Blog

6 Hot Tips For Improving Your Recruiting Cold Calls

Successful employee recruitment is one of the driving factors behind any business, and while it’s gotten easier than ever thanks to sites like LinkedIn, there is still a place for recruitment cold calls.

Here are some of the best practices and tips for improving recruiting cold calls to candidates because it is one of the most important steps in the recruitment process. After all, if your company doesn’t make a strong first impression and impress job seekers, you won’t end up with the best talent.

1. Be sure to ALWAYS sell your company

Lots of companies figure that because people are desperate for jobs, recruiters have the upper hand and can have a one-sided conversation about the candidate’s credentials and experience.

However, it’s important that recruiters also remember this: They have to sell the candidate on both the job AND the company.

They need to demonstrate why their company is such a good place to work, and, why top talent should choose their organization over another.

One of the best ways to go about improving recruiting cold calls to candidates is for recruiters to be thorough in describing both the company and the position. Complete transparency is a must; they must focus on the details and encourage job seekers to ask questions.

2. Work to engage with the candidate

Recruiters must NEVER, ever come across as bored. If a recruiter somehow sounds bored or uninterested, then the candidate is probably not going to feel particularly interested either.

This can be tough, because recruiters generally have a high volume of daily calls and it can be tough to always give the proper attention to each and every one, particularly if they’ve already made a lot of cold calls that day.

Engaging the candidate is critical, even if it is cold call No. 48 out of 50 that day. Sometimes, THAT is the candidate that the recruiter really wants to connect with, and they don’t want to miss out on engaging with the job seeker just because they couldn’t muster the enthusiasm at that point in the afternoon.

3. The importance of following up cold calls

One of the biggest complaints of job seekers? It’s that they talk to a recruiter, get intrigued by the opportunity, but then never, ever seem to hear back from them again.

Job seekers who feel they were treated badly will respond in kind and tell others about their bad experience. When people complain about a bad candidate experience, this is what they are usually talking about.

Because so many companies handle candidate follow-up so badly, follow-up calls with job seekers are a personal touch that will make them walk away with a positive impression of their interaction with your organization — even if they don’t get the position.

Yes, the follow-up can be time-consuming, but it’s worth it to preserve your company’s image and your ultimate ability to recruit the best people.

4. Really dig into them for information

Especially while calling candidates, you want to get as much information about their background, skills, and experience as you possibly can. Yes, many of those you call will not be right for your organization, and you don’t want to waste any more of your time (and theirs) than necessary on an unsuccessful cold call.

That being said, there are some advantages to continuing to talk to an unqualified candidate for a moment before you end the conversation. For example, they might know someone else who would be a good fit for the position, or they might turn out to be a very good fit for another position you are trying to fill.

You won’t know any of that unless you dig in and really get information out of candidates.

5. Leverage your Applicant Tracking System

The bane of many job seekers can actually be very helpful for your company — and your recruitment process — if used correctly.

Applicant tracking software does more than just weed through resumes and look for keywords — it keeps track of people you have reached out to and where each applicant currently is in the recruitment process. This can make following up much easier on your recruiters as well because they can see who has been spoken to and who is due for a follow-up.

6. Use call recordings to help with recruiter training

The use of cold call recordings while training recruiters is an excellent resource that should not be underestimated. By listening to recordings of both good and poor recruitment calls, your recruiters can hear exactly how calls sound from an objective point of view and adjust their strategy accordingly.Mobile Recruiting

Yes, this is what recruiter training is all about.

From these recordings, recruiters can learn about the right tone to strike, as well as recognizing important cues to determine how interested the job seeker might be.

These six (6) tips will help to improve your recruiting cold calls to candidates and net you a better return on qualified candidates. The key is to determine whether someone you’ve called is a good candidate, and if so, convince them to submit their application for a position or come in for an interview.

To do this well, recruiters have to work to get the right information out of each candidate. They also need to be thorough and as transparent as possible when giving information about the company and the position to the job seeker.

Following these tips will help ensure that happens, and in the end, your employee recruitment tactics — and cold calls — are much more likely to see success and help you to pull in more talented candidates.

Isn’t that what recruiting is all about?

Quitting With Flair: The Inventive Ways People Use to Say “I’m Out”

Parental Advisory Announcement: This article on how people approach quitting a job will offend you if you are a stuffed shirt or a moralistic ass that cannot take a joke and sees the world without an ounce of sarcasm. So please, move on if that’s the case. Trust me, you are not the audience for this. – Management

Have you ever had a dreadful day? I mean a day that you just say, “I am done, that was the final straw, you have broken my back. I can’t take this crap anymore!”

Sure you have. We all have. In fact, it seems that the one thing we carry with us from our childhood is the ability to throw a temper tantrum when we don’t get what we want. This is not a Millennial thing if you think this is where I am going with this.

Quitting a job has been a normality since the 1970s, it seems, and when we get to the boiling point of life, we move on. Almost all of us give our two weeks when quitting and move on to another role, while others, well, they leave with a little more flair.

When someone asks me what I do for a living at an event or bar, I often smile that snarky look I can get and say, “I am in HR. Sadly, I fired myself today, and I’ve been a bit sad by it so I am not talking with myself.” I then turn and giggle knowing that few, if any, get the irony I just displayed.

I know the HR community just loves lists so I thought, with this post, I would add my own version of a list of some pretty funny, side-splitting exits that have been used in order to vacate an individual’s role. Some of these you may have seen and others, unless you were actually there, would not have ever been known about.

Before you continue on with this, I will state that if you are in an unfriendly work environment that thinks four letter words have more power that they actually do then continue to read but click the browsers full well knowing that these may be NSFW. For those over 50, that means Not Safe for Work.

The Bad Good Bye Email

Back in my agency days, VB 6 was the language to have and code with, but N-Tier was the cool buzz word and start-ups were everywhere. It was the new frontier and Millennial was not even a title yet. It was GenX baby and we had it all. Everyone wanted us; we were the shit man!

If you think finding and retaining programmers today is hard, think back to a time when schools were not even teaching JAVA yet. Yeah, that. I had placed a great programmer, a young guy and smart, but one who just hated the BS of the corporate world. He jumped at the chance to join a local start up in Phoenix. Six months later that exuberance was derailed by his management team’s lack of control and understanding of what they were trying to accomplish.

He sent an email, although this was a crude interpretation of the use of out and out sarcasm, and possible career suicide nonetheless. It was, shall we say, an interesting departure email that he sent to the entire company —  a pic flipping off the camera with the meme, and something new to the world of doing this. It said, clearly, I am out!

Funny thing is, I placed him again within 24 hours of him quitting his job, and got a commission. So, it’s a win-win, I suppose?

The “I’m Out of Here” Videos

We live in a world where it spins round and round, and in the process, we continue to evolve, some for the good, some for the bad, I suppose. With multiple platforms to express ourselves, and the ability to self-delude each other with so called fake news in order to obtain a self-absorbed feeling of superiority, the term “shit happens” takes on a new level of complicity when quitting a perceived role.

Still pictures are passé’ or not in vogue as they used to be. Gifs, Memes, and videos now seem the way to say goodbye. Check these ones out, however I once again want to show my concern for the purity and concern of ultraconservative ears and eyes, so go back into the cave of ignorance and hide from the things that you fear most — a few bad words.

I will start with this one, for sure. It’s funny that marijuana is the new oil in this country, and believe me, you should start looking into stock futures for this now, because it’s legal in too many states to mention.

Is this possibly the new gold rush? Where is that gummy again? Yes, this was just about a perfect way to quit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBPsbgKeIFM

Although this did go semi-viral when it landed, it was still a time when the country was starting its angered confrontation against the idiocy that is against marijuana yet totally for alcohol and tobacco addictions. Funny enough, marijuana is now legal in Alaska, possibly based on the fact that this young woman stood up.

Quitting With The Coffee Show Boy Band 

Quitting a job can be hard thing, and giving up on even the worst of jobs can take its toll on a person who is possibly leaving something decent behind.

So, what is guy to do but bring a few friends in on his last day to put on a show and let your owner or manager know how you feel with a song?

This is what happens when you have made your last latte and are truly fed up with the circumstance you were in and making a whole $7.50 an hour. This was one of the best on this list for me, as well as the fact that the dude has pipes and and ability to front the talent behind him and keep up with them.

It all shows that he made the right choice in how to offer his resignation.

The Dance Video Notice That Went F***ing Viral

The only thing that really pissed me off about this way to quit is that there is no way I could possibly pull of the dance moves that this young lady was able to do.

No, seriously. I think I would have ended up breaking multiple appendages trying to accomplish the awesomeness that this young lady pulled off so effortlessly.

The best part — for her, that is — is that she got a gig working for Comedy Central, and that’s somewhat apropos as this was pretty epic. She, on the behest of LinkedIn, even followed up with a why you would not want to do that article titled Don’t Quit Your Day Job: Advice From a Famous (ish) Quitter.

Funny, but even the boldest people who make the biggest strides are pulled down like crabs in a bucket when trying to escape the BS of so many companies who are desperate for dystopian, dream-like work environments.

One, Final Goodbye Email

OK, this is the last one for you. At a company I worked at, one of the things we always laughed about was how almost everyone who left would send a nice email out to the company letting them know how happy they were here but had to move on, or some other BS, PC-like thought that at some time this #karmatic feeling going out the door would absolve them in a future endeavor.

