)? What Chrome extensions do I need right now?

These questions are a few that were asked, and answered, earlier this month at Recruiting Daily’s #HRTX Chicago 2017 event.

Hosted at the Yello (a talent acquisition software platform that humanizes the candidate experience) headquarters, #HRTX brought together more than 20 talent leaders for nine engaging sessions on the topics impacting talent acquisition today. Industry peers discussed current challenges, offered solutions and brainstormed ideas to be more strategic in talent acquisition.

Here are the top takeaways from discussions at #HRTX Chicago:

The employee value prop – Authentically representing your organization

How do you show candidates who you are as a company and attract them to join your organization? Promoting the year you were founded or the services you sell just won’t capture a candidate’s attention.

Job seekers want to know about your values and what motivates employees. To compete for top talent, creating a compelling employee value proposition (EVP) that describes the culture, work styles and benefits of working at your company is essential.

Your employees are your most valuable asset in developing your company’s EVP. You need to survey them to learn why they joined, why they stay, and to identify common themes and values.

Use these themes to build an employee value proposition that demonstrates why your company is unique and what’s important to your workforce.

Once you’ve established your EVP, communicate your values to candidates and prospects, and make your organization stand out to job seekers by leveraging social media. Then, share employee-curated content across company social channels to offer some insight into the employee journey in your organization.

College recruiting – For in-demand candidates, senior year is too late

The competition to recruit in-demand college candidates is soaring.

Companies can no longer post a job and expect top talent to apply. To stand out to soon-to-be graduates, innovative employers must find ways to introduce their company to the very best students before stepping foot on campus.

While recruitment marketing is important to engage talent, #HRTX attendees discussed short-term, remote work as an entry way to the company. Offering students brief internships or single projects to complete during the school year give potential employees the chance to learn about your company, while hiring managers learn about the candidates.

The end result? When the fall recruitment season rolls around, these employers already have a pool of engaged talent to fill entry-level positions.

Texting for recruitment – Be the first to reach top talent

Talent acquisition is a game of speed. The first company to contact a candidate is more likely to secure the accepted offer.

Regardless of the age group, texting is becoming the more preferred method of communication.

Talent professionals at #HRTX questioned the continued reliance on phone tag. Why leave a voice mail and wait for a response when you can communicate with candidates instantly via text? In fact, The 2017 Yello Recruiting Study found that 86 percent of candidates feel positively when text messages are used during the hiring process.

Texting can be used throughout the recruitment process:

  • To reach out after a candidate applies;
  • To reconnect with candidates who dropped out of the application process; or,
  • To share a company video when a candidate joins a talent community.

Instead of using email or calls as the primary form of communication, some talent departments are becoming text-driven organizations. When you need to reach talent quickly, texting may be the best option.

Just as #HRTX Chicago brought together talent leaders for meaningful, in-person conversations, Yello strives to empower recruiting departments to humanize the candidate experience. We look forward to future events that continue to advance this goal, helping industry peers foster personal connections and offering a forum to focus on candidate relationships.

#ICYMI, Here’s What Recruiters and TA Pros Really Need to Catch Up On

Did you miss me? Well I missed you, but even if you didn’t miss me, there may have been a few other major developments that you may have missed, better known as #ICYMI.

When last we met we spoke about AI and the future of recruiting. As if on cue in June, Google introduced us to a new AI application for recruiting.

Google jobs attempts to use its AI to match people to jobs. First, it will search sites like LinkedIn, Monster, WayUp, DirectEmployers, CareerBuilder and Facebook and company web sites for jobs. It will then use its own AI to present you with what it believes are the best matches for your search.

Google — like a lion in the tall grass

What I’ve learned is that for an AI to be effective it needs thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of examples to “learn,” and right now Google is feeding its jobs AI millions of points of data. Interestingly, for the moment, aside from your location Google doesn’t use any of the other information it has about you to match you to a job.

They are staying with what they say they do best, for the moment, and that is “search.” However, Google is not likely to be ignorant of the amount they could make by actually posting the jobs themselves and charging on a pay per click model.

They say they don’t want to compete with Monster or CareerBuilder or Indeed, but personally I think they are borrowing a tactic from nature’s playbook. Yes, that means blend in and look like a part of the background, and when the moment is right, attack.

Make no mistake about it: Google is acting like a lion in the tall grass. If I were you, I would expect to hear more from Google before too long.

In August, we were up for another surprise, #ICYMI.

Goliath loses AGAIN to a tech David

LinkedIn has gained a reputation for buying or suing their competition out of existence. However, in a recent legal remake of David and Goliath, the little guy may have scored a knock-out blow.

hiQ is a company that makes use of LinkedIn data that is publicly accessible via a common Google search. LinkedIn argued that the data was theirs and that any use of it by anyone who wasn’t given permission to do so by LinkedIn was stealing the data. hiQ argued and won that that data was provided by users to LinkedIn specifically so that it would be publically available.

In a landmark legal decision, the court agreed with hiQ and LinkedIn was ordered to remove any technical barriers that prevent their publicly available data from being accessed. Score one for the little guys.

LinkedIn is down but not out and they have already filed an appeal. Instead of innovating they seem to be set on suing the competition out of existence. However, LinkedIn is starting to show some of the signs of death by a thousand cuts and they do not dominate the market in the same way they did only a year ago.

As we headed into the busiest part of the year for hiring, the market presented us with its own set of challenges. The months of June, July, August and September saw the highest number of jobs posted online since we started keeping track.

ICMI, it’s jobs, jobs, and more jobs

In June, #ICYMI, a record 6.1 million jobs were posted online. This record was only to be broken in July when 6.15 million jobs were posted.

The data indicates that this could be THE hottest job market on record. The JOLTS chart below provided by the good people of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) clearly shows just how hot the market is.

Yes, there are 1 million more jobs posted now than in pre-recession 2007.

Of course, there is more clamoring for attention than ever. While the general unemployment rate is reported from time to time, those of us who recruit white collar workers will probably feel like the market is more competitive than the general unemployment rate reflects.

