Blog

Email Is Dead, Learn How CDW Leverages Text Recruiting

Email Is Dead, Learn How CDW Leverages Text Recruiting

Remember how exciting it was to send and receive an email?  Remember the feeling of being able to connect almost instantly without having to pick up the phone or use the Post Office?

Nowadays you have to be innovative and ahead of the game when it comes to recruiting.  What can you do to stand out and stay on top? How do companies like CDW stay ahead of the game when it comes to candidate behavior?

Well – you can find out by joining us on May 9 at 2pm EST.

CDW is a leading multi-brand technology solutions provider to business, government, education and healthcare organizations in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. A Fortune 500 company with multinational capabilities, CDW was founded in 1984 and employs approximately 8,500 coworkers. For the year ended December 31, 2016, the company generated net sales of nearly $14 billion.

Join CDW Innovative Talent Acquisition Leader, Jared Bazzell and RecruitingDaily President, William Tincup, as they give us a behind the scenes look at this fascinating company.

You will learn:

  • How To Optimize Candidate Communications
  • The Case for Going Mobile
  • How CDW Leverages Text Recruiting
  • The Basics Of Text Recruiting – Inside CDW’s SMS Strategy

And so much more!  See you there!

 

About the Presenters:

Jared is the Innovative Talent Acquisition Leader at CDW.  With a proud history of innovative program management, strategic planning, and strong partnership development, he helps industry-leading organizations put in place the programs that deliver amazing results.  He optimizes the processes, strategies, and vision of the CDW Campus Recruiting Program to help attract the next generation of account managers and inside sales professionals. Working closely with their college and university partners, he helps to find the right emerging talent for their entry-level and internship programs.

William is the President of RecruitingDaily. At the intersection of HR and technology, he’s a Writer, Speaker, Advisor, Consultant, Investor, Storyteller & Teacher. He’s been writing about HR related issues for over a decade. William serves on the Board of Advisors / Board of Directors for 17 HR technology startups. William is a graduate of the University of Alabama of Birmingham with a BA in Art History. He also earned an MA in American Indian Studies from the University of Arizona and an MBA from Case Western Reserve University.

The Five: Tools that Will Simplify Your Job

Recruiting can be a time-consuming endeavor. Cold calling for new business, posting jobs on boards, sourcing candidates, reviewing hundreds of resumes and conducting screening interviews can take up a huge chunk of your day.

That’s why efficient recruiters use technology to their full advantage. By integrating the latest tools into your daily workflow, you save yourself the headache that comes from some of the repetitive tasks a recruiter must perform. But more importantly, you save yourself time, allowing you to focus your attention on other tasks.

Here’s a list of five tools that will simplify your job.

1. ContactOut 

There are many tools that allow you to source emails for hiring managers and candidates alike. These tools, most of which are Chrome extensions, display all known email addresses for a person when you visit their social profile. But not all of these tools are created equally.

The accuracy of the results (sending an email that bounces back sucks!) and the cost per e-mail provided are the most relevant benchmarks and on those two metrics, ContactOut is way ahead of the competition. With 100 free credits per day and a promise that they can find 2x more emails than their competitors (a claim that is backed up by my personal experience), ContactOut is clearly the leading tool in this space.

simplify your job

2. OpenCATS 

An applicant tracking system (ATS) is a tool that allows you to track the progress of a candidate as they move through your process from application to hire. However, in spite of the usefulness of this software, many recruiters don’t use one, preferring to manage their candidates in a spreadsheet.

While there are a few reasons that a recruiter may forego a formal ATS, the most commonly cited is often the price. An ATS typically costs a minimum of $50/month, so it is not hard to see why some prefer to spend those dollars elsewhere. That’s where OpenCATS can help. It is a free and open source ATS that is used by thousands of recruiters. While it may not have the world’s prettiest interface, the price is right, and the fact that is open source means that it constantly receives new features from the development community.

simplify your job3. Calendly

One of the tasks that takes up way too much time for a recruiter is scheduling calls. How many times have you sent an e-mail with your availability, only to receive a response that none of the times work? The simplest way to solve this problem is a scheduling tool that integrates with your online calendar.

Calendly is one that is known for its ease of use (it has a dead simple user interface) and rock-solid integration with all popular calendars like those provided by Google and Outlook 365. All you need to do is link your calendar with Calendly, and it gives you a link that you can email to anyone so that they can book any open times in your calendar. The paid version even allows for integrations with tools such as GoToMeeting and many CRMs.

4. Odro 

Video interviews should be simple in 2017, but it’s surprising how often they’re not. Asking a technophobe to install a tool with video conversation capabilities like Skype can result in an hour of banging your head against the keyboard while you politely try to walk them through what seems like an impossible task.

This is where Odro stands out. It is marketed as online meeting software for the Luddites of the world. While not specifically designed for the recruiting market, Odro serves it well nonetheless with its ability to perform video interviews with no downloads or installs.

5. Data Miner 

One of the most challenging parts of a recruiter’s job is sourcing candidates. Of course, there are the usual tools like LinkedIn, but many top tier candidates do not have profiles, so they are virtually invisible to the amateur sourcer. That’s where Data Miner comes into play.

Data Miner is a data scraping tool. In short, it allows you to go to a site and grab a huge amount of data in a limited amount of time. How does this work in practice? Let’s say you want to hire a highly skilled JavaScript developer but you’ve tapped out your network and it doesn’t seem like anyone on LinkedIn is interested in the role. You can find a list of attendees for a JavaScript conference, scrape the data with Data Miner and upload it to your CRM or ATS. Boom! An instant list of qualified candidates.

It should be clear now how valuable using software tools can be to your recruiting processes. If these five aren’t enough and you want some more, check out this list of 70+ tools for recruiters.

 

About Our Author: Zack Gallinger is the founder of a website design and marketing company, Talent Hero Media, that focuses exclusively on the recruiting and staffing industry. It is the company’s mission to build websites and develop marketing campaigns that help recruiters find more clients and place more applicants. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

 

 

 

The Week That Was 4.4.17: CareerBuilder, Crelate, Bullhorn, Snapchat

Every Friday in case you missed it, ‘The Week That Was” is your weekly recruiting news update. AKA All you need to know about anything that matters in recruiting. We go out to the interwebs and gather interesting and insightful recruiting news we will interest you. This week we learned you can apply for a job in a snap, email hunting just got even easier, Crelate is rolling in dough and Bullhorn is sharing the love.