Here is a Cliffs Notes version for you. Sometimes you find yourself in a #craptastic situation, and in the end, you just have to say this

 

So there you go, with no epiphany from me or some kind of Oracle-like statement to carry you through.

This was just something I found entirely too funny to not write about and share. Sometimes, when looking at life, you have to just let go and fire away.

Safety nets are for those who are afraid to just let it go.

#zellerout #truestory

Why Put Candidates Through Hoops, Then Just Say “Thank You For Your Interest”?

I’m one of the members — one out of 1,000,479, to be exact — of LinkedIn’s Premium Career Group. I recently saw a question/comment with the headline Thank you for your interest email! from a business analyst that should make recruiters and hiring managers sit up and pay attention.

In fact, it’s this kind of insight that should be driving everyone in talent acquisition crazy. Here’s what she said:

I was referred by a former supervisor (and) she told me I would be a great fit for the position. I had a phone interview with the VP of the department. Played the waiting game for a few weeks. They finally called me in for a face to face. I met with 5 people, a VP, two managers, the Account Manager, and HR Mgr. A week later I get a generic rejection email. I thought I really nailed the interview.

Even though they may not respond if I ask for feedback about their rejection, what verbiage would you include?”

The ultimate Bad, Ugly Candidate Experience

The lady who asked this “thank you for your interest” question on LinkedIn got a number of good responses from other group members about how to respond graciously to the generic rejection while asking for more specific feedback. Most of them offered decent advice.

However, ALL of them missed the bigger point and failed to ask the question that jumped out and screamed at me:

You get recommended for a position, pass the phone screening, patiently cool your heels for a few weeks, then come in for what sounds like a grueling day of interviews with no less than 10 people, five of whom are managers, and then they BLOW YOU OFF with a GENERIC REJECTION LETTER?

What the F@$& is that all about??????

I don’t know why an organization would do something like this, but it happens a lot because you hear tons of stories like this. Yes, getting a generic “thank you for your interest” email has turned into the ultimate Bad, Ugly Candidate Experience.

My friend Tim Sackett, who runs a recruiting firm in Michigan and knows a lot about finding the best candidates, has strong opinions about making candidates you ultimately don’t hire jump through so many hoops.

Now, Tim is writing about bringing people back in for multiple rounds of interviews, but his reasoning goes for interviewing like this lady writing on LinkedIn did — with five managers and 10 people total in a single day.

When more interviews yield negligible information

Here’s what he wrote:

More interviews after this point yield negligible additional information, and they actually might be a detriment to your hiring decision. Why? Because here’s what happens happens after you talk about someone for so long — they turn into a piece of crap!

This is normal human and organizational behavior, by the way. We start out talking about all the good qualities and experiences the person has, and how they can help us. We then start searching for hickeys and, no matter what, we will find them! Then we start talking about what’s wrong with the person and before you know it, that great candidate becomes a piece of garbage and not good enough for your organization.”

Tim is on to something here. I’ve seen it a lot of times when it comes to internal candidates for a position who seem to get judged more critically than those you are interviewing from outside the organization.

It’s this: All too often, because you know the internal candidate so well, you get fixated on their shortcomings. You become overly harsh and judgmental on those qualities and you downplay their strengths as well.

Of course, you don’t REALLY know the strengths and weaknesses of the outside candidate to the same degree you do the internal one, so you view them in the same way that some people view ancient cultures — the “Noble Savage Theory” — where what you don’t know much about is viewed as so much better than what you do.

I’ve been in the middle of some of these encounters, and it’s not pretty. It’s when you find yourself arguing for the internal candidate because you know they would do a great job, only to find that managers and executives further up the food chain who are fixated on some superficial qualities that the outside candidate brings to the table.

The end result? Too often it ends with the external applicant getting hired and the internal candidate leaving because they’re miffed at being passed over. And when it really goes bad, the outside candidate flames out within a year or so of getting hired, leaving the company with neither person and worse off in the end.

Thank you for your interest? This is just another version of that.

Responding to “thank you for your interest” emails

Tim Sackett also got into how the person who was interviewed to death but passed over should really be viewed:

They’re not really garbage. They’re still the really good person you initially interviewed. We just let it go too long, and discovered they have opportunities and we don’t want to hire anyone with ‘opportunities’ — we want perfect.

This is what happens after Round 3 (of interviews) in almost every organization I’ve ever witnessed … It might be the biggest misnomer by candidates who feel the longer you go in the interview process, the better the chance of an offer. It’s untrue! If you don’t get an offer after the third round, your percentages of getting an offer fall exponentially every round after!”

This is why asking for feedback from the people you interviewed with almost NEVER yields anything useful.

But back to the member of my LinkedIn’s Premium Career Group. who so desperately wanted feedback to know why she didn’t get hired and simply heard “thank you for you interest” via email despite all the interviews. One of the other group members had some pragmatic advice for her, and here’s what he said about her reaching out and asking for it from the company who turned her down:

Expect the best, plan for the worst. There is no harm in sending a thank you note and asking for feedback, but expect nothing. Then, if they are a one-in-a-million company, you can be pleasantly surprised if you actually hear something back.”

Get rid of the ultimate bad kiss off

Here’s my take: We need to get rid of “thank you for your interest” emails altogether. I know some will say that this is a polite way to respond, but it has become the ultimate bad kiss-off and is now making companies look bad.

There has got to be a better way to respond to candidates then the generic “thank you for your interest” email. I’d love some suggestions on how the talent acquisition community might solve this problem, because getting rid of “thank you for your interest” will go a LONG way towards making for a better and more human candidate experience.

HR Tech Today Is a Lot Like Pitching Credit Cards to Impulsive College Students

When you’re 18, it’s fair to assume that you know absolutely nothing about anything. What’s inconvenient is that most real knowledge really only comes in hindsight, which is about as useful as a majority of HR Tech ideas being floated in the industry at any given time.

Back in the 1990’s, credit card “pushers” were visible in the student union on nearly every college campus in America. We were living in a time of ‘have fun now, pay later!’ and kids like me were their ideal target audience. We bit hungrily like fish who had been frozen in their parents’ lake of adolescence in suspended animation for 18 years.

Now we had access to our own credit, money, and bills to pay without anyone looking over our shoulders.

In HR Tech, all decisions on day-to-day tools are no longer siloed in the highest reaches of the HR food chain. More and more of these decisions are made at the ground level, by people in active contributor roles. Because of this, you have people who are potentially less versed in these transactions than those who have moved up the food chain.

A fixation all the wrong things

Without hesitation, when I arrived to college and was in front of the credit pushers, I can say I didn’t ask the right questions. Things that seem intuitive today — like balance-transfer rates, APR, and the complexity of the reward structure and blackout dates — evaded any part of my decision making.

You know what I was fixated on? Water bottles, free applications, bonus mileage awards for signing up, and without fail, another new t-shirt. The only people in the world who have marketing down to a better science are the Girl Scouts. Had the Discover reps had Thin Mints and colleges had WiFi, I’m pretty sure I would have never left the student union or my bedroom for any prolonged period of time.

Yep, all I would have needed were just me, my six credit cards, and my Thin Mints.

As you can imagine, this college experience didn’t end well. It became a shell game of moving balances from one card to another, without any way to make a discernible difference in the bottom line.

And while some of my miscues are due to some impulsive choices and a fair pinch of youthful stupidity, most of it could have been prevented by me by asking the right questions and not getting distracted by the salesperson’s shiny objects.

Don’t be taken for a ride

HR Tech is at an interesting crossroads right now, where they are as prevalent as the credit card vendor back in my college days. While the game is far more advanced in terms of pitch and technical capabilities, the veritable foundation remains the same. And given where we’ve come in terms of technology, you may not even need to leave your room to get the sales pitch (living the dream…).

However if you don’t ask the right questions, then the likelihood increases exponentially that you’ll be buying some piece of SaaS that you won’t need or use. You’ll blow your budget on shiny objects and be stuck with a pile of HR Tech you can’t do anything with.

If you’re indeed asking the right questions, you reduce the likelihood of being taken on a ride by a mercurial marketing or sales rep who sees you only as the next stop in making their quarterly quota.

4 questions you should be asking about HR Tech solutions

So, here are four (4) simple questions to see if it merits taking a further look:

  1. Tell me what my company does, as you understand it. How can your technology help us, specifically? If they haven’t done their homework, it’s not worth wasting your time. There is enough information available on companies out there that not having a baseline of knowledge is a non-starter
  2. Can I see a sample of how this works with MY data? Don’t accept generic data pitches. The data and platform you are seeing during the sales pitch has been curated to work specifically for demos.
  3. What are the other systems that have worked in conjunction with this technology? And, how do they connect? Beware those that say “We’ll be building an API as part of our product road map.”
  4. Ask for examples of people who are using the technology they are pitching you right now. But in addition to the references the company gives you, find some of your own and do your own vetting so you can form an unbiased opinion.

No space is flooded quite like the HR Tech space is at this current moment with it’s wide-array of “disruptive” solutions. It’s easy to get lost in the shimmer of the list of the “major” clients that use this tool.

I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard “oh well, Apple and Microsoft have it, so it must be good if they are using it.” That’s just flawed logic. They may indeed be using it, and loving it (or not), but they got it because they LITERALLY have the money to burn on it.

However, most companies don’t have hundreds of billions in cash sitting in the [offshore] bank, so they have to be more frugal with their budget.