That instinct would be correct. Unemployment among college educated professionals in the U.S. is near an all-time low. It was reported as 2.0 percent in October 2017. This means, #ICYMI, that there is more competition for an ever smaller active candidate pool.

What does this really mean to recruiters?

So those are the highlights, but what does it mean to me and running my desk?

  • First, it gives you an opportunity to share data with the business. Any time you can share relevant data with the business you gain credibility.
  • Secondly, it lets you know how much competition you have in the market but it also gives you an interesting opportunity. Share what you have learned with the business and gain their cooperation. Success in this market will require a strong employee referral program, a modern ATS serious upgrade in sourcing skill and the trust of the business.
  • Finally, it gives you context to run your desk. In a tight job market you need to be more willing and able to negotiate offers. In preparing the business with data on the market you are positioning yourself in a better place to be able to get the business to negotiate with the candidates you would like to hire. You are much more likely to run into counter offers and multiple offers. You need to brush up on your closing skills.

So, that is what you may have missed the last few months, #ICYMI — besides missing me!

For Companies With an Attrition Problem, Training May Be the Answer

You know this to be true: A company is just a building unless its employees fill that space with their skills and hard work to help drive the organization’s goals and objectives.

You probably know this as well: The primary goal of an organization should not just be to make a profit, but, to also help employees improve their learning and growth.

However, employee attrition is a pretty common problem for a great many companies. According to research by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, a it costs a company upwards of 33 percent of an employee’s total compensation to replace them when they leave your employ.

Yes, employee attrition is not only costly, but it has a negative impact on your entire organization.

To curb these losses, the company must understand the reasons behind employee attrition because when a good worker leaves the organization, it sets off a negative effect of increased workload on the existing staff that may or may not be adept with the required skill set to complete the task/job.

5 reasons organizations have bad employee attrition

There could be a variety of reasons why employees decide to leave an organization, ranging from poor team management, lack of learning opportunities, insufficient growth opportunities, and more. Here are some of the most common ones:

  1. Bad Bosses — You’ve heard the the phrase before that “Employees leave their bosses, not the company.”  The boss should be a leader who guides the team; a friend who teaches the employees when they are wrong and appreciates them when they’re right; a compassionate team member who helps others in achieving their goals. But, the irony is that when bosses are the exact opposite, it pushes people on the team to look for other options.
  2. A job that lacks meaning — Most professionals want to work in a job where they feel they’re making a difference, where they’re contributing positively towards the organizational objectives. However, according to Hackman and Oldham job characteristics model, the purpose of doing a job reflects on the intrinsic motivation for someone to do it. The hard work must have some meaning rather than being just a set of repeated steps.
  3. Overworked employees — There are times when an employee is made to work long hours and is overburdened with responsibility either due to his capability or non-availability of other resources. In both cases, the employee feels uncomfortable and does not get what he or she deserves, leading to job dissatisfaction to the point that they  eventually quit.
  4. A pay package that’s lacking — If the compensation an employee receives is below their expectations, and not in accordance with their capabilities and stature, they tend to become disinterested in the job and will look to move elsewhere.
  5. A stagnant learning curve — For most employees, a job is at it’s best when it’s challenging, and if it’s not challenging, the employee is probably stagnating and losing their enthusiasm.

Why organizations should focus on online training

For employees to be efficient, they need to excel in their technical skills, soft skills like problem-solving, communications, collaboration and creativity, and innovation.

That’s a lot to help employees with. If you or your organization find you in such a situation, online training is the usually best, and most cost effective, solution.

Using a learning management system (LMS software) can help rescue employers who don’t want to invest the time and energy it takes to manually train their employees.

So, is that the only reason why organizations should focus on online training? No, there are a few more things you should consider as well:

  • It facilitates employee development by providing the equipment to harness the skills of your workforce. Plus, it can support your  succession planning efforts, strategic planning, people/resource management and other skill-specific roles.
  • It helps employees increase their value, reduces attrition, and saves money by increasing retention.
  • Linking training to your employees’ objectives (either personal, professional, or both), is both empowering and beneficial.
  • Online training software is completely flexible, allowing employees to learn at their own convenience and pace. Slow learners can have numerous repetitions to help them understand the concepts better.
  • Training usually results in increased efficiency of the employee. There is no scale on which they would be evaluated apart from the course’s practical implication.
  • Most importantly, training allows capable and ambitious employees to expand their expertise and hone their skills as well as helping them to stay up-to-date in their field. The lack of learning and development opportunities increase the risk that you will lose talented staff and end up with poor performers. Supporting employees through training should help your workforce to be more loyal AND productive

Final thoughts

An organization must realize that developing the skills of its employees is not only enabling them to be more productive and efficient, but also ensures loyalty, better growth prospects, and a more efficient workforce.

Since users get 24/7 access to online training software, the need for in-person training is eliminated. This gives the user flexibility to choose his or her training time, the pace of training, and takes the pressure off both the trainer and the trainee.

The bottom line is this: Savvy businesses need to invest in their employees because only then they will be able to hire, retain, and create a base of efficient, productive and motivated workforce.

What Would You Tell Candidates to Do With an Unresponsive Recruiter?

You hear it from job candidates all the time: Why won’t Recruiter X respond to me? How do I deal with an unresponsive recruiter?

Not all recruiters are like this, of course. Many talent acquisition professionals are professional, responsive, and courteous — but you don’t hear a lot about them.

What you DO always seem to hear about are those in TA who don’t respond to candidates and leave them hanging. There are a number of those kind of recruiters out there, as I have found out time and time again during my own job search over the past year.

It makes you wonder: Are they bad recruiters, or is being unresponsive at times just part of the job?

How should candidates deal with an unresponsive recruiter?

That’s why this post on the LinkedIn Premium Career Group from a marketing professional in Toronto caught my eye. It’s all about one person’s struggle to figure out how to deal with an unresponsive recruiter:

“Any advice on dealing with recruiters who are unresponsive?

I had one who wanted to get in touch with me immediately. We met in person, good conversation. Said he had a great role for me and was going to put me forward. I forwarded my resume, and he confirmed he received it. I checked in a week later via email. No response.