 

Word of the Week:

Workavoidic – Procrastinator; one doing their best at not doing what they are supposed to be doing. The opposite of  workaholic.

Tweet of the Week:

 

Tool of The Week:  ProspectWorx

ProspectWorx lets you find and engage prospects anywhere. Let’s say you found the perfect target account on your Twitter feed. In just a few clicks you can add them directly to your campaign. We will find their email address and start a drip marketing campaign and support it with ABM display advertising to ensure your message gets heard. Below Dean DaCosta shows us his favorite ProspectWorx features.

Click here to try ProspectWorx for yourself!

 

1,000,000,000

According to Reuters, Private equity firm GTCR LLC is in exclusive talks to acquire U.S. job-hunting website CareerBuilder LLC for more than $1 billion, according to people familiar with the matter, in what would be the latest deal in the online recruitment sector. CareerBuilder generated revenues from its subscription offering of $162 million in 2016, up 8 percent from 2015, according to regulatory filings.

The vast majority of its revenue is in the United States. CareerBuilder has been expanding into new areas in recent years. Last year it bought Aurico, a background screening and drug testing service for an undisclosed sum. It also acquired a 75-percent stake in WorkTerra, a maker of software for benefits and compliance. Tegna has said that any proceeds from a sale of CareerBuilder would provide it with “even further financial flexibility.” Um… Yeah…

 

Snap Yo Fingers

Yes, my friends, candidates can now apply for a job using Snapchat. McDonald’s is doing away with the traditional job application and instead, asking wannabe burger flippers to apply using Snapchat instead. It’s created a McDonald’s themed lens so Australian job seekers can virtually try on the uniform and send a 10-second video “snaplication”.  If y’all read TWTW last week, you already know Australia is totally winning. Pretty darn cool.But this isn’t really a technological breakthrough, it is just a new use for the existing tool. I mean, it is awesome that companies have the opportunity to be completely biased and reject people in 10 seconds based on how they look in the uniform without ever having to meet with them. Neat. Read more by clicking here…

 

recruiting news update

Dolla Bills Y’all

Crelate, a startup with offices in Bothell, Wash. and Bethesda, Md., has closed a $1.2 million investment round led by the Alliance of Angels. We first started looking late October. What is great about Crelate is that it has the Candidate Relationship Management (CRM) piece built into the Applicant Tracking System (ATS.) It has all of the functionality that recruiters have been complaining about not having. As a bonus, with a starting cost of $55 per recruiter per month, it is pretty affordable. With this new funding, the first thing they are going to is to bring on Clint Simon as CTO according to GeekWire. Wish them luck y’all. If you want to demo the product, click here.

recruiting news update

 

Grab the Bull by the Horns

Bullhorn®, the cloud computing company that helps staffing and recruiting organizations transform their businesses, today announced its Developer Partner Program and its Open Source Portal to extend the power of its platform, enabling technology partners to create incredible customer experiences by deploying innovative solutions for enterprise staffing firms. The Developer Partner Program and Open Source Portal allow technology partners to leverage Bullhorn’s platform extensibility to facilitate growth and consistency and let developers integrate into Bullhorn through its open application programming interfaces (APIs).

I hope you enjoy “The Week That Was.” If you do, let me know in the comments below. And remember, we love you.

Oh, The Places You’ll Go: How You Can Reinvent Your Sourcing Career.

 

“If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called research.”

       – Albert Einstein

If you work with talent, you may hold the role of “sourcer.” That’s what most of you do, right?

You spend days and nights honing your tradecraft. People around you get what you do. They respect and admire your work. Career advancement awaits you…or does it?

Maybe.

Future progress assumes that sourcing presents a career path that you embrace. Let’s take a look at your logical next steps:

1. Promotion to a more senior version of yourself;

2. Promotion to leadership in sourcing;

3. Shift into full cycle recruiting, or some other area of HR; or

4. Change corporate hats, but still do one of the above.

Do you spot a pattern? Roles change, but the theme remains the same. You’re moving, but those gigs will not push your research knowledge to any momentous next level.

If that is enough, then that’s great, and good luck.But what if you do a full stop, reflecting on your core motivations and interests? You may have the following epiphany:

What you love is not “finding people and information” for recruiting purposes? What you actually love is just “finding stuff out?”

Imagine that.

A Great Day For Up: Sourcing Skills Aren’t Limited to HR and Recruiting.

You’re passionate about research. You love sleuthing out information, grasping complex subjects, knowing where to go and what to do with findings. But right now, that all anchors to staffing and HR.

You could drop out of the workforce and go back to study library science. Perhaps you could do an MBA; there are lots of research topics in an MBA to build your chops. Options abound for continuing education.

But what if “more school” isn’t an option? What else can you do?

How else might you parlay your passion, curiosity, creativity and experience into an all new professional (and personal) identity?

Is that even possible?

Who even knows what “sourcing” is beyond HR and recruiting?

The answer may surprise you.

What you do is not as relevant as how you do what you do.

Does that make sense?

Organizations and people with interest in research will instinctively reason through the mechanics of your role. The work you do matters, but it’s less relevant than how you approach your role.

People who live and breathe “finding stuff out” may have more interest in how you phrase topics in research, how you manage execution, or your methods and tools.

Most of all, they will want to know if you are naturally curious and imaginative in such a way that you are malleable. That will allow them to repurpose and develop you in support of their agenda.

Thing One: Researching How To Find Stuff Out (And Why It Matters).

Believe it or not, if you are great at doing research, you may have more career portability than anybody else out there. Research is research is research.

Get it? Got it? Good.

…and we’re gonna talk about that last point.

First, some background. Research and competitive intelligence are central themes in my 20+ year career.

That goes back to my early days in the equity research library at Fidelity through my post-MBA days and my current consulting life.

Much of what I do is just “find stuff out.”

Those who know me or have seen me speak at conferences understand that my passion is human capital research. At a basic level, that means understanding who does what in this world and then talking to them. Doing that involves comprehending organizations, markets, products, plans, people and other information.

Can you teach that depth of research to anybody who is good at “finding things out?” As an example, if you are awesome at sourcing engineers, can you learn to investigate the markets for pharmaceuticals, renewable energy or consumer products?

Maybe even learn how to model the networks and actors that shape those markets? Maybe absorb training to probe those human sources in a way that produces information that does not exist on the interwebs?