Educate yourself, and rely on your colleagues to help provide insight that most certainly won’t be available in a sales pitch. You’ll save time and money. And after all, that’s the Holy Grail of HR, isn’t it? 

Here’s Why Your Recruiting Process Stinks and Alienates the Best Candidates

A few months back, I wrote an article about how broken the hiring process is. This article will be a bit similar, but it’s about the recruiting process.

What I’m digging into is how companies design their recruiting process. What steps must a candidate go through? What’s the overall arc of the process like? And is your recruiting process set up in a way that gets you the people you want (or need) to be successful?

At most places, the answer to that final question is “Absolutely not,” and often times the answer is “Exactly the opposite, sir.”

The first thing to understand about a recruiting process

Before we get too deep into this, let’s address two quick things:

  1. Many a recruiting process isn’t about getting the best people. It’s about covering the ass of HR and the organization. That’s why we steep everything in process and automation. We all secretly know that kind of stuff won’t get us the best people, but we do it anyway because HR is much more about compliance than adding value — and sadly, it always has been.
  2. Every article about the recruiting process is complete pie-in-the-sky, utopian BS. “Ten Ways To Maximize Your Recruiting Process” by some thought leader? You might as well print that out and save yourself some money on toilet paper this month. If people had any clue about how to manage a recruiting process, we wouldn’t have arrived at 2016 with a broken job market, disenfranchised people, and HR still chasing “a seat at the table.”

Step 1 of the recruiting process: The job description

Actually, Step 1 is “getting the headcount,” and even that step is fraught as hell.

For new positions, it’s usually which manager barks the loudest. It has almost nothing to do with “what the company really needs at the time.” It’s cooler to hire a “financial analyst” than an “admin,” even if you really need the admin more.

Same deal with any job title that has the word “strategist.” Often times there’s no strategy involved at all, but it makes a higher-up feel good that he just hired one.

Once headcount is granted, we move over to job descriptions and posting the job online. Here’s what most companies do: someone just held a job for six years, but instead of updating the description with what that person did well/not well, they edit two sentences (which somehow takes them six weeks to do) and re-post it.

All about chasing those A-Players, baby!

The worst aspect of this stage — besides everything — is the “essential requirements” list. You’ve all seen these. There are 12-15 bullet points detailing skills and degrees you need. If you have 11, you’re kaput. If you have nine? Don’t bring that weak sauce over here, candidate! You’re dead in the water!

Most companies use applicant tracking systems in their recruiting process — technology killed recruiting — and ATS usually screens out people who don’t hit all the targets immediately.

Right here, in Step 1, you’ve lost a bunch of great people because of complete BS, not-priority-aligned guesses (yes, guesses — that’s what they are) about what this position needs.

All that and we’re only at Step 1 of the recruiting process!

Step 2: Sourcing and active vs. passive candidates

Now, you start sourcing. At my last gig, my boss (who basically inspired this) got in this huge fight with human resources once about how candidates were being sourced and who was getting through. Of course, it was for a job that barely needed to be filled. Influence matters more than logic in headcount, as noted above.

There’s a prevailing methodology in HR and recruiting now that “passive” candidates are better than “active” candidates. Active candidates are people who apply to your posting. Passive are those you hunt, stalk, and “source” on LinkedIn and through referrals. Liz Ryan addressed the whole “active vs. passive” debate on Forbes.

People seem to think “passive” candidates are diamonds in the rough. You found them! You stole them! Maybe from a competitor! (Giggles with glee!)

In reality, passive candidates can have the same flaws as active candidates. We’re all human beings, you know? And if some middle manager is barking about headcount, a passive candidate is likely (logically) to take longer to hire. “I got seats to fill, Tim! I need an A-Player now!”

The recruiting process funnel is essentially a bigger punchline than childhood celebrity. If you start with 100 people, your outdated garbage of a recruiting process will probably eliminate 70 good people, alienate another 10 people with some modicum of self-esteem or professional belief in their abilities, and now you’re down to 20 also-ran posers.

This is how we build innovative cultures? Wow.

Step 3: Interviews and screenings

I covered this once: the 10 most common interview questions do absolutely nothing to advance a hiring process. It’s also generic BS stacked on top of each other. “Tell me your biggest weaknesses, Gordon.” (pause) “Well, ma’am, I am just such a perfectionist.”

We all know how to game these questions. We’ve all sat through them. They mean nothing. It’s all designed to see if HR — and then the hiring manager — likes the person or feels there’s a “fit.” Essentially, it’s a giant exercise in subjectivity, with all the while everyone claiming that subjectivity is being reduced.candidate experience

It’s a giant lie. I love it.

I once had a hiring process with a company in Tampa and had six interviews with them, OK? Six different people and all that. Different roles and responsibilities and everything.

This recruiting process stretched out for two months as a result. All six people? They all asked me the exact same questions. Even though they had different levels of power and would have connected to my hiring differently, it was all small talk BS and “walk me through your resume.”

After all that — two months, six interviews, and the same five questions six times over — I got passed over. And of course, I had no reason, context, background, or anything else given.

Let’s say each of those interviews was 30 minutes. That’s three hours of my life I will never, ever get back. That leads to the next point.

Why are candidates treated like a nuisance?

Stop me if you’ve ever gotten this email before:

“We’re aiming to move quickly on this, Tommy, but the hiring manager is out for the next 12 days at trade shows and on vacation.”

OK, you think. So they will follow up in 14 days.

“As I explained earlier, Tommy, it’s a very busy time for us here at Widgets Inc.”

Whoa. Did Tommy just become a bad guy? No crap; Tommy did indeed become a bad guy.

The entire recruiting process is built around this idea that candidates are a nuisance, even as executives inside the company are bellowing about “needing the best talent possible.” Well, if you’re courting the best talent possible, and people who will soon contribute to your bottom line, maybe you should show them some respect? Like, a little bit of respect?

It’s an absolutely incredible disconnect between how we deal with candidates and how we deal with customers. It literally boggles the mind.

Now, yes; your customers buy things and make you money. But you don’t think one of those candidates might some day make you money too? Yes, he or she will. That’s why you need treat them with respect, not as a nuisance.

Step 4: Final stages, offers, and onboarding

I understand the whole deal legally, but getting screened off for a job with no feedback is disconcerting. Of course you always get the “Happy to talk!” email from the hiring manager, but that’s complete BS.

Because I’m a jerk, I’ve followed up on about 20-25 of those in my life.

How many times have I actually ended up talking to the hiring manager who decided to go another direction? Approximately once. If you’re scoring at home, I think that is 4 percent. Hardly a high response rate, yeah?

Offers are usually a joke, too. Most people, because of notions about professionalism and respect, haven’t talked about money until this stage. It’s a dirty little secret that no one really understands their salary anyway, but whatever. Let’s gloss that over for the time being.

So now you’ve got this offer coming, and you want to know about the cheddar. Usually someone will low-ball the hell out of you (unless you’re an executive, in which case they’ll throw buckets of cash at you with no context).

This comes about from some other annoying parts of the recruiting process, namely:

  1. How much were you making at your last job?
  2. We don’t have a defined salary for this position yet.

Bullet 1 = You have no necessity to answer that question.

Bullet 2 = That’s absolute garbage. No financial team would ever let head count be approved without a specific salary band attached to it.

Again, this is all lies, garbage, and disrespectful nonsense. We slap a bow on this and call it our talent-centric recruiting process. In reality, it’s hogwash.

Don’t even get me started on onboarding — I’ve written about that enough to choke a horse. See here, here, and here.

Can we improve the recruiting process?

At this point, I don’t know what’s next. The core problem is that recruiting runs through HR, and executives don’t care at all about HR. As a result, no one will ever prioritize improving their recruiting process.

The second issue, adjacent to that one, is that HR barely has the right to be called “human” anymore.

As you can see above, and you may have lived through, many a recruiting process is based almost entirely on,

  1. Automation; and,
  2. Treating you like you’re annoying them because you want to someday have a salary and a life.

How is either of those things human? I fail to see that they are.

The fastest path to improving the recruiting process would be better research and metrics on how hiring ties back to the bottom line. Then executives would care more and there’d be more incentive to better a company’s recruiting process. As of now, most discussions about “talent strategy” are lip-serviced manure.

You could also move recruiting out of HR, but that idea might terrify a many people.

Here’s the bottom line, though: Your recruiting/hiring process is designed, ideally, to get you the right and best people to move your company forward.

But, uh, is your recruiting process doing that? Or, is it just alienating the exact type of people you really DO need?

How to Select a Killer Talent Assessment Solution – in 15 Easy Steps

Over the past 30 years, businesses have spent billions on talent assessments. Many of these are now being used to understand job candidates.

Increasingly, businesses are asking how (or if) a predictive talent acquisition strategy can include the use of pre-hire assessments. As costs of failed new hires continue to rise, recruiters and hiring managers are looking for any kind of pre-hire information to increase the probability of making a truly great hire.

How can you know if it’s a real predictive solution vs. just marketing fluff?

What is a real predictive solution?

For all of the marketing hype, Predictive Analytics boils down to three very simple steps.

  1. A system reads “input” data — perhaps assessment scores or CV information.
  2. The system then does some math to apply a “predictive model” to the input data.
  3. Finally, the results of the model are shown as “output” data of the model — perhaps the likelihood of the candidate achieving a certain level of sales performance or another KPI. At heart, it takes “inputs” and turns them into “outputs,” or predicted business outcomes. But to build and validate a model, you need a healthy, logical set of both input and output data for that role in your company.