Two weeks later, I see the role we discussed posted on LinkedIn. Should I try to go through this recruiter again, or just apply directly to the posting?

I have colleagues and friends agreeing I would be a great candidate for the role with my experience. What should I do?”

Here’s what others are saying

I know that recruiters and TA pros probably have their own responses to this query, but here’s how some of the others in the 1.1 million member LinkedIn Premier Career Group responded to this person. This is a sample of some of their their comments on how to handle an unresponsive recruiter.

  • From a QA manager in Atlanta: “Finding a good recruiter is like finding a needle in a haystack. Simply believe what they show you when dealing with them. In this case, submit yourself for the position and move on as the recruiter has revealed their hand to you.”
  • From a oil industry operations coordinator in Houston: “It’s unbelievable some of the unprofessionalism that exist with some recruiters. They think they are rock stars. I hope the treatment is mutual when they try to further their career. How long can it take to reply to a email? Just be short and to the point. But respond.”
  • From a recruiter and HR pro in San Diego: “I am a Recruiter myself and when I collect resumes, I often review and tailor to what the client needs or is willing to entertain. As far as your situation, you might of slipped through and need to follow up quicker. Recruiters are always busy, you are following up to see if you are a candidate for a specific position. I try to help as many applicants as I can. I tell my applicants “your job is to find a job, my job is to find you a job,” but we need to meet in the middle and follow up with me. I know there are recruiters that don’t call back, so I would go around them.”
  • From a sales manager in Zagreb, Croatia: “I read and advise to send an email with only the following sentence — “Have you given up on this project?” I always got a response, and knew where I stood.”
  • From a parts manager in Scranton, Pennsylvania: “I do not bother with recruiters anymore, they never seem to lead anywhere. Applying directly to the company is your best bet if you know who it is, even better is the hiring manager, if you can find out who that is and email them directly. Someone who knows the job is going to pick up things in your resume that HR people have no idea about.”
  • From an IT consultant in Melbourne, Australia: “I have experienced the same. One ‘recruiter’ had me attend two interviews, then a meeting with their client, and all the way along the feedback was excellent, then nothing. Emails and phone calls to the recruiter went unanswered. I contacted their client directly and they advised me that due to changes in their business that they had decided to defer the appointment until the new financial year. When I thanked them for letting me know, they were quite surprised that myself and the other three candidates that were lined up for the final interview were just left hanging. They understood that this didn’t do much for their own image either. Whilst I can understand that the recruitment business is one of volume and churn, and that they become the focus of people looking for work and as such are a lightning rod for frustrations, ghosting people who have turned up for interviews and met with your clients is just unprofessional.”
  • From a talent manager in Auckland, New Zealand: “I am not sure that anyone has pointed out here that recruiters are not there to serve you and find you a job. They are being paid by the organization who has the role. If you work with recruiters with that in mind it helps you use them as one avenue of career search, which is all they should be, whilst remaining personally responsible for driving your own direction.”

3 questions recruiters should be asking

Of course, there were a LOT more responses to this question on the LinkedIn Premier Career Group, and many more than I shared here, but the discussion raises three good questions for recruiters:

  1. What kind of specific and actionable advice would you have for this job candidate?
  2. What kind of professional responsibility do TA pros have, if any, when dealing with candidates?
  3. Should recruiters be concerned with how candidates feel about the recruiting process and how the candidate experience reflects on their clients?

Recruiting is a numbers game, and it simply isn’t possible (or realistic) to expect TA professionals to be able to satisfy a great many candidates. It may not even be a good idea for them to try.

But, the never-ending stream of stories about the unresponsive recruiter and bad candidates experiences can’t be helping the talent acquisition profession. How should recruiters deal with so many candidates’ complaints about a lack of response from them?

I would love to get some feedback about recruiters here. If I get enough, I’ll put them together in another post so we can hear the other side of the discussion.

No More Training, Mentoring & Networking. It’s Time For Women Leaders to Take Charge

Last month, I was consulted by a large international client.

They were launching a thoughtful and contemporary worldwide multicultural and generational mentoring initiative and wanted to do some additional programming for their high performing, successful women leaders.

The ultimate goal? To increase the number of women in their leadership ranks, which had dismally been hovering at the industry average of 13 percent for a very long time.

Why was this important to them? Average performance was not in this client’s DNA.

It was, instead, a matter of pride.

Trying to improve the number of women leaders

They saw a metric (the percentage of women in leadership positions) that was underperforming and they wanted to fix it. They were market leaders. Given this drive and their general knowledge of the increasing focus on women leaders as a meaningful business performance differentiator, the embarrassing issue of gender (under) representation in their leadership ranks was finally on some executive’s To-Do List.

I attended this meeting with a handful of high level women leaders who were the few that had managed to crack the leadership barrier. As if they didn’t have enough to do, they had been tasked with the responsibility to create and champion this “extra” program for women.

Their enthusiasm to do so was clearly mixed, but their A+ achievement orientation was nonetheless driving the process forward. They had a current plan, but wanted to be sure. As a boutique player from a majority female owned and operated firm, I was there to give a second opinion.

The current plan had been put together for them by a leading global consulting giant. They slid the Two-Day “Women’s Mentoring Program” in front of me. I carefully reviewed the proposal and immediately resisted the urge to blow the metaphorical dust off the outdated approach.

This isn’t what “progress” looks like

The problem? It read like a 1990’s era canned training manual for women in the workplace. The Two-Day itinerary stuck in my throat just reading it.

I could not help but despair. Is this truly all of the “progress” we had made in the last 30 years?

I could not imagine sitting through the proposed training, let alone feeling energized and engaged by it. It was particularly baffling given the progressive global mentoring program they were developing for the entire high potential population.

“So, can I clarify something?” I asked? Of course, they said.

“This program is for the women in your company who are already high performing and successful?”

Yes, they said. I took a deep breath and asked, “May I be a little provocative here?”