I am convinced that is possible. In fact, that is what I set out to prove ages ago.

Over the past decade, while consulting for a living, I’ve been writing and editing a project that will soon live online at TheG2.com. It is comprehensive research training material that revolves around human capital research. It encompasses market and organization research, human source research and profiling, network mapping of those people and organizations, and a host of other topics.

That includes the secretive mechanics of elicitation in intelligence gathering projects.

But how did this creation get from the beginning to the end?

Birthing TheG2 anchors to my insatiable curiosity to understand how other people “like me” find stuff out. That means, in a literal way, if you love “finding stuff out,” what else might you be doing for a living? For what kind of organization? And what’s different about what you do, and why does it work in that context?

That line of inquiry took me all over the place. It involved probing investment researchers, journalists, marketers, law enforcement, psychologists, hackers, private investigators…the list goes on and on. And – no joke – it even includes the approaches that magicians take to find things out.

Did that include talking to sourcers? Of course. That’s why you’re reading this column.

Get On Your Way: How To Source A Career Outside of Sourcing.

It may sound crazy, but there are so many consistent themes with all these people. That’s why I urge you to contemplate what else you can do were you to leave “sourcing” behind in favor of a career about “finding stuff out.”

To illustrate all this, let’s explore a handful of approachable careers and industries.

Since you all know how to find job descriptions for these positions, let’s stick with conceptual introductions. The focus here is why these roles may make sense.

1. Retained Executive Search Consulting.

This is the most relevant of all these choices. These are small to large firms that get paid big money to find top executives for companies, independent of outcomes. That means they do not generate contingent fees. Rather, they charge hefty sums for their process.

A huge piece of that process is “research excellence.” It is, in fact, a major selling point during their pitches and the way they try to differentiate themselves.

Research here blends elements of sourcing with other areas of market research and mapping. There’s lots of client-facing reporting as well, and some people do it as a stepping stone to the consulting side.

2. University Development, Fundraising & Donor Profiling.

All nonprofits place particular emphasis on fundraising. Beyond the kids from your alma mater who hustle you for 25 bucks yearly, there is another world in here. It is the vast realm of donor and prospect profiling.

The work goes beyond basic profiling of people to encompass asset modeling and estimation, plus research in support of fundraising campaigns. It’s like doing well by doing good. Oh, and in big universities and nonprofits, the pay and visibility for these positions can be outstanding.

3. Journalism Research and News Rooms Fact Checkers.

Behind every great news story, there are researchers generating crucial insight. They span all topics of coverage. Alongside this are the fact-checkers, the researchers who do the critical work of checking material to withstand factual scrutiny, amongst other things.

Every major news organization uses these folks. That means print, online, television and elsewhere. It can be a tentpole function in some newsrooms.

As an example, ever heard of Julie Tate at the Washington Post? She’s a former fact checker turned researcher who has been a part of 9 Pulitzer Prize winning entries. Do you need a degree in journalism?

Nope.

4. Corporate and Special Libraries.

Yes, actual libraries. These things are everywhere! You will find a research library team inside every major corporation, hedge fund, investment firm and beyond. Don’t believe me?

Take a look at the Special Libraries Association at www.sla.org. If you are excellent at finding stuff out, you should be able to penetrate this landscape by trading years of experience in lieu of an advanced degree in library science (MLS), though an MLS helps.

This is where companies ranging from P&G to Big Pharma turn when they need more research. They go to their corporate libraries or “info centers.”

5. Corporate Marketing and Market Research.

When companies make plans to develop or deliver a product or service to market, they begin with actionable research. Marketing executives do this, product managers do this, and so do the many market research professionals around them. Titles vary, but they all anchor to research.

You may be sizing a foreign market, uncovering distribution networks, foraging for information on components, it is quite infinite. The theme is still just finding stuff out. And no, you do not need an MBA to crack this field.

On a related note, there’s the parallel world of “market research consulting.” This includes firms like Forrester, Gartner and countless others. They do much of the same work but from the sidelines of industry. It is fascinating, and their diverse clients may present high interest to career research professionals who enjoy tackling new subjects.

6. Knowledge Management (KM).

The “KM” function is a big deal in fields like management consulting. It is also a big deal in the rest of industry. One way to think about this is like the other side of research. That is about what we do with what we know, how we capture knowledge, and how we exploit it for myriad purposes. That summary does not do it justice, but it will have to work.

For those with a passion for research, that enthusiasm bears relevance. In most cases, if you have experience managing research, including its outcomes and findings, then you may already understand basic principles of KM.

7. Competitive Intelligence (CI).

As a corporate function, these are often small teams with a singular focus on finding things out and acting on those findings. Competitive Intelligence places tremendous emphasis on market monitoring, mapping, source profiling, open source intelligence, vendor management and on and on.

I live in this market on the consulting side, so my work also involves making direct calls to elicit information from human sources. The work is never the same. It is rigorous, and it is stimulating. While many in the field come with an MBA, your passport does not need that stamp.

8. Business Development, Lead Generation, and Prospect Profiling.

When organizations intend to separate prospects from money, they try to arm themselves with as much information as possible.

They might be in a shoot out with a competitor and need a researcher to build a “battle card” to compare offerings. They might need researchers to find prospects doing X in some key industry or location.

Information needs vary, and they depend on what the company makes and sells. The constant theme is that research is what makes lead generation and profiling possible.

Without it, they’re just guessing.

Extra Credit: Other Options for Reinventing Your Sourcing Career.

That list above is far from exhaustive. But those are several career ideas that present low or approachable barriers to entry. Are there other great choices?

Definitely, but many assume special knowledge, like medical research, or may require licensing, like becoming a Private Investigator. I’d rather see you pursue actionable and achievable alternatives that can effect change soon, not years from now.

Whoa. Did you read all the way to the end of this article? My sincere hope is that it prompts you to stop and rethink upcoming choices you make in your professional life. No, I don’t mean quit sourcing, if it’s what you love to do.

But if what you truly love is just finding stuff out, then consider alternative paths that will take your research chops to a whole new level.

Oh, and if you for some reason you try and then fail, try again.

About the Author:

David Carpe lives with his wife, kids, and a gaggle of dogs by a farm north of Boston. He spends his free time wrapping up www.theg2.com, a new kind of “human capital research” training program. His daily work life involves researching, analyzing and engaging people, places, and things to inform business decisions.