If you are using a talent assessment alone this is just input data. The talent assessment is just one piece of the system. There are two more pieces (as I’ve detailed above).

For most companies, their current pre-hire talent assessments are wasted data. Results are delivered in an individual report that cannot be analyzed or aggregated.

For most “legacy” talent assessments, it’s difficult or impossible to determine what positive (or negative) business inpact the assessments are having. It often comes down to the question of “how much the HR person believes the results.”

This is a bad measure of success.

But it doesn’t have to be that way. At Talent Analytics, we include talent assessment data, generated from our own proprietary assessments, as an additional data point in every predictive project. In predictive-speak, “our assessment data has proven to be a very strong independent variable for our predictive models.”

We repeatedly prove that our Talent Analytics scores, predict business performance, such as the probability of someone making their sales quota, or the probability of someone lasting in a contact center role for at least 12 months, the probability of a truck driver making accidents  … and so on for most quantifiable KPIs.

If you’d like to begin a predictive talent acquisition project using talent assessments, it can be daunting to figure out what solutions are smoke and mirrors, and what solutions will actually deliver a predictive solution.

To help, I wanted to share important factors to consider to help you sort through “pretend predictive solutions” and “real, rigorous predictive solutions” that can deliver significant bottom line results. This decision can dramatically affect your business’s bottom line.

Yes, it’s important.

Selecting a Predictive Talent Assessment solution

  1. The Predictive company itself — Are you dealing with an assessment company, who is trying to learn how to be predictive? Or is it a predictive company that also uses assessment data? How long have they been doing predictive work? Are they invited to speak at predictive conferences or at basic HR conferences?
  1. Their Predictive team — Ideally the company will have Data Scientists on staff as well as IO Psychologists. This is important because Data Scientists tend to utilize more modern and rigorous methods for prediction and validation. IO Psychologists tend to be focused on the instrument, while Data Scientists tend to be concerned with predictive validity and business results.
  2. Are they predicting for your company, or for everyone? — There are companies that create industry benchmarks,” that is, a general performance predictions for general industry categories – such as retail sales or customer service. These predictions are significantly less accurate, because they are based on companies different from your own, with different cultures, goals, and regions. Not all “customer service” is the same. Modern computing methods enable leading providers to create and validate predictive models for your roles in your own company alone, and to continuously update the model over time.
  3. Do they care about your outcome data? — Generally these solutions predict attrition or performance for a candidate or employee. Has the assessment company asked you for the attrition or KPI data for your employees in your target role? If they don’t know your employee outcomes, how can they predict your outcomes? They can’t.

Most job roles have multiple KPIs that describe performance — do they predict each of these separately? For KPIs that naturally contradict each other, e.g. speed vs. accuracy, how does the predictive solution resolve the contradiction? Just getting a “green light” isn’t good enough in many cases.

What sample size did they ask for? Real predictions require a reasonable sample to properly validate that you aren’t being fooled by randomness. If they only ask for 15 top performers, your sample is too small to create a real prediction.

  1. Does the solution base predictions on outcome data or a job fit, job match or a job blueprint survey? — Data Science predicts what you ask it to predict. If you want lower attrition or higher KPIs, the models must be trained and validated with that data alone. The process looks for fact-based patterns to drive your business.

Surprisingly, many solutions don’t use this approach, but fall back to managerial bias. These solutions ask well-meaning committees of managers to list competencies that they believe are needed for success in a role.

The resulting criteria are not predictive at all — they just find candidates that match the laundry list of beliefs and biases held by that committee. Nowhere in this process is a connection to actual attrition or KPI outcomes.

Again, if the system doesn’t know about your outcomes, how can the process predict them? Start with data, not bias.

  1. Does the solution use machine learning to recalibrate your predictive models? How often?
    — Business needs, role descriptions, and culture changes over time. Local labor conditions change. For example, service representatives may be incentivized to cross-sell related products, or new regulations may require new compliance to be performed. It is important to update and re-validate your predictive models 2-4 times a year to keep up to date with seen and unseen trends. Some solutions have not changed their models for 30 years; do you expect these to find great sales reps for you?
  2. The new validation question: Criterion Validation? — HR has been taught to ask if the assessment is validated. The first level of validation checks whether the assessment measures are self-consistent. Continue to ask this question.

But ultimately you care about whether the assessment feeds predictions that accurately correspond to improved business outcomes. That is, are the predictions actually working? This level is called “Criterion Validation” and is a high bar that is not commonly reached by vendors.

A top tier predictive talent assessment vendor will perform Criterion Validation for the solutions several times a year – with every client. Criterion validation is the highest level of validation possible, and is the most preferred by regulatory agencies.

  1. Can you easily access/download your company’s Talent Assessment Data? — Talent assessment data is a critical data set for your company. If your Talent Assessment vendor makes it difficult or impossible to access your talent assessment data – this is a good indication they are using pre-predictive technology and that they don’t appreciate that this data is your asset.

True predictive solutions know that your workforce data scientists will want to use your talent assessment data to find correlations and predictions in many areas of your business. You need to insist on easy and direct access to the raw assessment scores.

  1. How easy is it to deploy the solution into the talent acquisition process and use the predictions — How much training is required? Do your talent acquisition professionals need to read long text reports, or get out a calculator to use the predictions? The complexity of a prediction should be kept out of the way of daily operations.If your team still needs to “think” about what the answer is, it is probably not a predictive solution.
  2. Is there a different assessment for every role? Or one assessment with multiple predictive models? — Multiple assessments make it impossible to predict one candidate’s performance against multiple roles. This may also be a signal that you are working with an older, legacy (less predictive) talent assessment supplier.
  3. Is there an answer key for their solution on the web? — For many assessments, there are answer keys and guides on how to fool or pass the test. One example is here: http://on.wsj.com/29Che0n. When you see this, it means two things:
    • A – That the test is easily fooled, lacking internal controls to prevent spoofing; and,
    • B – It means that that you are looking at an “industry benchmark” with one clear set of answers.

A data science-driven model would be custom to your role in your company, and be continuously evolving – therefore very difficult for answer keys and spoofing to catch.

  1. Does the company itself (i.e. Myers Briggs) specifically tell you NOT to use their solution for hiring/talent acquisition? — Some assessments, notably the Myers Briggs survey, specifically implore users to not use the tool for talent acquisition: “It is not ethical to use the MBTI instrument for hiring or for deciding job assignments.
  2. Ask to see their company policy on employee predictive modeling, discrimination, disparate impact and fairness — It is important that a predictive solution has thought through the specific outcomes of their models and how they fit into creating fair opportunity for all applicants. In particular it is vital for the solution to satisfy or exceed any government requirements for hiring and selection.
  3. Do your own (internal) data scientists approve of this predictive solution? — We recommend asking one of your own data scientists (from HR, marketing, or another area inside your own company) to accompany you in your evaluation. They know what is a rigorous approach and what is marketing fluff.
  4. How does the predictive solution regularly prove that the models are working? — Ideally the company you select will be able to show you 2 to 4 times a year how your predictions are working (i.e. turnover is going down, sales are going up, calls are going up, errors are going down etc.,)

Only use a predictive model during talent acquisition if the predictions are accurate.

If they’re not, you should stop using the models. You need this feedback.

Remember: Predictive talent assessments can have a prominent place in your Predictive Talent Acquisition process, but you need to be careful in choosing the real predictive solution vs. a legacy talent assessment with a predictive marketing wrapper.

Are You Surprised? 75% of HR Managers Have Found Lies on Resumes

It’s not a surprise that job candidates embellish, fib, or resort to outright lies on resumes. What IS a bit shocking is how frequently they do it.

According to the latest survey from CareerBuilder, 3 in 4 HR managers — a whopping 75 percent — say they have caught lies on resumes. What’s amazing about that number is that 39 percent of the managers said they spend less than a minute initially looking at any single resume. Nearly 1 in 5 (19 percent) spend less than 30 seconds.

This makes me wonder: How bad does a lie on a resume have to be for someone to find it in less than a minute?

“If crafted well, your resume is one of the most valuable marketing tools you have,” said Rosemary Haefner, Chief HR officer at CareerBuilder, in a press release about the survey. “In a matter of seconds, it can make or break your chances of moving along the hiring journey with a company. That’s why it’s important to be proactive with your resume and avoid embellishments or mistakes.”

None of this should come as a big shock to recruiters and hiring managers, but it raises a good question: why do candidates continue to put lies on resumes when so many talent managers (75 percent) can easily see what they’re doing?

Advice for applicants, and how to land an interview

There are probably as many answers to that question as there are lies on resumes, but one thing the CareerBuilder survey also did was ask HR managers what kinds of things are more likely to make them pay attention to a resume. These aren’t that surprising either, although they are the kinds of things that candidates frequently don’t always focus on.

Here are the top five things that recruiters say job candidates could do to help them get selected for an interview:

  1. The resume has been customized to their open position (60 percent);
  2. A cover letter is included with the resume (38 percent);
  3. Skill sets are listed first on the resume (37 percent);
  4. The application and/or resume is addressed to the specific hiring manager (23 percent); and,
  5. Resume includes a link to a candidate’s blog, portfolio or website (14 percent).