A provocative, and compelling, insight

They exchanged nervous glances, but told me to proceed. This was, after all, the reason that they had sought a second opinion. That’s when I jumped in:

Let me see if I understand — You are going to bring all of your highest performing women leaders together in one place for the first time in the history of your company. You are then going to provide these successful women with extra ‘training,’ which you are not providing to the high performing men. (Let’s stop and think for a moment what message this sends to the rest of the organization).

You are going to teach them how to be confident. You are going to teach them how their female approach might be viewed by the male leadership. You are going to teach them how to overcome (clearly known) obstacles to their advancement in the work environment (instead of committing as a company to identify and remove them).

And, when you are done “training” these high performing women, you are going to give them a networking and mentoring opportunity, where you parade them in front of all the men for a dinner?”

For an uncomfortably long time, the room was pin-drop quiet. I resisted the urge to vent my frustration and just let this sink in.

Harnessing the power of high-performing women

Then, I said,

You are going to have all of your highest performing women together in one place for the first time. Is this really what you want to do with them?”

Honestly, my client and I couldn’t rip up that outdated programming proposal fast enough — and we’ve never looked back.

That meeting was the start of a collaborative and creative journey to customize energizing global programs designed to harness the unique business perspective of these high performing women and engage them in the business discussions they come to work every day to tackle and solve.

While we are at it, we’re also taking the opportunity to ask these women leaders what they need to be successful, which includes identifying the corporate obstacles and seeking commitment from the leadership to find ways to remove them. We are also exploring organizational flexibility and vitality as key drivers for sustained performance, retention and success.

Time to get energized

As it turns out, even the process of creating this programming has been energizing for all of the business leaders involved.

So, how about you? Are you ready to be energized?

(Sweet Little) Recruiter Lies, Chapter 1: “We’ll Keep Your Resume on File”

Out of the various soul-sucking elements of a standard hiring process, one of the bigger ones has to be when they send you a note that says, “We’ll keep your resume on file.”

If you’ve actively applied to jobs 2-3 times in your life and been rejected a handful (or thousands) of times, you’ve gotten this line in a rejection email very frequently.

In the early days of receiving such an email, there is a small glimmer of hope. “Keep my resume on file? Nice!” 

But after a while, you realize that it’s largely BS. One or two companies may come back to you six months or more later, but in general, once a company rejects you, well, that’s the end of that relationship.

Why recruiting is so rushed and awful today

This is all part of why it’s such a shame that recruiting is so rushed and awful these days. You basically could have the best employee ever sitting right in front of you, but you’ll reject them for some subjectively asinine reason and let them walk away, never to speak to them again.

You call that good business? Executives literally chase down projects 191,473 times if they need to. They go back and back and back to the well.

But that’s not how it works with “We’ll keep your resume on file.” But why? What’s the deal here? What really happens?

“We’ll keep your resume on file” – The baseline

Job searches these days regularly pull in 100 plus applicants. People are busy. There are only so many hours in a day. To many, the real job of HR is putting out fires and avoiding lawsuits.

This “candidate screening” stuff? Meh. Automate it. (That actually is more effective, yes, so long as the automation program is looking for the right things at top-of-funnel hiring stages.)

So the baseline reason for “We’ll keep your resume on file”? People don’t really care that you got screened out, but they want to say something to sound nicer/more human/be able to feel better about themselves.

They toss on that line because, by now, we’ve all assumed it doesn’t mean anything anyway.

Could it mean something?

Of course it could. Let’s try an example with some simple math.

One hundred (100) people apply for a marketing manager job at Company A. One (1) of them gets it. That means 99 did not get it, but Company A has those 99 resumes.

In general, about 60 percent of resumes submitted are not qualified (yes, sad but not illogical), so let’s say 59.4 people (60 percent of 99) aren’t qualified.

You drop them out of the funnel. Now we have one (1) new hire and 39 or so qualified resumes we didn’t hire.

Three months later, Company A has another marketing managerial position. It’s a little bit different — job role is often unclear — but still, why not try those 39 people you have on file as a place to start? Heck, you might even save money because one of them, someone that you’ve already somewhat vetted, could be the ideal candidate.

There’s no need for posting the job and paying recruiting fees, and there’s no wasting of people’s time screening new resumes and cover letters.

This whole idea is called “talent rediscovery” or “candidate rediscovery,” and technology is helping it along.

Why your dumb ATS technology ignores talent rediscovery 

Here’s some insight on this from Ideal:

Unlike “dumb” ATS technology, this type of intelligent software uses AI to automatically find previous applicants in your ATS that are good matches for your current open positions.

Over the years, large companies will amass thousands – even millions – of resumes. But once these resumes go into your ATS, the majority of them get lost in the ATS black box and are never looked at again.

This is because the typical ATS just wasn’t designed to have this functionality. An ATS tends to be “dumb” technology that can’t learn and improve its screening and matching function.”

Nice. It’s another reason to hate Applicant Tracking Systems! They’re not actually designed to work with the whole “We’ll keep your resume on file” world, even though that’s what companies are preaching in their canned rejection emails.

Well, that’s good to know.

Be effective instead of sanctimonious 

Here’s a contrast to consider:

  • Sanctimonious: “We’ll keep your resume on file, i.e. we hope to never speak to or think of you again. We believe Dave here that we hired is the future.”
  • Effective: “Dave totally flamed out and also couldn’t tolerate our culture, so we need someone and we see we already have you here, somewhat vetted — your resume was kept on file — so let’s talk about how this could look.”

One idea could make hiring processes more effective, which the working world desperately needs. The other idea is essentially a lie placed in an email that’s already a really crappy thing to receive.

Which one should we be focusing on?

We’ll keep your resume on file — do you think hiring would get more effective if companies actually did in a searchable way, maybe using AI?

Is This REALLY the Most Important Quality For Job Seekers to Have?

CandidateI’ll admit that I’m as big a sucker for click-bait headlines as anyone, but this one I saw recently actually made me think I might be getting something  meaningful.

This is the one that grabbed me:

Here’s the 1 Trait Hiring Managers Seek Most

OK, I’ll bite. Just what IS the one trait that hiring managers really are looking for?

Would you believe that it’s … “being interesting?”

I didn’t think so.