He has done this for big brands, consulting firms, and startups like Microsoft, Serono, the Gates Foundation, McKinsey, Fuld, TiVo, Turn, PGP, comScore and many others.

He has also provided expert commentary to diverse pubs ranging from the WSJ, Fortune, Wired and The New York Times to the Boston Globe, Chronicle of Philanthropy and CFO (and even Maxim!).

Follow David on Twitter @PassingNotes or connect with him on LinkedIn.

Dirty Deeds: Why Recruiters Should Care About Reputation Management.

During a job search, having an interaction with a recruiter that’s actually somewhat positive, professional or productive can feel a little like walking into a bathroom at a gas station and finding that behind the trash, flies and vagrants loitering directly outside, the bathroom is actually immaculately clean, well stocked and smells vaguely like lavender.

You don’t have really high hopes that you’re going to walk away from anything that can only be accessed via a key that’s elaborately jerry rigged, MacGyver style, and even more rarely do you feel even a little OK about being unlucky enough to find yourself in a situation where you have to ask the guy at a gas station for the damned thing in the first place.

Going to a gas station bathroom, like searching for a job, is a situation most people don’t really want to be in, and if they’re unlucky enough to find themselves really requiring relief from their current situation (employment or otherwise), then you fully expect the experience is going to suck.

When you’re out of options, you have to suck it up and do what you’ve got to do. Every once in a while, you find a recruiter – or a restroom – that defies both your experience and expectations. That’s not the case in this story.

I Hate Myself For Loving You.

 

No, this story is, in fact, the recruiting equivalent of pulling off the highway and discovering that the remote rest station bathroom that’s the only option for miles has one broken toilet, a wet floor and no paper towels or toilet paper anywhere in sight – it reeks of shit. Now that I’ve set such a lovely scene, let me tell you what went down.

So. I was eating lunch one day, poking around the various social apps on my phone, when I spotted a job post from a recruiter on LinkedIn about a position that actually sounded like it could have some promise and enough potential to pursue, based on the title and location, which perfectly matched what I was looking for.

This happens rarely enough for me to get excited just long enough to realize that title and that location were, in fact, the only details listed on the job description, which had been posted by an agency recruiter identified only on the JD as “Eunice.”

C’mon, Eunice. If you’re an agency recruiter named Eunice whose recruiting strategy pretty much begins and ends with a basic LinkedIn account, it is a safe assumption that you are very likely one of the best and the brightest minds in recruiting today.

This is why I figured that if I shot Eunice a message asking whether or not my profile looked like a possible match for the position she had posted, I assumed that since the invariably vague titles in talent acquisition and HR tend to be pretty broad and have little logic or reason (or accuracy, for that matter) across our industry, she would have no problem reviewing my profile to see if there was a potential fit.

No biggie, right? I mean, what, it takes 30 seconds, tops?

Cherry Bomb.

I know now I was being naive, and have learned the error of my ways the hard way. You see, I’ve discovered that even though good old Eunice had blasted the posting to her extended LinkedIn network (we shared a few connections).

Even though she asked in the message accompanying the posting if anyone knew anyone who would be a good fit (and to send them her way, in fact), I had erred by committing as egregious a sin, as unforgivable and inexcusable a faux pas as one possibly can as a candidate.

You see, Eunice asked for interested applicants to e-mail her (these were “instructions,” as she later informed me, not a suggestion).

I did not email Eunice, and would regret that decision as soon as she actually called me to talk about the position, which began with an admonishment about my inability to follow “instructions,” since, you know, I didn’t send her an email (guilty as charged).

Nope, see, I made the assumption that since Eunice was part of my LinkedIn network, and she was posting a job there asking connections like me for assistance in filling a req she was working on, that it only made sense to contact her…on LinkedIn. So, I left a comment and left her my contact details right there, figuring that was probably the easiest way to throw my hat in the ring. If I wasn’t the right fit, then no harm, no foul, right?

This strategy seemed pretty logical, at least to me. But of course, logic has nothing to do with recruiting, which is why Eunice’s initial recruiting call immediately segued into her telling me that I was egregiously overstepping my boundaries by daring to inconvenience Eunice by not following her “instructions.”

She told me – and, being an agency recruiter, I have to assume she is also an expert on online etiquette – that sharing my career information on her posting (albeit one that appeared on a ginormous database used almost exclusively for professional purposes), was out of line.

How dare I overstep my boundaries by using her promotional post to promote myself?

After her tirade (hey, at least she said “hello,” first), she stopped, took a deep breath and after a long pause, asked me if I understood why this was not only an inconvenience for her, but also, a major mistake for me, the job seeker.

Did I understand?

Victim of Circumstance.

I thought for a minute, then replied to Eunice that, no, in fact, I had no idea what the hell she was talking about.

I mean, it was my understanding that LinkedIn exists primarily so that you can share your professional profile with contacts, connections and companies (and the public at large). It is also my understanding that the same site is also extensively used by recruiters to source and screen people to fill open positions, engage with potential candidates and drive referrals. I was clearly way off.

I had even heard that some recruiters even post open jobs to LinkedIn, right there on their profiles, as a status update. Recruiters like Eunice, right?

So when she called and led off our conversation by giving me a severe scolding, I most decidedly had no idea WTF she was talking about or why she targeted me for this little tirade. But when she asked if I understood, I swallowed my indignation, apologized, and made up some excuse about my lack of savvy when it comes to social.

If you’re looking for a job, you have to play the game by their rules, no matter how asinine or misinformed those “rules” (er, “instructions,” as Eunice would call them) may be.

So you do the dance, try to get past the gatekeeper and say what they want to hear, not what you wish you could tell them, which, in Eunice’s case, would probably not have been pretty.

So, still reeling from the lecture and admonishment she led off the call with, I decided it wasn’t in my best interests to just hang up after giving her a piece of my mind, like I was so, so tempted to do. Instead, I decided to subject myself to the painful process of Eunice continuing our conversation with an intense interrogation about WTH I’d been doing during my time on Earth.

She seemed quite perturbed as I tried to explain why I wasn’t currently working, why there were gaps on my resume and why my recent career trajectory was so sporadic these past few years.

She never said it outright, but I could tell she was screening me to figure out what, exactly, was wrong with me (and if she could explain it to her clients, no doubt).

Trust me. I know from experience that having a non-traditional career path may generate a little bit of confusion, and that the road less travelled is the one recruiters generally avoid taking when it comes to considering candidates.