5 factors that help people get hired

The survey also listed five factors that the felt would make them much more likely to hire one candidate over another. Be forewarned; a few of these are not only head scratchers, but show the kind of hiring bias (and arbitrary thinking) that drives candidates crazy:

  1. The candidate is involved in his/her community (35 percent);
  2. The candidate is bilingual (34 percent);
  3. The candidate has a better sense of humor (25 percent);
  4. The candidate is better dressed (24 percent); and,
  5. The candidate has more in common with them (13 percent).

Here’s my take: Stretching the truth on a resume is a time-honored tradition, although it used to be a lot easier to do before the internet and the huge amount of background material that is at every recruiter’s fingertips in today’s online world.

But, there are still occasions where “stretching the truth” on a resume is generally considered acceptable, as this PayScale article from 2012 points out. You need to read the article to get the logic behind it, but if you’re like me, you’ll probably consider the three issues that PayScale mentions and agree that these ARE minor fibs that most talent acquisition professionals wouldn’t consider to be disqualifying.

More than just lies on resumes

The best part of the CareerBuilder survey are the “most notable and cringe-worthy real-life gaffes” that recruiters have seen from job seekers. These aren’t just lies on resumes, but embarrassing resume blunders that makes you wonder, “what were they thinking here?

  • An applicant claimed to have written computer code the hiring manager had actually written. Both had the same previous job, but the applicant did not know that fact.
  • Applicant included a picture with all of his pets.
  • Applicant said he worked for Microsoft … but had no idea who Bill Gates was.
  • Applicant’s resume was lifted from the internet and did not match the cover letter.
  • Applicant said he studied under Nietzsche (fyi, Nietzsche died in 1900).
  • Applicant stated that he had tried and failed a certification exam three times, but was planning to try again.
  • Applicant claimed to be an anti-terrorist spy for the CIA at the same time period he was in elementary school.
  • Applicant mentioned that his hobby is to watch horror movies.

This national online survey was conducted on behalf of CareerBuilder by Harris Poll between May 24 and June 16, 2017, and included more than 2,500 full-time, U.S. employers across industries and company sizes, including 221 HR managers in the private sector.

Want to Create Irresistible Recruitment Email? Here’s 6 Sneaky Hacks to Help

According to a LinkedIn survey, only 15 percent of candidates are not even open to considering a new job. That means an overwhelming 85 percent ARE open to a new position, maybe via a recruitment email.

In such a scenario, if your email campaigns are not getting at least 45–50 percent conversions it is quite likely that you are doing it wrong.

If marketers and sales reps got the same conversion rate as recruiters, they would soon be out of a job.

My interactions with recruiters all over the globe tell me that most of them get a conversion of 15–20 percent. If your conversions are in this range, you are probably close to the median, but what could you do to put yourself miles ahead of the league?

Thank science for the fact that there is a lot of research that has gone behind our understanding of human brain. Using these simple principles of psychology and a bit of luck you can reach 40–45 percent conversions for your recruitment email outreach.

The purpose here is to enable you to have a framework to start thinking about your outreach. Although there are templates that worked for others, you have to find your own messaging and words that work the best for you and reflect who you and your employer brand are.

I like to divide “cold” recruitment emails in three parts: Subject line, Pitch and the ask.

Subject line

Try to evoke an emotional response. The job here is simple, although the most critical one  —  getting your recruitment email opened. You don’t get many words to do this.

On Gmail’s iPhone app, only the first 36 characters of a subject line are visible. So, in a limited real estate, your subject line should be able to trigger an emotion.

There are two kind of emotional responses that you should aim to trigger.

1. Utility — Will your candidate think ,  “This looks like something that can be really useful in my career goals.” It gets the “What’s in it for me?” immediately out of the way. This kind of approach works really well for people who are extremely pressed for time and do not have discretionary power over allocating it. So if you are mailing a sales rep who spends most of his day calling and emailing prospective customers, a utilitarian approach might just work better.

2. Curiosity — If it can kill the cat, it can definitely get your email opened. Such a subject line works really well for those who have greater power over allocating their time to various activities. Imagine a great UX designer or a data scientist; they have a thousand things to do every day but they still have a great amount of power on allocating time to little distractions. A subject line that creates curiosity in reader’s mind can work really well for this demographic. Media companies like BuzzFeed perfected this to a science with their click bait. And it’s not just you — it’s hard for everyone to not fall prey to those clickbait titles and scroll through that content. If you can get your prospective candidate to think ,  “Ahh! That’s interesting. Let me check it out,”  half the battle has already been won!

Pitch

Once your recruitment email is opened, you want to continue on a strong emotional trigger provided in the subject line. The first part of your email is the pitch. You probably don’t want to beat around the bush so much if you had used a utilitarian subject line.

This is the part where your job is a lot like the sales rep. You need to build credibility and trust for the candidate to say yes to your call to action in the mail. There are a couple of ways to do this.

3. Build trust: Fifty (50) years of cross disciplinary research has pointed out that trust is built by three factors — A) Knowledgeability; B) Familiarity; and C) Honesty. If you are reaching out to the candidate for the first time, going for familiarity is your best shot.

Seeing something familiar helps us build an instant trust. Mention your candidate’s current organization and role and they would immediately feel that this email was written specifically for them.

As a rule of thumb, mentioning at least two details that are very specific to the candidate increases conversions by at least 20–25 percent. Our social contract around recruitment email makes sure that in the recipient’s head you create a micro obligation to respond to the email.

4. Loss aversion and sure gains: Our brains are hardwired to be averse to loss (and to seek risky options to avert a sure loss) and be favorable to sure gains (and seek safer but sub optimal options to seek a sure gain). After you have built familiarity, it is your job to create a sure gain vs riskier option (to not replying) in your candidate’s head.

 There are two ways to sway someone’s decision in your favor:

A- Loss Aversion: If you make (or do not make) this decision, you will surely stand to lose X.

B – Sure Gains: This choice will result in you gaining Y.

In case of a passive candidate, it’s really hard to push for loss aversion. The candidate is yet not invested enough to realize that not replying to you is a loss. It is going to take more than one touchpoint to start playing on loss aversion.

However, loss aversion is an extremely strong force. The best way to get to the loss aversion stage is to run a drip campaign that gets the candidates invested enough and then strike with loss aversion.

5 – Florida Effect/Priming effect: Our actions and biases get primed by the words we have been exposed to. To create this bias/priming, use candidate-centric language as much as you can. Use you, your, yours and minimize your use of I, we and ours. Help your candidate imagine herself or himself in your team and the split second decision that their brain will take on whether to respond or not will favor you!

The Ask

6 – Intuitive Heuristics: As complicated as it sounds, it’s a fairly straight forward concept. We don’t do well with hard questions that require conscious cognitive effort. However, it takes no time and effort to answer something out of intuition. In your first email, don’t ask candidate if they are interested in the position. There are hundreds of variables to consider and thus, you’re not likely to get a response. Instead, ask them to make a smaller investment. Are they open to a brief call? It’s much easier to say “yes” to a 15 minute call than evaluating whether this new role and company is interesting or not.

Persistence with your recruitment emails

No, this is not a psychological hack. It’s just a lesson learned by the best after years and years of successes and failures.

Remember — persistence always wins. Even the most beautifully crafted recruitment email is going to fail because of factors you can’t control, like the candidate who opened your email at the wrong time and missed replying to you.

When you have spent so much time and energy mailing a candidate once, go that extra mile and improve your conversions. All things being equal, the data we’ve collected show that multiple touch points have the highest effect in candidate conversions.

  • Never give up at the first chance and always write a follow up to your original recruitment email.
  • Create a drip campaign that will help your candidate get warmed up to the idea of working with your team.
  • Also, we’ve also put together a bunch of templates for candidate outreach email that you can use and that have proven to be very effective.

In a candidate-centric world where great talent has hundreds of possibilities — in a verbal survey we conducted, we found that a developer gets an average of four (4) recruitment email messages a week! — your job is not to gather as many applicants as possible and hope that right ones find their way to the top.

As recruiters, our job is to understand the role and business needs, and then to hunt for the people we need.

It’s about time we learn from our colleagues in sales and marketing and understand human motivations and communication tactics in order to give our candidates the experience they truly deserve.

Another New I-9 Form: What Do Recruiters REALLY Need to Know?

Recent turmoil around immigration policy has created added pressure for talent acquisition professionals to understand the myriad requirements that affect whether job candidates can live and work in the United States.

International candidates have questions regarding their employment eligibility, and organizations are under increased scrutiny. Last year, penalties for missing, incomplete, or error-ridden I-9s nearly doubled.

Unfortunately, those requirements are a moving target. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) recently released a new version of Form I-9, the second-such revision in fewer than 12 months. What do corporate recruiters need to know to answer candidates’ questions and protect their companies?

Here’s a rundown of what the new Form I-9 means for you.

About Form I-9

Form I-9 is used to verify employees’ identities, and that they are authorized to work in the U.S. The form requires employees to produce documents that prove their identities and eligibility for employment.

Companies are required to keep a completed Form I-9 for every person they hire to work in the U.S., both citizens and non-citizens, for three years after the date of hire, or one year after employment ends, whichever is later. These records are subject to inspection by ICE.

What are the most important changes?

Employers have until September 17, 2017, to begin using the new version of the Form I-9. Fortunately, most of the changes were minor and clerical.