These are some real qualities that recruiters look for

In my long experience hiring people, “being interesting” is certainly an important quality that you like when looking at candidates, but I can think of a great many other qualities that are a lot more critical for job success, such as:

  • Skills;
  • Experience;
  • Job fit;
  • Cultural fit;
  • Persistence;
  • Perseverance;
  • Ability to learn and grow;
  • Ability to quickly adapt;
  • Ability to work well with others; and,
  • Another 20 other things you could probably list here.

So where does the notion that “being interesting” is THE critical trait for a hiring manager come from?

It comes from an article in US News and World Report,  and it says that, 

According to data provided by the reading subscription service Scribd, 76 percent of hiring managers believe that “being interesting” is the most crucial quality they look for when interviewing to fill a new position.”

Reading that made me want to know more, particularly because I have never, ever seen or heard anything that ever made the case that “being interesting” is the most crucial quality hiring managers want. It just doesn’t ring true.

I wish the actual data supporting this claim showed me how wrong I was, but as you might have guessed, it doesn’t.

Provocative click-bait, and “fake news” too

When you click on the link in the US News and World Report article, it takes you to this blog post on the Scribd Literally website titled Could Being Boring Cost You Your Job? This is a provocative click-bait headline too, and just like the US News article written from the post, it has very little information.

However, what information it does have doesn’t say that “76 percent of hiring managers believe that “being interesting” is the most crucial quality they look for when interviewing to fill a new position.”

This is what it DOES say:

In a recent survey, we found that 76 percent of hiring managers believe that being interesting is an important component of hiring decisions, with 22 percent believing that being interesting is very important.”

Well, having 76 percent of recruiters saying that “being interesting is an important component of hiring decisions” is very different from 76 percent of  them believing that being interesting is “the most important quality they look for.”

Clearly, the US News article grossly misrepresented what the Scribd Literally article said, and what recruiters feel is most important in a job candidate, all for the love of click-bait.

Yes, this is what they call “fake news.”

Plus, with any reputable survey there should be what I call “boiler plate” information telling you how the survey was conducted, when it was conducted, what kind of people were surveyed (where they work or what their occupation is), how many people responded, and what the margin of error is.

The Scribd Literally post on Could Being Boring Cost You Your Job? has none of that as far as I could find.

In other words, this notion that “76 percent of hiring managers believe that “being interesting” is the most crucial quality they look for when interviewing to fill a new position” is nothing but a load of crap.

The lesson here is to take all the surveys the media loves to write about with a grain of salt because a great many of them are based on BS. You also should remember that ANY survey that doesn’t give you the basics on how the survey or poll was conducted simply isn’t credible.

The real important quality recruiters should look for

But all of this got me thinking: What is it that hiring managers, recruiters, and talent acquisition professionals REALLY look for when hiring someone?

Well, according to Lynn Taylor, a national workplace expert and the author of Tame Your Terrible Office Tyrant: Howamazon.com/…rant/dp/0470457643/ref=sr_1_1 to Manage Childish Boss Behavior and Thrive in Your Job, it’s this — trustworthiness.

Here’s what Lynn told Business Insider about this back in 2015:

She says most interviewers covet traits like competence, confidence, and creativity. But the “overriding super trait that it supersedes all others in countless studies,” she explains, “is trustworthiness.”

“It’s an amalgamation of many other desirable attributes,” she says.

She says if a hiring manager felt you lacked one or two critical skills — but found you to be 100 percent trustworthy, they’d likely consider moving forward. “However, if you possessed 100 percent of the requisite business skills, but seemed just a tad bit untrustworthy, they probably wouldn’t make you an offer,” she adds.

In business, as in life, trustworthiness the foundation of any sustainable, healthy relationship — and it’s of utmost importance to employers.”

She goes on to list just how an interviewer or hiring manager can evaluate trustworthiness in a job candidate, and you can go find out more about that here.

Who do YOU believe?

Now, Lynn Taylor isn’t touting a survey to back up her notion that trustworthiness is the most important quality to look for in a candidate, just decades working in and studying how to build an empowered workforce, including a dozen years at Robert Half International.

It makes you wonder — who do you believe? A screwy survey without any supporting evidence that gets touted in an even screwier blog post that’s the poster child for “fake news,” or, a longstanding workforce expert who has many credible insights into what important quality recruiters really should be looking for in job candidates?

You know the answer to that one.

When It Comes to Recruiting, New Laws Miss How We Negotiate Salary

“There’s no way I can justify my salary level, but I’m learning to live with it.” — Drew Carey

The hottest topic, it seems, in the recruiting world the last few months has been about compensation and salary issues, and whether or not you should ask someone for their current salary.

Why is this? What’s the problem?

I am going to tackle this salary issue on two different fronts — and how it is affecting both the candidate, and the company, in a profound way.

So grab your popcorn and Raisinets kids; this should be a fun read.

The rules of the game when talking about salary

The Federal Government, specifically the EEOC, has been passing laws on how companies must conduct themselves throughout the hiring process, even about how to advertise the position. That’s the unique little tag you see at the bottom of virtually every job post you see out there.

I set up my job descriptions and have to do this every time. I don’t want to go into all the details and specifics of the varied laws and rules because it’s too dry of a topic for me. However, there is a storm on the horizon, and although seemingly small, it’s going to be a pretty big deal moving forward.

Yes, I’m talking about salary negotiations.

The question of the ages from recruiters is somewhere in the conversation that generally goes to, “What is your current salary and what are you looking to make in this next position?” However, this question has been demonized by the Liz Ryan’s of the world.

The charlatans and grifters of the world have turned this topic into a money-making proposition! These are genuinely fascinating times for us all. However, I tire of popcorn and being on the bench waiting for my time to get to play. So, here it goes.

Currently, New York City and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have passed laws stating that an employer cannot ask about a prospective employee’s salary. At least eight (8) other states are considering similar measures — Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont, according to law firm Fisher & Phillips.

Legislation trying to close the gender-pay gap

The bills are aimed at closing a long-standing gender-based pay gap that, according to the Census Bureau, has women earning about 80 cents for every dollar earned by men. Studies that compare men and women in similar occupations and control for other factors, such as experience, find much narrower pay disparities. By basing future salaries on previous wages, employers can perpetuate the earnings divide, advocates for women say.