I responded to Eunice’s interrogation with a plethora of prepared and well rehearsed answers to the countless questions she had about my seemingly infinite inadequacies and sundry shortcomings, just like I had to with most recruiters who probed into my professional history and profile.

For some reason, though, it felt different with Eunice on the other end of the phone.

Bad Reputation.

Even though she wasn’t asking any questions I hadn’t heard before, it was the way in which she asked and responded to them that made me feel like the subject of one of those random, ridiculous online controversies that pop up seemingly every day, fueled by misleading headlines, false assumptions, unfounded accusations and a scandal driven more by soundbites and screenshots than substance.

You know what they say about assumptions, right? Well, let’s just say, Eunice had a lot of assumptions about my life decisions and whether or not blue chip companies like her clients should even deign to consider someone like me (which is to say, whether she had a shot in hell in making a placement fee off of me).

I felt violated, frustrated and, well, angry by her line of questioning, but resigned myself to the situation, optimistic that her unwarranted animosity and adversarial treatment would soon pass. I sensed she was simply testing me, that if I was patient and polished and professional, she’d realize I could handle her hiring manager, she’d lay the hell off, and we’d both have a good laugh about it at the end of the hiring process.

That was a nice thought, but a fleeting one. Because Eunice abruptly interrupted me to inform me that since all she had was my LinkedIn profile, she would need me to send her a resume before we continued our conversation, since it was too difficult for her to screen me without having a traditional CV in her records.

Eunice felt she couldn’t figure out what I’d done or what I was about without seeing it on paper (profiles didn’t do), so there was no point in talking more until I could send her my resume – and was there any chance I could do that while she had me on the line? I told her while I did have a recent copy, I wasn’t able to access it immediately.

Could it wait, I asked? She laughed, replied that it could, but the job and client couldn’t (nor would she), and reiterated she would be moving on if I didn’t move on getting her a copy of my resume right now.

Make Believe.

Hold up, I thought. I was still unsure if speaking any further even made any sense. Why would I send my resume into someone who clearly didn’t respect me in any way, treated me like crap and saw me as an inconvenience to be overcome rather than a placeable candidate.

Which, even after all of this, I was still unsure of myself, since she hadn’t shared any basic details about the role to this point, and asked if she could fill me in before a peon like me wasted any more of Eunice’s precious time, since she was clearly a busy woman with more important things to deal with than candidates like me.

After some hemming and hawing, turns out that the title and location on the post were about the only things Eunice did know about the job – she could tell me the salary range, rattled off a few buzzwords about what the company was looking for and some superlatives about the “opportunity” and her client.

Eunice seemed to lose her patience when I asked for clarification, particularly since the salary they were offering was well below market rate for the role; it was on the low end of my expectations, and I told her so. I had hoped that she would respond by listing the other considerations that made up for the significantly low salary that would entice me to consider the position.

You know, that whole “recruiting” thing that recruiters have to do sometimes – that was all I wanted from her. Was that really too much to ask after Eunice had already subjected me to her full wrath and intense interrogation prior to telling me she had no details other than the position paid peanuts? I mean, surely she had some sort of schtick.

Once again, I had overestimated Eunice. Instead, she rudely admonished me, insisting THAT job title listed was set in stone, and THAT compensation package was what the company was willing to pay for it, period.

Of course, there’s no continuity or consistency with job titles in the talent acquisition and management profession, so I thought it made sense to make sure that we were aligned on job function and expectations while we were already speaking. You know, just make sure we were on the same page before deciding whether or not it was a fit (I had a suspicion that it wasn’t worth pursuing, but she worked for an agency, so I wanted to make sure I was doing my due diligence, too).

Normally, when candidates don’t ask follow up questions, recruiters interpret this as a lack of interest. In her case, she took it as a personal affront that I was overstepping my bounds as a candidate.

Eunice suddenly snapped, told me that she needed my resume and rather than speak to all my concerns right now, we should discuss once she had that document in hand. I thought she was offering something like a second chance after our disastrous first encounter, and despite my better judgement, I decided I was willing to give Eunice one, too.

She asked me about availability, told me she could only do tomorrow, and I suggested (reluctantly) we set aside some time to talk at 1 PM. She obnoxiously responded that she was three hours ahead, and we had different 1 PMs. This, friends, is big data in action – so, I tried to clarify I was referring to 4 PM her time, 1 for me in the PST.

Yes, she understood, she said, her tone implying that my suggesting that this choice was an imposition. Trying to help, I asked if there was a better time for her. She just sighed, said that she just wanted to get through our conversation, and that she’s somehow make that time work, even though it was Pacific Time and later than she normally did phone screens. As a courtesy to me.

Yeah, right.

You Don’t Own Me.

Dreading the thought of a repeat performance the next day, before we hung up I told Eunice that even if I sent my resume, it didn’t tell a whole lot more information about my background, experience or professional history that wasn’t already in my LinkedIn profile – the latter, in fact, is far more descriptive and has much more information than the 1-2 pages you get on a traditional resume.

As tactfully as I could, I inquired about her maybe referencing that profile in lieu of me sending a resume, which was essentially just a separate, abbreviated version of the same qualifications. I mean, if she wanted to know more about me, why did she want less information about me, when she already had a comprehensive work history that was a close enough match to get her to pick up the phone, even after my LinkedIn faux pas.

Her response, again, was something that sounded like a mix of disgust and condescension – but this time she didn’t even try to hide how she really felt about me. Eunice suddenly asked, “wait, don’t you have bullet points in you resume?”

I assured her that yes, I did – but that was a minor formatting difference. I reiterated I wanted to be respectful of her time, and didn’t think having a whole other conversation about my resume made sense since we’d just had one about my LinkedIn profile.

I was willing to do so if needed, but didn’t want to waste any more of Eunice’s time, since she had stated earlier that she needed the position filled as quickly as possible, and hadn’t even figured out whether or not I was a candidate yet, even after a pretty extensive (albeit one sided) conversation.

I know. Ridiculous, right?

You Don’t Know What You’ve Got.

The audacity that any candidate would try to be respectful of a recruiter’s time, or not be willing to waste their own as required? After all, if candidates really want a job, or want to work at your company, they’d better prove it by doing whatever the hell you ask of them during the hiring process.