Here is a high-level summary; you can find complete details in the USCIS announcement:

Revisions to Form I-9 instructions:

○      The words “the end of” have been removed from the phrase “the first day of employment.”

Revisions to the list of acceptable documents:

What should you do?

The good news for recruiters is that most of the changes are relatively minor — there aren’t sweeping changes to what documents are acceptable or who is eligible to work in the U.S.

However, if not properly implemented, the new Form I-9 represents a risk for your organization.

According to an industry attorney at Jackson Lewis, 60 to 80 percent of paper I-9s are either missing, incomplete, or have errors. The number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) business site inspections and I-9 audits has increased dramatically in the past decade. And with the new administration’s focus on immigration compliance, more can be expected.

One way to mitigate a company’s risk is to ensure use of the latest Form I-9 for all new hires ahead of the September deadline. Beyond ensuring new hires provide proper documentation, it is essential that all teams that recruit and onboard employees understand the form basics.

Ultimately, a regular internal Form I-9 audit is best practice to achieve the following goals:

  1. Optimize – Companies are held accountable for errors on all I-9s in their database, regardless of whether an I-9 has already exceeded retention requirements. As you’re auditing your Forms I-9, purge those that have met retention requirements.
  2. Prioritize – Sort and prioritize your issues to help focus resources on the most critical issues or those easily corrected. The Departments of Justice and Homeland Security offered joint guidance to help employers perform an internal audit along with proper procedures for correcting errors and omissions.
  3. Digitize – Implementing an electronic I-9 management system can eliminate much of the confusion about acceptable documentation, improving the onboarding experience for new hires while also helping to mitigate risk. Electronic audit and remediation solutions can also efficiently and thoroughly review your entire I-9 archive for issues.

Why you need to pay close attention

In today’s global marketplace, understanding the requirements that affect candidates’ eligibility to live and work in the U.S. is an essential function for corporate recruiters and talent acquisition professionals.

Although the recently released changes to Form I-9 were relatively small, any update tends to cause confusion among both candidates and recruiters – and this latest round of revisions is unlikely to be the last

Job Ads – Are You Putting Lipstick on the Proverbial Pig?

Job ads can sometimes be a little confusing or oddly-worded.

To test out this theory, we removed geographic filters and did a search for sales jobs on various sites. The first one we got back read:

“Automotive Accounting Office.”

So far so good.

Then:

“If you are looking for a rewarding position and are work schedule reliable and can work independently as well as with team members then do not pass up this…”

What is “work schedule reliable?” It likely means some degree of flexibility to the job, sure, but does it mean you can essentially not come? “Do not pass up this” is maybe an unconventional way of communicating, too.

Now consider this:

“Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Credit Card Processing Sales.”

OK, sounds decent.

“$100,000-$150,000 per year.”

Wow, very nice.

And:

“Average sales agents earn $100,000+ annually. We pay an average of $1100 per deal and the average agent closes 2-3 deals per week, earning average weekly…”

Just wow on every front, right? Wordy and lots of math necessary. You almost could never believe this job would get you to $100,000 a year and the first thing you might want to do is run screaming from it, no?

The thing is: we’ve all seen these ads. In moments of desperation, we’ve potentially even applied to these ads. (One of our people at RD went day-drinking years ago in Minneapolis and applied to 250 “easy apply” ads in 1 hour. It wasn’t a good day.) 

It is worth remembering that, even on the best jobs, a poorly written job description will reduce the number of qualified applicants that apply for your job posting.  Job descriptions fitting this bill aren’t hard to find. Like:

“Business Development and IT Staffing – Work From Home.”

Nice deal, right?

“Must have existing relationship’s with executive level contacts for immediate leverage.”

You better have those existing relationships or don’t come in here … oh sorry, relationship’s.

The Surprising Thing is That It’s Not Necessarily Surprising

We’ve had research for years that job role and definition are often unclear within companies, which can lead to rushed (or rehashed) job descriptions and ads that don’t attract the best candidates possible.

This can seem like a basic topic, but it’s not. Effective job ads lead to effective hiring, and effective hiring leads to stronger corporate culture — which leads to a healthier bottom line. None of that is necessarily rocket science, but it is backed up by research around the idea of “total motivation,” or what factors drive employee productivity the most. (Hint: effective role design is about 2x more important than compensation.)

OK, now let’s say this: what if you could join a webinar, during work, where people snarkily took down job postings (fun) while also telling you how to make them better (productive)? Wouldn’t that be cool?

This job ad is not bad at all… In fact it’s pretty genius.

That Webinar That Your Mom Won’t Let You Watch

On September 12, RecruitingDaily will be hosting just such a webinar on epic job description fails seen on Indeed and other sites — and how to maximize your recruitment efforts on this most important platform. The webinar will be hosted by Ryan Leary, William Tincup, and Jackye Clayton, all of RD. We’ll be discussing:

  • How to maximize Indeed job ads
  • How to know when you’re doing a less-than-stellar job
  • Assessing your employer brand
  • Are you actually alienating the people you want, and attracting the ones you don’t?
  • How do you manage out this ecosystem?

It’ll be funny and informative, and we’d love to have you! 

You can sign up here for the webinar AND to receive a $50 sponsored ad credit courtesy of indeed!

 

Editor’s Note: This post was sponsored by Indeed, and RecruitingDaily received compensation for publishing this post. Now that we’ve got that disclaimer out of the way, we’d like to reiterate that tomorrow’s webinar is going to be awesome (and worth your time). If you’re posting job ads, writing job ads, or simply want a comical yet informative break in your day this is one hour you definitely can’t afford to miss.

Turning Lemons Into Lemonade: The Art of Managing Glassdoor Reviews

When a reporter from a national publication recently cited Glassdoor as a source for his story, it reminded me that the now more than 45 million visitors who flock to Glassdoor each month are more than just job seekers — they’re executives, potential investors, clients, prospects, competitors, and even the media.

Features such as the highly-regarded CEO rating tool and candid employee reviews on any of the 700,000 companies listed on Glassdoor reveal information that not only job candidates want to know, but also external stakeholders looking to learn more about your company before they make a deal, buy your product, or sign up for a service.

This increased interest in employee-rated websites should encourage co-ownership and accountability for Glassdoor between the C-Suite, HR, and marketing to implement strategies to respond, manage and maintain online reviews by:

  • Assessing and adjusting the key employee touch points that fuel negative online reviews;
  • Building a proactive social response strategy for negative reviews; and,
  • Creating guidelines to encourage positive reviews.

Make online reviews the last resort for venting

The vast majority of negative reviews we see posted on employee-review sites like Indeed, Glassdoor and Yelp, are likely to have been focused on common employee touch points.

For example, feedback such as “poor management,” “limited training,” or “low compensation” should be communicated during one-on-one management meetings, quarterly meetings, or exit interviews — if HR opens the doors of opportunity to employees.

Assess how you manage your key employee touch points that fuel negative online reviews and implement alternative outlets for employees to express their frustration, concern, and criticism before venting online.

But, you need to do more than just listen.

Whenever possible take decisive action and explain how you are addressing a particular situation via internal communications. Odds are, if one person is unhappy about an issue, there may be many more who feel the same way but just aren’t as vocal.

The more open you are about recognizing issues and sharing how they are being addressed, the more satisfied employees are likely to feel.

If you want to take it one step further, I’ve seen organizations use tools like Survey Monkey to set up anonymous questionnaires for employees who don’t feel comfortable giving their feedback openly. There are also companies such as HighGround that are focused on stronger employee engagement and overall experiences.

Regardless, Glassdoor should really be the last resort for past or current employees to vent.

A first responder social strategy

One of the reasons people flock to sites like Glassdoor and Indeed when researching a company is because they want to see negative reviews. While people like to hear the good, they also want to hear the bad (or the ugly) so they can get the real scoop on what current and/or past employees are saying about their work experience.

This is why Glassdoor doesn’t allow HR teams to delete negative posts, only flag the ones that you deem inappropriate, although Glassdoor has the final say as to whether or not they will take the post down. Typically, organizations flag posts that are untrue, or, multiple negative posts by the same employee who has multiple accounts.

To help manage the inevitable negative reviews, establish a monitoring and response strategy to address the reviews in a way that safeguards your brand.

On Glassdoor, current and past employees (as well as HR reps) are only allowed one review and one response per conversation to avoid any arguments (thank you, Glassdoor!). Make sure you’re receiving notification when someone posts to Glassdoor, or any online review site, so that you can respond promptly with a comment that supports your organization’s good intentions.

For example, respond by directly acknowledging the feedback and then leave an option for the person to contact the CEO (or appropriate person) to discuss their concerns further.

Prompt responses demonstrate an engaged employer who cares about what their current or past employees think and helps protect the employer brand. In fact, 62 percent of candidates agree that their perception of a company improves after seeing an employer respond to a review.

Use tools like Talent Tech Labs Ecosystem to keep track of all employee-rated sites so that you always have a pulse on the outlets individuals could be using to discuss their experience with your organization and you have the chance to respond back.

Don’t forget that Glassdoor is another social media platform — so treat it that way! Just as marketing teams create content specific for Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat, let them do the same for Glassdoor.

Sixty-nine percent of candidates are more likely to apply to a job if the employer actively manages its employer brand by responding to reviews, updating their profile and sharing updates on the culture and work environment.

So go ahead, post news on company happenings, blog posts, press releases, newsletters, awards, pictures and more to help grow candidate engagement and provide Glassdoor readers with content options beyond reading reviews to form their brand opinions.