Although I applaud the desire to raise the equality flag and start treating my better half with more respect in the workplace, I feel that this approach is flawed, to a degree, based on what a company pays an employee.

I know both men and women that are grossly underpaid in the software development arena, but there are other factors to consider, such as location and experience. Moving to Portland from the Washington, D.C. area alone has taught me that.

The issue it raises for me is two fold:

  1. Can I afford what you think you’re worth? and,
  2. Are you worth what you want based on your experience and skill set?

Why I don’t start recruiting with a conversation discussion

EVERY company has a budget for what they feel they can pay for roles within the organization based on the profit it earns and the projected future profit in the coming fiscal year. When I begin every job  search, I do two things first:

  • One, I read the job description (unless I wrote it); and,
  • Two, I check the salary and seniority level of the role.

I need this information to determine the “fit” at both levels to have a proper conversation with candidates, which leads me to my next point.

Every company I have ever worked for has had some level basis for years of experience based on skill sets and value of the actual operation that the employee would be doing. For example, a senior software developer is going to make more money than a junior developer based on experience.

Also, there are senior developers that, even though they have been coding for a while, are still just mediocre coders. Some people base their salaries on the fact they have been around a while, or have over-inflated egos because desperate companies and poorly uneducated HR teams just play buzzword bingo. It does not matter if they are male or female.

My normal conversation with candidates never starts with compensation; I end the discussion with if I want it to move forward. My standard, go-to question has been, for years, just this:

“What is it you are looking for in compensation for this role now that we have had a chance to get into this deeper?”

The new laws miss what we’re usually getting from candidates

I would hazard to guess that nearly all of the people come back at me with, “Well, I make $$$$ now, so I would like to stay in that ballpark or, get a little more.” It seems, to me at least, to invalidate what the new law in so many states is shooting for through no fault of its own.

Remember: People are always going to disclose information — whether you want them to or not.

Lastly, why would we continue having a conversation if:

  • You would not take the role at a price point I can work with?; or,
  • The manager or team has decided, after the process and based on your skill set, that you just are not worth the dollars to them at the level that you are currently at?

Listen, I have written plenty of stories about how and why there should be no reason anyone, male or female, should have been paid differently in the past, and, should continue to be paid differently in the future.

I feel this time that the new laws are getting it wrong, and they’re going to cause a great deal more time, money, and effort for everyone that does not need to happen, nor will it work in discouraging employers from discriminating in the future.

And, THAT is a shame.

#truestory

Why It’s Important to Turn an Interview Into an Unstructured Conversation

I was having a conversation recently with a client who was asking my advice on interviewing for a key position on her staff, and it made me think of an unstructured conversation.

She asked me how to know during an interview whether you can truly trust a person to deliver what you need in the role.

What I often find is that interviewers will ask a series of questions about all kinds of things to get at skills, behaviors, problem solving, attitude, motivation, but they fail to ask the one most important question.

What is “THE” critical interview question?

First you have to think about what it is you really want to know. 

In this case it was how do you know if you can trust a creative person to deliver if they are not accustomed to tight project management on their work? 

This came up because I mentioned that sometimes you need to manage people differently to get the best motivation and results from them, and that judging a creative person on how effectively they manage projects might not get you the most creative person!

Any in this case, the one key question is to ask the thing you really care about directly:

Give me an example about how you worked on a large project and describe your preferred way of managing your work and finishing on time? Why does that work for you?”

This is exactly what you want to know about, so why not just have a conversation about this most important thing?

It helps to have an unstructured conversation

This got me thinking about this idea I always talk about, which is how an unstructured conversation, while it might feel messy and uncontrolled in the moment, is where all the magic is.

It’s how you find out just what people really think.

A great many business leaders avoid unstructured conversations because they find it threatening to hear what people really think. After all, they just might disagree with you, or doubt the things that you think are important.

But, and this is particularly true in an interview, wouldn’t you rather know?

When an interview becomes a good conversation

Many times interviews are very structured conversations. You get a bunch of information, but little insight about how the person really thinks or works, or what they truly care about.

But if you are willing to have a real, authentic, unstructured conversation with a person, you will get to know what you can expect from them on a much more useful level for making a hiring decision.

Here are some questions that might help to open up an unstructured conversation in an interview:

  • Here is our current strategy, what do you think? And why?
  • When you had your most challenging job, what was hard about it? And why?
  • When you think of a success you had, what was it that made you most proud? And why?
  • When you are having a bad hair day and feeling unmotivated, what do you think about? What do you do? And why? Can you give me an example?
  • When you determine that there is risk in a project you are working on, what do you think about? What do you do? and why? Can you give me an example?

This is important: Don’t miss out on the best information thinking that an interview needs to be a rigid process. Think about what you truly want to know from this person and then be willing to just talk about it!

Doubling Down on Recruiting: Lessons from Finding and Hiring Teachers

Throughout the U.S., hiring qualified teachers is akin to finding a needle in a haystack.

That’s because the number of teachers applying for positions isn’t keeping pace with the growing number of job postings, which is causing significant shortages.

This situation is not new as all 50 states plus Washington, D.C. have reported a shortage of teachers since 2005. However, the Learning Policy Institute estimates there could be a nationwide shortfall of 112,000 teachers by next year.

School districts across the country are struggling to grow their candidate pools, and they’re challenged with filling hard-to-hire teacher positions in subjects such as math, science, bilingual education and certain foreign languages.

Yes, the race to quickly identify, hire and onboard the right educators is on — and innovative school districts are turning to new methods and technology to help.

Whether you work in education or manage people processes for other tough-to-hire industries, learning how successful school districts use data and technology to improve their hiring and retention processes can help you as you seek to improve your own.

Time to double down on recruiting efforts

When shortages strike, the competition for that small pool of superstar candidates heightens. That’s why it’s critical to invest more in recruiting efforts.