Most will, simply because they want the job. But if you’re a recruiter, you should have enough respect for your candidates to make this process as painless as possible instead of adding unnecessary obstacles and roadblocks to an already arduous process.

It’s not audacious for a candidate to ask for information to establish mutual interest before continuing conversations, or preposterous to think that a two way exchange of information is both logical and appropriate – no matter what Eunice seemed to think, recruiting is about creating an value exchange, and you give what you get. Which is why recruiters like Eunice are worthless, if you ask me.

If she had elaborated more or been prepared to discuss her search criteria, if she had started with small talk instead of launching into a patronizing and somewhat insulting lecture impugning my professionalism, then maybe I’d have been more receptive to going along with a follow up call and sending her my resume.

Maybe if she has given the impression she cared about me and not just getting enough candidates in front of her hiring manager to make a placement, or maybe if the bitterness oozing from her end of the phone was less dripping with disdain or she had used a tone to convince me that she could be trusted wth my future career prospects as an asset and advocate instead of a liability, I could have worked with Eunice.

You know, even if I wasn’t a fit for the job, I could have referred her to others in my network, recommended her to my many friends and contacts who utilize agency recruiters regularly or simply maintain some sort of rapport based on mutual respect as recruiters.

I do this frequently, and go out of my way to help good people find jobs, and good recruiters find good people, and do so whenever I can help.

That’s what good recruiters do. Eunice will never know this, of course.

I’m just another candidate who declined to send her a resume, and she moved on, I’m sure, and likely continues to work reqs and interact with candidates for this same client (and probably a lot of others, too).

This makes me sad, that recruiters like Eunice are the face of recruiting, and they will likely continue being  condescending to candidates, berating job seekers for the smallest of transgressions, or treating them like second class citizens if they don’t face any repercussions for this behavior. Candidates won’t rock the boat, and clients just want candidates – which is why it’s up to recruiters to make the job search suck less.

Don’t be Eunice. Remember, as painful as recruiting can be sometimes, looking for a job is even more painful. Watch your tone, mind your manners and remember: without candidates, we wouldn’t need recruiters, and you’d be on the other side of the desk.

For now, all candidates can ask is for a little respect, human dignity and not having to deal with recruiters like Eunice during their job search. If we can’t give every candidate an offer, than at least we should be able to give them that much. It’s not a whole lot to ask.

Unless, of course, you ask Eunice. Just don’t hold your breath.

talenttalks

About the Author: Leveraging her unique perspective as a progressive thinker with a well-rounded background from diverse corporate settings, Kelly Blokdijk advises members of the business community on targeted human resource, recruiting and organization development initiatives to enhance talent management, talent acquisition, corporate communications and employee engagement programs.

Kelly is an active HR and recruiting industry blogger and regular contributor on RecruitingBlogs.com. She also candidly shares opinions, observations and ideas as a member of RecruitingBlogs’ Editorial Advisory Board.

Follow Kelly on Twitter @TalentTalks or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Batteries Not Included: 5 Employment Law Lessons From Tesla’s Electric Slide.

I can’t believe I started my adventures in employment law thirteen years ago, when I accepted my first job out of law school as an associate at a prominent “Plaintiffs’ Firm,” a practice primarily preoccupied with helping clients seek financial redress for their injuries in the form of monetary damages.

Plaintiffs’ Attorneys are not all ambulance chasers, for the record, but all ambulance chasers are, by definition, Plaintiffs’ Attorneys.

Class action settlements? Personal injury? Worker’s Comp Claim? Yeah, that’s them.

Basically, this is the field of law which relies on late night commercials, billboards and bus ads for most of its book of business, which has created something of a mixed and sometimes unsavory reputation surrounding Plaintiffs’ Firms, even amongst other lawyers (insert punchline here).

Guilty Plea: The Sad State of Discrimination and Harassment at Work.

Of course, not having much experience at the time, I naively, unwisely and just plain stupidly decided, when asked if I had any more questions (you know the drill) during my in person interview at said plaintiff’s firm, to respond by asking, “Do you guys still actually make money off of harassment and discrimination?”

I knew as soon as I said it that I’d made a mistake. The interviewers suddenly became silent and stern, staring at me from across the table. The silence was palpable, awkward. What followed was the longest few seconds of my life…until the room erupted with laughter.

“Of course we do,” one of the interviewers told me. “How else would we make money?”

More laughter. They must have thought I was in on the joke, since I got the job. Within my first couple of weeks on the job, I understood why their reaction to a serious question had been more or less maniacal laughter.

You don’t have to work at a Plaintiffs’ firm long to hear some truly horrible and troubling stories about harassment and discrimination, and the terrible impact they can have on an individual’s well being and quality of life, both personally and professionally.

In short, there are some terrible people out there, and they do terrible things to other people. It was the firm’s job to make sure they suffered consequences for those often heinous and unforgivable actions, and that our clients received some sort of restitution in exchange for their suffering.

No victim of harassment or discrimination, of course, can ever be truly made whole, a fact that nagged at me even after succeeding in winning the most lucrative settlements or high value verdicts possible for our Plaintiffs, named or otherwise.

When you hear the stories I’ve heard, you know no matter what, justice is never really served in these employment law cases.

Headline News: Why HR Has Moved From The Back Office To the Front Page.

The horror stories should have been ancient history by the time I started my career back in 2004, but the sad truth is, we’re still faced with the same kinds of stories of horrible harassment and disgusting discrimination today as we were over a decade ago. And if 2017 so far is any indication, it looks like this is one problem that’s not going away anytime soon – in fact, if anything, it’s becoming more pervasive in the world of work today.

The egregious examples of harassment and discrimination ripped straight from the headlines in the past few months alone are nothing short of appalling.

“Uber executive leaves after failing to disclose sex harassment allegation.” – LA Times, February 27.

“Hundreds allege sex harassment, discrimination at Kay and Jared jewelry company.” – Washington Post, February 27

“Dollar General Sued by EEOC for Sexual Harassment.”The Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, February 11

Court Restores Plainfield Woman’s Suit Accusing Home Depot of Negligence in Daughter’s Slaying.” – The Chicago Tribune, March 28

…and the list goes on. But what, exactly, is going on with so many employers behaving so badly? The frequency and severe implications of these and countless other incidents (most of which don’t even make the paper, much less headlines) should give us all pause. It’s pretty clear by now what we’ve always known was a pretty big problem in the workplace has reached pandemic proportions.