How to encourage positive Glassdoor reviews

The average Glassdoor rating is 3.4 out of a 5-star ranking, but when it comes to managing your employment brand, average isn’t good enough to attract, retain and engage the individuals your company is looking for.

Remember: It only takes one negative comment to harm your brand and hit a nerve that can turn off candidates, potential clients, or investors.

Just as you assessed internal touch points as sources of negativity, you can also leverage them to get positive reviews. For example, identify employee touch points where positive reviews are likely to surface, such as one-on-one management meetings or leadership retreats, and encourage employees to share their positive experiences on Glassdoor.

The key here is to encourage, not push. While HR leaders may push employees to leave positive reviews in an attempt to bury the negative ones, candidates can easily read between the lines of a non-organic review or, even worse, former employees can call out the fact that HR pushes them to write positive reviews.

Let them know that your motive is to attract more people who value the same kind of experience they do.

Getting a bad online review can feel like a personal blow, but let’s be real — most companies get one from time to time. As leaders, we’re obligated to use this as an opportunity for HR and marketing to work together to build a stronger, more adaptive brand that values candid feedback, just like candidates do.

HR can leverage marketing to implement an employment brand management strategy that proactively addresses negative online reviews, while at the same time, organically increases the positive ones to attract, engage and retain the most qualified candidates.

It Takes a Little Tech to Give You a Win-Win on Candidate Engagement

The “recruiting is marketing and candidates are customers” mindset is driving interest in a traditionally overlooked aspect of the job search: candidate engagement.

There isn’t really an official definition for it, but candidate engagement generally refers to how responsive candidates are to a recruiter’s interactions and how positive they feel about their overall recruiting experience.

Candidate experience is supposed to be a top priority these days. A CareerBuilder survey found 82 percent of hiring managers view candidate experience as “very or extremely important.” Only 32 percent of candidates, however, rate their experience as “very good.”

Clearly, there’s a disconnect. That also means there’s a lot of room for improvement, but recruiters can’t tackle this problem on their own.

All kind of recruitment technologies are touted as solutions to recruiting’s problems but for candidate engagement, technology truly does have the potential to make a huge, positive difference.

Improved screening technology

One of the biggest complaints candidates have is how long it takes to hear back after submitting an application.

iCIMS found that a typical resume spends 38 percent of the time stuck in the screening phase, and a SHRM survey of recruiters found it takes an average of nine (9) days for them to even start screening candidates, let alone get back to them.

Since recruitment technology is generally designed to streamline or automate high-volume, repetitive tasks, using technology to speed up screening just makes a lot of sense. A new class of technology called AI for recruiting has emerged to solve this very problem.

Instead of recruiters spending dozens of hours per week manually reading resumes, this type of AI technology can learn what the job requirements are and automatically screen, grade, and shortlist candidates for the role.

This means you can get back to candidates days, even weeks, earlier. This avoids the hated drawn out job application timeline. As well, recruiters can avoid losing candidates to competitors due to an unnecessarily long process

Using technology to improve candidate engagement

A Software Advice survey found the top request from job seekers is more communication.

While job seekers still value a human touch first and foremost, they’re realistic they’re not always going to get it. Randstad found 82 percent of job seekers believe the ideal recruiting interaction is a mix between technology and personal, human connection.

Luckily, there are many technology tools that recruiters can use to improve communication.

Start off with the basics by using software that can automate communication as much as possible, whether it’s through email, SMS, or messaging. Make sure that even with your automated outreach, your messaging is personalized and sounds like a human.

Newer technologies such as chatbots are an intriguing innovation that promises to provide real-time interaction to candidates.

These recruiting chatbots can be used to collect information from candidates, ask screening questions, answer FAQs, and even schedule interviews with a human recruiter.

Whichever tools you choose to improve your candidate communication, keep in mind that even a brief interaction can create a positive impression. This means candidates will be more likely to re-engage with you in the future and share their positive reviews with others.

It’s a win-win for everyone.

A Lesson for Job Searchers, Courtesy of Colin Kaepernick

Mistakes are always forgivable if one has the courage to admit them

Bruce Lee

Wow, it’s Colin Kaepernick at McDonald’s. This is CRAZY!

I’m going to say it: I was a San Francisco 49ers fan. It started when one of my closest friends invited me to his house to watch football. Up until this time I was more of a baseball fan and knew little about the game.

Well, I remember watching the game with my Grandad when I would visit him in Yuma, but when longtime Coach Tom Landry was unceremoniously fired by the Dallas Cowboys, Granddad didn’t care to watch as much. Anyway, Dallas was always battling the 49ers and it was the 1980’s, so they were winning big.

I want to say, strictly speaking, that this post is not about the team or football. No, this post is about mistakes, about actions and causality. It just happens that the person I’m going to discuss used to be the 49ers quarterback, and his nonsensical actions cost him, more than likely, a spot on any team in the National Football League.

As Colin Kaepernick learned, actions have consequences

Whether you are into football or not, I’m pretty sure you have heard of Colin Kaepernick and how he refused to stand for the National Anthem. No, I’m not going there either. What I want to discuss are the primary actions that he took and the consequences he is now facing.

Colin Kaepernick decided one day to not stand for the National Anthem. I’m OK with that, and there is no law that says you have to stand, remove your cap (or helmet) and put your hand on your chest, ever. It’s what we do out of respect for our nation, our military, and our freedom.

He decided not to stand because of his feeling of social injustice for African Americans in the USA, although he later changed it to all people of color. He’s politically correct like that.

The controversial move got him what he wanted, which was media coverage so his message would get out. Being controversial to get a message out, sell an album, or a TV show, is nothing new to the world — just look at Beyonce or Lady Gaga. However, for every action there is a reaction and it’s pretty simple science.

Colin Kaepernick believed that other players on his team and throughout the league would kneel or sit with him. However, he was wrong and although other players have joined him by kneeling in protest, Colin currently is unemployed. His actions brought this upon him, and he only exacerbated the situation by saying to the press that he could care less if he played another game in the NFL.

Kaepernick opted out of his contract with the 49ers, and I, as many, thought he was going to go into full-time protest mode. He did not; he wanted a better deal and decided to try free agency.

As of this writing, Colin is not going to play football this year, if ever. Yes, actions meet reactions.

A reflection of your character

The lesson here is that it’s about how you handle yourself because your actions are a reflection of your character in the workplace. In this country, at least currently, you have the right to express yourself and you have freedom of speech, but this is a double-edged sword.

People have the right to disagree with you and disparage you for that very belief. You can be fired, not be hirable, and generally become a pariah in the industry where you have worked so hard to garner a reputation for excellence.

That’s what has happened to Colin Kaepernick.

NFL Hall of Famer Jim Brown came out recently scolding Colin for his actions and reminding him that you have an employer that pays you for the job you do. If you want to be an activist then become an activist. You don’t get it both ways.

As a historical side note, Jim Brown did just that in the 1970’s. He was arguably one of the greatest running backs EVER with the Cleveland Browns, and he left to be just what Colin said he was — an activist. Brown left money on the table to follow his passion to help his tribe and fight to make a better world. Good on you, Jim.

It’s simple, like pouring water into a glass. Think before you take that action. Sure, emotions can get the best of you, and ideas can set us off. I get that I really do, and that could be the reason I’m penning this post. Although this is a story more for the person looking for a job, I want to try and protect my tribe, especially the young ones.

Us old folks sort have a “been there, done that, got the t-shirt” type of attitude. I don’t want you to stumble and fall into the traps that I seemingly have been able to get out of.

In recruiting, many times we want to kneel down during a meeting in protest of an action by managers or candidates. We want to scream at our boss for not having our back when a candidate calls to complain because it’s our fault that they did not get the gig.

Yeah, like I said, I have lots of t-shirts.

Don’t do it, it’s not worth it, ever

Well Mr. Colin Kaepernick, I will say that you have accomplished two goals:

  1. You have voiced your opinion, and;
  2. You have continued a conversation that has been going on since well before the Civil War.

I applaud you for that, I really do. However, your actions were like serving me a steak with mushrooms and onions and a loaded baked potato on a used garbage lid.

Your story got lost in the controversy you created and that is sad. It could have been handled better. You should have called me because I would have mentored you on that.

That being said, yes Colin, I would like fries with my burger.

#zellerout

Diversity Hiring and Inclusion: From My Experience

I cringe at the notion that diversity is an economic driver, or that in order to grow a successful company you must hire diverse candidates.

Hiring a diverse candidate is a little bit like peeking through the glass at your local zoo and pointing out the that the lion would make your company recognized as a leader simply because you hired a lion.

Let’s call diversity hiring what it is at most companies: It’s BS. It’s about quotas, hitting numbers, getting funding, and running campaigns on Facebook about how the company loves to hire diverse candidates. And by the way, characterizing a new hire as “diverse” instead of recognizing their capabilities is fairly demeaning, too.

The unfortunate fact is that topics like diversity and inclusion, while massively important to building and scaling successful cultures, are often lip-serviced in organizations as “an HR thing” or “something we need to do.”

Diversity does drive economic growth, and yes, hiring diverse candidates will make your organization stronger, but only if you apply a purpose to the mission.

The business of diversity and lost meaning of Inclusion

Diversity and Inclusion are serious terms. They have real meaning, and in business they have real impact with deep ties to the bottom line. When executed with the right purpose, they create meaning.