As an initial step, work with your team to develop effective recruitment plans — including scheduling regional job fairs, and searching for applicants on relevant job boards, and partnering with education preparation programs — to build your candidate pipeline. And while slow to adopt social media as a recruiting resource, school districts now are turning to sites such as LinkedIn and Facebook to scout for teachers.

The easier you make it for active and passive job seekers to find your available positions, the greater your candidate pool will be.

Here are some other steps that might help you in your efforts:

1 – Get organized

Once you begin building your candidate pool, keep it organized.

For savvy school districts, transitioning scattered and often manual people processes into one digital hub has been a game-changer. They can manage everything from job postings and interview schedules, to reference checks and diversity reports in one place.

Organization drives speed in the hiring process, which is vital in a competitive hiring scenario where you have shortages. Research shows that if it takes more than 30 days to make an offer to a candidate, the odds of them rejecting that offer go up by 60 percent.

2 – Use data to make hiring decisions

Candidate interviews play an integral role in hiring, but they don’t always paint the full picture.

Some school districts are going beyond vetting qualifications and conducting interviews, relying on predictive analytics to determine a candidate’s likely influence on student achievement.

Through research-based assessments, school districts gather data on each candidate and can statistically determine if they have the right skills, cognitive abilities and attitudinal factors to be a fit. The most effective teacher candidate assessments are backed by decades of education research and data studies of several diverse school districts.

3 – Assessment info can help improve onboarding, too

In-depth information provided by candidate assessments can help in the onboarding process, too. It gives you a better sense of the person you’re hiring and how they respond to different methods of training and information delivery.

While much of the focus in staff shortage scenarios is placed on recruiting talent, learning how to retain that talent is imperative. Retention starts with a positive onboarding experience that goes beyond basic orientation and completing employment paperwork.

According to SHRM, employees who attended a well-structured onboard program are 69 percent more likely to remain with that employer for three years. Well-structured onboarding helps new hires acclimate to the social and performance aspects of their job so that they’re well-prepared to dive into their new roles quickly and effectively.

4 — Professional development for teachers DOES matter

In addition to candidate vetting and onboarding, school districts that thrive when it comes to retention are using data to develop personalized professional development plans. Advanced technology used in these districts analyzes student performance data and teacher performance data to customize professional development offerings for each teacher’s needs.

This type of personal attention aides in retention and has a tremendous impact on student outcomes. Some reports show teachers who receive substantial professional development can boost their students’ achievement by more than 20 percentile points.

Their solutions might be your solutions

While these are only a few ways school districts are addressing the current teacher shortage, they are some of the most impactful. The good news is this: other industries can easily replicate these approaches to help in their hiring and retention efforts.

Survey: “Re-Skilling” Your Workers Not Only Important, But Damn Near Mandatory

TrainingOf all the buzz words and phrases in the workplace, it’s the one that seems to give both workers and managers the greatest amount of angst. You know what I’m talking about — the dreaded skills gap.

Some new research out this week — the 2017 Skills Gap Report from Udemy, which touts itself as “the global marketplace for learning and teaching online” — found that “the majority of workers around the world think there is a growing skills gap but feel optimistic about their own skills and the competitiveness of their respective countries.”

The first paragraph in the report hits this issue squarely on the head:

Udemy’s 2017 Skills Gap Report found that the vast majority of Americans (79 percent) feel the U.S. is facing a skills gap, and more than one in three say it affects them personally. However, looking beyond these numbers reveals a confused workforce struggling to take control in the face of constant change. When it comes to perceptions about and responses to shifting expectations for jobs and careers, the American workforce is divided across gender and generational lines.”

Yes, it’s a mixed message when you ask Americans about their skills, and as the survey found, workers everywhere are pretty anxious about the changing demands of their jobs and are trying to figure out the very best way to keep their skills up to date.

How Americans feel about the skills gap

But, people also differ on the impact of the skills gap and who should be responsible for helping them in their re-skilling efforts. Concerning American workers, for example:

  • Four in five (80 percent) believe that the workforce can be successfully re-skilled to meet the demands of the changing job market
  • Some 41 percent want a tax benefit for personal investment in skills training but also think the government and employers should pay for their re-skilling efforts.
  • A good number (39 percent) have lowered their expectations for success and happiness at work following the Great Recession, and 39 percent of American workers say they have a “side hustle,” with 75 percent saying it’s to earn extra money.
  • Men (42 percent) feel more personally affected by the skills gap than women (28 percent).
  • From a generational perspective, Millennials and Gen Z (43 percent) feel the most impacted by the skills gap.

“The nature of jobs is quickly changing with automation, globalization, government policies, and other factors, making it impossible for anyone to predict which skills a job will require in the future. This only serves to widen the perceived skills gap,” said Udemy CEO Kevin H. Johnson, in a press release about the research.

He added: “In such an uncertain environment, it’s not surprising that workers are confused about how to plan their careers, but we’re encouraged to see how many of our survey respondents are learning online on their own and are hungry for more and better training from their employers.”

The skills gap is a global concern, too

This shouldn’t come as a great surprise, but the 2017 Skills Gap Report also found that the skills gap issue is not only critical to American workers but is a concern around the world as well. In fact, the survey results from five key global markets — Brazil, France, Germany, Mexico and Spain — showed widespread acknowledgement of a skills gap but very different perspectives of the personal impact. For example:

  • A majority of employees in Spain (57 percent), Mexico (65 percent), and Brazil (66 percent) feel personally affected by the skills gap.
  • French workers (75 percent) feel the most confident in their current skill set.
  • A whopping 98 percent of Brazilian workers acknowledge there is a skills gap in their region.
  • Half of workers in Mexico (50 percent) believe individuals are most responsible for re-skilling themselves to close the gap, followed by the government (17 percent) and employer responsibility (13 percent).
  • Brazilian workers feels most strongly that their country’s job market is competitive (83 percent), followed by Mexico (75 percent) and the U.S. (66 percent).
  • Spain and Germany have the fewest workers with a “side-hustle” or second job (18 percent each), while 54 percent of Mexican workers report having a side gig.