In fact, the magnitude of these problems and their impact in the workplace may prove more pervasive and more severe than anyone ever imagined. In fact, just last week, Tesla, widely seen as one of the most innovative and cutting edge companies on the planet, was slapped with a lawsuit whose amazingly awful allegations are almost unprecedented in their depravity.

If these allegations are found to be true, Tesla could have a lot of explaining to do, to put it mildly. The 11 count complaint, filed in Alameda County Superior Court, includes a transcript of video footage taken by the plaintiff’s coworkers on the company’s Fremont, CA production line, including the following:

“N—-r, we take your ass home, n—-r. Shred you up in pieces, n—-r. Cut you up, n—-r. Send your ass so everyone in yo family so everybody can have a piece of you, n—-r. Straight up, n—-r. We get down like that, n—-r.”

I’d like to reiterate that not only is it 2017, people, but this happened at one of the most progressive employers in the planet at a Bay Area location widely seen as a bastion of tolerance and diversity. If this can happen in Silicon Valley to Tesla, of all companies, the scary truth is, this kind of incident can happen at any company, at any time – including yours.

Workers Behaving Badly: 4 Things Employers Can Do To Protect Their People.

The complaint against Tesla details how Human Resources intervened to provide “counseling” for the offending employees caught on the tape saying these despicable, unprintable epithets (and much, much more).

The way HR ultimately decided to resolve the incident, the complaint reveals, was not to formally discipline the offending workers, but instead, to transfer the complaining employee.

While there seems to be a lot to dispute in this particular case, the action Tesla took to resolve this serious incident of workplace discrimination and harassment failed to prevent the company from being slapped with not only a potentially steep legal settlement, but also a ton of unwanted press, harsh criticism and an overall black eye for what is one of the bluest of blue chip tech brands.

The potential price that companies have to pay for even a handful of workers behaving badly is one opportunity cost no employer – even Tesla – can afford. So what’s an employer to do?

Here are a few important steps every employer should consider when dealing with harassment and discrimination in the workplace,

1. Have a policy.

I know, I know, lawyers are always telling people to have a policy.  But policies are important.  Policies set expectations.  Employees can refer to them, do their own analysis, know who they should talk to, and alert you.

Have a good one that gives some examples of what you will not tolerate in the workplace.  These policies are often the first stop of employees when they suspect something is off.  If you don’t have good one, employees will do their research other places.

2. Demand and Model Respect.

While it is cliché to say “respectful workplaces are productive workplaces,” it’s true.  When employees are uncomfortable or anxious, they are not as productive and collaborative as they should be.  Removing harassing conduct and demanding employees treat each other respect is exactly what we should require.

Today’s political climate has bred disrespect in the workplace.  The proof is in the tremendous uptick in racial incidents since the 2017 Presidential Election election at schools, workplaces, and in public places.

While 18 months ago, I would have been cautious about implementing a respectful workplace policy, the world we live in these days these days suggests employers could (and maybe should) have one without too much criticism from the National Labor Relations Board.

Just craft it carefully with the help of a lawyer, and ensure that employees are required to acknowledge in writing they have received these new policies and fully understand them and their implications prior to implementing them as part of your employee policy or employee relations investigations.

3. Show Managers & Employees You Take this Seriously.

I train managers all the time using scenarios from the cases I’ve seen or read about.  Every time, I’m amazed at what managers think is okay in the workplace.  Sometimes, they tell me they wouldn’t do anything when confronted with a sexual harassing situation.

The jaw of the HR lady in the corner drops, and she frantically writes something down.  I put them on the spot and without totally humiliating them, and walk them through the best way handle the situation to protect the company.

Most managers leave with a new sense of what they should expect of their employees and know exactly what to do when something happens., which is exactly the outcome we want with training.

Invest in good training.  It’s much cheaper than a lawsuit.

Trust me on this one.

4. Do SOMETHING!

When confronted with a complaint of harassment or discrimination, you can’t choose to remain silent or put your head in the stand. Inaction is not an option. If you see or hear something, you can’t do nothing, that is, if you’re doing your job.

And it’s the job of HR and talent professionals to confront managers about harassment claims instead of sweeping them under the rug and allowing them to continue (like the HR team at Uber), choose physically moving a complaining employee to a different work area instead of confronting the instigators (like happened at Tesla) or simply pretend that it’s none of your business.

This is our business. And it’s our business to do something to DO SOMETHING to stop harassment and discrimination from infiltrating our employers and impacting our employees. That is, at its heart, what HR is really all about: protecting our people and empowering them to do their best work while at work.

Discrimination is never a company value, nor is a culture of fear a sustainable foundation for recruiting and retaining the top talent your company needs today to survive (and thrive) in the future. The longer you avoid dealing with these issues, the bigger the problem will inevitably become.

Your first step is to make it stop. Remove the conditions that allow this behavior to occur, and remove the alleged harassers from the workplace during the course of your investigation. Suspensions without pay or a temporary transfer to another shift or team are relatively common tactics employers take to gather the requisite information to determine what actually happened.

Review technology, from emails to text messages or IMs, interview any direct witnesses who might have seen an alleged incident, and comprehensively document all details of your investigation to create a record of your due diligence and support your final findings while informing your recomendations for remediation.

Second, review your policy and talk with management about what you learned.  Talk with them about the consequences of what the company does next.  Handling these situations poorly ends up in courts, in the press, and most certainly on review sites like Glassdoor.

Management needs to know the full spectrum of consequences.  And remember, employees are under NO obligation to keep allegations or the investigation secret.  They get to talk, and they inevitably will. Do not give them the opportunity to spread false informations or incomplete findings by confiding in anyone who’s not formally a part of the investigation, period. While such gossip is inevitable, it can (and should) be minimized as much as possible.

Finally, take action. Personally? I like to just cut the cord and fire.

Fire at Will: What To Do When Retention Isn’t The Answer.

By the time my clients come to me with a case who lead with “we want to fire,” instead of “we want to fix,” then I know that decision is one that they made only after a lot of introspection and agonizing over whether or not they’re doing the right thing. In my experience, by the time an employees’ actions warrant termination, firing is always the right thing to do, even if it might not feel like it at the time.

Firing employees, even with cause, can be risky for employers. But firing over documented cases of harassment and discrimination in the workplace is not only easy, but it’s a decision no one is going to ever fault you for, even if there’s some fall out. The price of inaction is far worse than the minimal collateral damage and disruptions in continuity an untimed, involuntary departure can often create.