But, diversity and inclusion do not mean the same thing. They are stand alone efforts that need each other to thrive.

Diversity is about mixing cultures and backgrounds and leveraging those cultures to share views from a variety of those backgrounds. Inclusion is different.

Inclusion is how the organization respects its employees, creating an environment that places equal value on ideas rather than job titles. You can think of inclusion a little bit like “psychological safety,” which Google research consistently finds to be present in top teams.

My Inclusion Experience – My days at Kenexa

It was 2009. I was two years into my Kenexa career when a day arose that forever changed how I work. A deep bellowing scream came barreling through the halls. It was Rudy Karsan, the founder and CEO of Kenexa, blowing through the halls screaming.

These were funny screams. He’d occasionally do things like this, which although seemingly intimidating at the time, was in the end a genius way to provide some blood flow in an otherwise routine day.

Rudy Karsan

He sat at my desk and said, “Ryan, what is on your desktop right now?” Followed by an awkward pause, he repeated, “What is on your desktop? Show me.”

I showed him. I had five tabs open across two monitors; Facebook, YouTube, BrassRing, Outlook and a now defunct add-on for text messaging through Google.

What the hell is this? Are you working? Show me how this is recruiting our people!

And so I did.

I walked our founder and CEO through the process of using YouTube, Facebook, and a text messaging app to recruit his next Java Developer.

The point here is that Rudy never cared who you were or what level you were within his organization. If you were there, he trusted your opinion.

A diverse employee population meant a more qualified workforce, and it fostered creativity. I spent the next eight years of my career supporting his mission, even through the Big Blue acquisition where I was given a six-character serial number to identify myself.

I felt empowered. There were no biases, no prejudices in his leadership. If you could talk, you had a voice.

3 articles that made me think deeper about diversity and inclusion 

Article 1: McKinsey on Why diversity matters

McKinsey research from January 2015 has shown that companies in the top quartile for gender or racial and ethnic diversity are more likely to have financial returns above their national industry medians.

McKinsey diversity Dividend

Companies in the bottom quartile in these dimensions are statistically less likely to achieve above-average returns.

Article 2: Diversity and Inclusion top the list of talent practices linked to stronger financial outcomes

Research by Josh Bersin has shown that companies committed to diversity had 2.5X higher cash flow per employee over a given three-year period than non-diverse companies had.

The numbers are there. So why don’t we necessarily care more?

One reason is that “we’ve always done it this way.” In the S&P 1500 about two years ago, more guys named “John” ran companies than females in total. While this is changing in terms of gender and race, much white-collar work is still dominated by white males. We’ve come far, but we have a long way to go.

Article 3: Silicon Valley cannot hire diverse candidates

Another reason is that the business climate of today is seemingly driven very much by Silicon Valley. It feels like every article about business advice cites a Silicon company (usually Google), and Silicon Valley has been lip-servicing diversity for years while still printing money.

Facebook, for example, is only 33 percent female (the U.S. population is about 51 percent female and 52 percent white. (YouTube is 61 percent white.) Black and Latino workers fill less than 5 percent of technical roles.

Remember the Google diversity memo which prompted headlines such as this doozy: Silicon Valley’s new technocrats still engage in old-school sexism (or Google Memo Completely Misses How Implicit Biases Harm Women.”)

Unwrapping the Core of Inclusion

Join us for our upcoming webinar with 3 recognized Diversity and Inclusion experts.

It’s moderated by Torin Ellis, diversity specialist and author of RIP The Resume, and will feature Nzinga Shaw, the first diversity & inclusion officer in NBA history (now with the Atlanta Hawks), as well as Amir Ashkenazi, a serial entrepreneur currently serving as founder and CEO of Uncommon Co.

The host and panelists here are experts in baking diversity and inclusion into a culture, from buy-in (i.e. some of the financial numbers above) to “living it” (making sure it’s not just something mentioned at all-hands meetings), and how it fits into your overall recruiting and talent management strategy.

I’m no expert on diversity, but these three are, so definitely register to learn about why this is important and how to make it work in your organization.

Diversity and Inclusion Webinar RecruitingDaily

 

.

.

Here’s What We REALLY Need to Do to Improve Recruitment Methods

I think there are a lot of things that are straight up broken with most companies. Probably No. 1 on any list should be the lip service/BS that we let into our hiring and recruiting processes.

Executives yelp, bellow, and screech from the rooftops about “the war for talent.” They need “A-Players.” And then, where do they root the process? Human Resources. Let’s do a little logic puzzle, LSAT style.

Most executives who run companies view HR as compliance, or, in reality, the “cover your ass” department. So here’s what happens: we claim people are important. We want the best people. And yet, we put recruitment methods in HR, where most execs ignore them.

See how this is a problem?

The other problem is this: A lot of people at the top of companies — “the key stakeholders,” if you will — tend to value these three Ps around the business:

  • Product;
  • Process;
  • Pricing.

But, here’s a fourth P: people.

Most stakeholders — ahem, “senior decision-makers” — do not care about people. They view them as interchangeable. Train someone? Pfft. What if they leave for a competitor?

Look, I realize employee loyalty is mostly dead. But if you hire someone, they will probably work with you for 18 months or more. In those 18 months, you are handing them some money that you’d probably rather keep for yourself. So let’s figure out a way to improve these recruitment methods, eh?

Recruitment methods: 2017 advice from GE

GE, however, is a successful, well-known company. Stands to reason their executives know a few things more than the average Sam or Joe walking among us knows, so that’s why this article — What This GE Exec Is Hiring For In 2017 (And Why)” — was interesting.

I won’t leave you in suspense. This executive in question built an entire plant and personnel in Cincinnati, and here’s what he hires around:

  • Can crunch/discuss data;
  • Humility;
  • Willingness to experiment;
  • Proof of promise, or “unconventionality.”

Whew. There’s a lot to discuss here. Let’s go one-for-one quickly.

Recruitment methods: Discussing data

So many less-than-stellar managers do this:

  • Tell everyone in a meeting, “We compete on data now!”
  • Subsequently change nothing about process or responsibility.
  • Everyone does exactly what they were doing before.

This doesn’t work. Data is important, although yes, many companies don’t know exactly how to get the right data or how to make money from it. That will evolve with time. (Hopefully.) But if you think you’re competing on data, you need to hire people who “get” it — or who are willing to learn about it.

Seems pretty simple, right? Most people miss this step about data entirely.

Recruitment methods: Humility

I’ll keep this section short. If you promote assholes and hire assholes, you create a culture of assholes.

That’s not fun.

Recruitment methods: Willingness to experiment

I watched a documentary on FDR a few weeks ago. One of the good lines in there? He said to people all the time,

Doesn’t matter if the new stuff you’re doing is failing — it matters that you’re trying new stuff.”

In 2017, that line is more true than ever. Who the hell knows what augmented reality is or how it benefits a B2B widgets company? 87,391 “thought leaders” just raised their hands, but the answer is this: no one knows.

You gotta experiment. You gotta fail.

While it’s hard to screen for “willingness to experiment” in interviews, this needs to be one of your recruitment methods.

Recruitment methods: Unconventionality

Here’s a solid quote from the article linked above:

For example, one Cincinnati team member is currently part of the human-resources leadership program but started out in finance and audit. Despite an unconventional background, we helped this person transition to HR because of their strengths and interest in managing human capital and recruiting new talent. Another great example: an electrical engineer who started out building engines in our aviation business moved onto project management after showing a knack for understanding the larger supply chain.

And now we come to the first problem with most recruitment methods.

The inherent issue with recruitment methods

We recruit around silos or functional expertise. We let aimless middle managers bellow about headcount, then allow them to toss HR under a freight train when the hire doesn’t work out.

Meanwhile, someone meows about a “skills gap.” It’s all often completely meaningless politics designed to make yourself look good and someone else look bad.

Because of this low-priority, silo-based hiring, this quote above is nearly impossible in most places. Someone could clearly be a great project manager, but if they came in via email marketing or Ops, most of the time that’s where they gotta stay.

Recruitment methods aren’t rooted in potential growth — for the person or the company. They are rooted in silos and salary bands. How many times have you seen a job description that says where the job could evolve to in five years? Let me answer that for you: never. You have never seen a job description like that, because largely they do not exist.

In short, recruitment methods are usually static path progressions or bullet point skill needs. Problem is: “static” doesn’t work in a “dynamic” business world. Right?

How could we improve recruitment methods?

Let me toss out a few ideas off the top of my dome:

  • Move it out of HR: It needs to reside in a place that executives care about.
  • Create financial metrics related to bad hires and turnover: If execs see themselves getting hit in the wallet/bonus, they will care more.
  • Automate it less: Recruiting should be a human process, but somehow we’ve moved away from that.
  • Try to measure curiosity: Job descriptions literally change by the week at some companies. You need curious people to navigate through that.
  • Get hiring managers to create 1-pagers: Rather than a series of no-context meetings, force hiring managers to write a high-context 1-pager on what they need for the role — and why they need it. Financial metrics must be included.
  • Change the interview questions: Most interview questions are a total farce and do nothing to teach you about the candidate. Ask better questions. Here’s one example.
  • Focus on a better job role and definition: I can’t even on this topic, so read this.
  • Utilize People Analytics: In short, use data to make recruitment methods better. It’s possible!

Is there anything else you’d add here to improve recruitment methods?