The critical importance of “re-skilling” your workforce

Here’s my take: Training and re-training (or re-skilling, to use a current buzzword) is critical in an environment where knowledge doubles every year and skills have a half-life of 2.5 to 5 years, as Caroline Stokes pointed out here on RecruitingDaily last summer.

Technology is driving much of this because it’s changing so rapidly that people are finding it hard to keep up with the changes, as anyone who has bought a new smartphone has discovered. And, far too many employers are still working from the premise that people you hire must have all the requisite skills and experience needed to do the job from Day 1.

Organizations everywhere are waking up to the fact that they need to spend more on training and development, and that “re-skilling” your current workforce is not only important but damn near mandatory as technology drives more (and quicker) changes in your workplaces.

Here’s how the Udemy report put it:

Overall, the 2017 Skills Gap Report shows Americans see a bright future for the country and feel they have a lot to offer potential employers. Yet, there are also signals our attitudes around work are changing. Younger workers, in particular, may be starting to recognize that a college diploma won’t carry them as far as it used to, and this new reality is pretty scary when you’ve got decades to go before retirement. Since no one can predict with certainty what exact skills will be needed in years to come — not universities, not government, not employers — today’s workers will have to be up-skilling and re-skilling continuously.

Americans aren’t afraid of doing that hard work. They are confident, they are optimists, and they believe in self-sufficiency. But they also recognize when people need a helping hand. This is where employers can step up by investing in their people and promoting a culture of continuous learning. Governments, in addition to encouraging STEM education among current school students, can also do more to help mid-career adults access and pay for re-skilling programs. By sharing this responsibility, we can build a workforce that will remain competitive, even in an unknown future.”

We’re at a point where training and re-skilling employees isn’t just something for companies to consider doing a little bit more. It’s a critical component of what your organization needs to grow and stay competitive in the months and years to come.

That’s why you should take some time to dig into the 2017 Skills Gap Report (you can get it here), because once you do, you’ll know why it so important that you make “re-skilling” part of your ongoing culture and workplace agenda in 2018 and beyond.

The 2017 Skills Gap Report comes from an online survey for the U.S. that was conducted by Toluna Group on behalf of Udemy in September 2017 among more than 1,000 U.S. office workers in full-time jobs who are ages 18 or older. Complete methodology for all countries surveyed available upon request.

Remind Me Again — Why Do We Still Have Resumes?

I literally do not (and have not ever) understood the basic resume.

Why is this still a thing? In the era of LinkedIn, which is apparently worth $26 billion but has essentially no value, why are we still evaluating people off the basic resume?

I’m confused.

Then I run into articles like this one from the Harvard Business Review about how How Leading Companies Build the Workforces They Need to Stay Ahead (buzzword alert) and I see quotes like this:

The World Economic Forum predicts that “by 2020, more than a third of the desired core skill sets of most occupations will be comprised of skills that are not yet considered crucial to the job today.”

Yup — the basic resume is dead.

The basic resume and checklists of skills

I absolutely despise this concept. You ever see a job listing with 17 required skills, including pornography experience and speaking Italian, and then the salary range is $40,000? Huh?

My broader point is this: If you truly believe we live in the era of disruption and business is shifting every 12 seconds, then who cares about pre-existing skill sets?

Your job role is probably somewhat unclear anyway (that’s often the case) and will shift 21 times in the next six months, so why not go get the best people and train ’em up to the specific role? Seems more logical to me, but we tend to overrate competence in the general hiring process.

The basic resume and the ATS

Applicant tracking systems (ATS) are fu***ing miserable. So let me get this straight —  I am a relatively intelligent person, and I need to upload my resume (my basic resume!) then fill out 18 screens of information that was already on said basic resume?

We don’t think this alienates the best possible candidates? Sheesh. The hiring process is legitimately broken.

What could ever replace it?

I have a few ideas:

Here’s my point: the basic resume is stupid in the “disruptive” era. It’s just a static list of skills that indicates literally nada about how you might perform when your job evolves 27 times in three months. Kill it off and find people through discussions, non-generic interview questions, and actual recruiting work. (Isn’t that what these people are paid for?)

Any other thoughts on the basic resume aside from these 400 or so words?

5 Metrics to Check the Effectiveness of Your Employee Referral Program

We recently measured the referral programs of over 145 companies for some really cool findings. You might be surprised to learn, for example, that companies 4-6 years old have worse performing referral programs than the rest.

Once you look at the data though, the next question is this: “Well, how can I use this to make sure that my referral program works?”

A good referral program should let you kill three birds with one stone. In an ideal world, your referrals should help your company:

  1. Hire better people;
  2. Hire them more quickly; and,
  3. Hire them at a lower cost.

However, there are a lot of different types of referral programs, and not all of them will accomplish the same thing. Some referral programs will get you better quality candidates at a similar cost, while others may drastically reduce cost or time to hire, while keeping quality constant.

What’s more, referral programs aren’t one-size-fits-all, and what accomplishes one thing at one company might not work the same way at yours. Finding the right one for your company will take some trial and error. So where exactly do you start?

First, you need to define your referral program goals

What are you hoping to get out of your employee referral program? Do you care more about hiring better people, or hiring them faster, or at a lower cost?

Once you’ve answered that question, you can decide how you want to measure your progress. To make it easier for you, we’ve listed some common referral program goals, and paired them with useful metrics for measuring program effectiveness.

For example:

Goal 1 – Increase employee engagement

Metric: Referrals per employee

What to ask: How many referrals is each employee sending in per month?

Goal 2 – Get better quality referrals

Metric: Interviews per referral

What to ask: How many employee referrals this month have made it to the interview stage?

Goal 3 – Reduce the cost of hiring

Metric: Referrals per job opening

What to ask: How people were referred for the open job on the sales team?

Goal 4 –  Reduce time to hire

Metric: Referrals per month

What to ask: How many total referrals were there this month?

Goal 5 – Hire better quality people

Metric: Hires per referral (net conversion)

What to ask: How many referrals invited to interview are ultimately hired (and how are they performing comparatively)?

You can find more data that we collected (and it’s all free) about different referral programs and how to measure effectiveness from 145 companies at referralprograms.org