If you choose not to fire, however, you’re taking responsibility for the employee’s future behavior, and it’s now incumbent on you to constantly monitor the situation, keep an eye on the team and ensure that things are going well and that they feel they are safe from workplace harassment and discrimination at all times.

If the employee relapses into old behaviors or there are any future incidents, no matter how minor, then you’ve got to get rid of the problem employee immediately, since you’re ultimately liable for the decision to keep them after any earlier incidents or infractions, and will be held accountable if that decision proves to be the wrong one.

Firing someone too early is easier than repairing the damage caused by firing someone too late, I’ve found. No matter how high a performer the employee is, no matter how long their tenure or deep their network or expertise happens to be, no employee is truly irreplaceable. Sure, finding top talent is tough these days.

But keeping around a problem employee who disrupts your workplace, disrespects your company, constantly harasses their coworkers and says discriminatory or offensive comments around their colleagues with impunity, you’re going to pay a bigger price than simply losing your best salesperson or most experienced staff member.

You’re probably going to lose your business, too – or at least, you’re going to pay bigly to keep them around.

And the reward is never worth the risk, as Tesla, Uber, Dollar General and countless other brands can probably tell you by now.

About the Author: 

Kate Bischoff advises organizations in a wide range of industries on employment law and human resources issues, from recruitment and workplace culture to terminations. Kate is passionate about improving company culture and using technology (social media and data analytics) in the workplace. Kate speaks from experience when advising clients when administrative and court matters commence.

Prior to founding tHRive Law & Consulting, Ms. Bischoff served as a Human Resources Officer for the United States Department of State at the U.S. Embassy Lusaka, Zambia and for the U.S. Consulate General Jerusalem. Kate is also an Adjunct Professor at Mitchell Hamline, serving as faculty for the School of Law’s HR Compliance Certificate Program.

Follow her on Twitter @k8bischHRLaw or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Girl, Please: Why “Equal Pay” Has Nothing To Do With Gender.

Today marks Equal Pay Day, which, of course, remains more of an aspiration than a celebration. First organized by the National Committee on Pay Equity in 1996, this annual event serves to underscore the continuing disparity between men and women’s wages.

Equal Pay Day is always celebrated on a Tuesday in April, to “represent how far into the year, and how far into the next work week, women must work to earn what men earned the previous week,” per the NPCE website.

This timing serves as a stark and highly symbolic reminder of the fact that women in the workplace still only make about .83 cents for every dollar made by their male counterparts, according to a recent Pew Institute Survey (some estimates put this as low as .77 cents).

This means that because women work less on average, they must work longer hours for the same pay as men.

Equal Pay, Equal Work: A Brief History.

This income disparity seems something of an Eisenhower era anachronism, an unwelcome byproduct of a bygone era, particularly given the greater societal gains that have been achieved in gender parity over the four decades since Kennedy first signed the Equal Pay Law in 1963.

That’s right. Back when the Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan was topping the charts, when Bette and Joan were feuding at the Oscars and back before Title 9, The Civil Rights Act or the EEOC even existed, the Equal Pay Law was signed into action, landmark legislation that remains in effect to this day.

This means for 55 years or so, it’s been illegal to pay women less for performing the same (or similar) jobs solely based on their gender. This, of course, leads to the question of why, exactly, over half a century later, the issue of achieving equal pay remains as elusive as ever.

In fact, it’s surprising just how glacial that progress has actually been.

When the Equal Pay Law was first signed, women were paid 59 cents for every dollar men made; fast forward to today, and that number has only moved up around 15%, which is still far less than the 23-25% women still must make up before true wage parity between men and women is achieved.

Put in context, at the rate we’re going since pay equality for women first became codified within federal law 55 years ago, we’ll finally hit Equal Pay in the US by 2050, factoring in the 60% gain women have already made in the last half century.

BLS Data, Courtesy US Department of Labor

Additional protections have passed in the intervening years, furthering the wage rights of women in the workplace. In his first act of office, President Barack Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law, overturning an earlier Supreme Court precedent capping salary discrimination lawsuits with a statute of limitations of only 180 days since the initial wage violation, even if that discrimination continued.

This indemnified most employers against any possible practical action by employees, nor did it create any onus for employers to take tangible steps towards complying with the Equal Pay Act, further codifying an already entrenched (if illegal) process.

While the Ledbetter Act effectively allows women to fight back against discrimination in the workplace regardless of when it began, the burden of proof of such cases tends to be unusually high; this, coupled with the binding arbitration agreements most employers require, effectively renders these protections moot for most women.

Furthermore, Obama Administration legislation like the Ledbetter Act – and similar protections, even those that are largely symbolic – could easily be recalled by the current Commander in Chief without any Congressional oversight or approval.

This is not a great sign that there is going to be a great deal of progress over the short term, although despite his blatant misogyny, overt chauvinism and implicit admission of sexual assault, it may come as some surprise that Donald Trump actually has publicly advocated (albeit equivocally) income equality, saying of women, “if they do the same job, they should get the same pay.”

Of course, he offered no policy details on this other than the suggestion that it would be difficult if not impossible to practically enforce any policy in the first place, saying, “when you have to categorize men and women into a particular group and a particular pay scale, it gets very hard – because people do different jobs.”

Couple this with the fact that only last term, Senate Republicans unanimously voted down equal pay legislation that would have purportedly closed the wage gap by punishing workers who discuss their salaries, among other protections.

Given that the GOP has only increased their Congressional majority, making any progress over the short term on this long term societal issue seems unlikely at best.

Equal Pay Day: Filling in the Income Gap.

So as we mark the 2017 version of Equal Pay Day, it’s important to remember how futile a half century of efforts have proved to be when it comes to closing the gender based wage gap.

Equal pay for equal work has already been a tenet of federal law for decades, so no legislation (nor litigation) looks likely to fix the problem, or women would likely already have achieved wage parity.

The reason why is simple: because it’s not in the best interests of big business to affect this change. Employers have no incentive for conducting comprehensive payroll auditing, nor implementing the controls necessary for ongoing enforcement and continued compliance simply so that they can ultimately pay their female employees more (or their male employees less, for that matter).
Not so fast, says Glassdoor, who is admirably addressing this issue, in a couple of  ways. First, Glassdoor has released a step-by-step technical guide to help employers analyze their own pay data.

This uses the same methodology Glassdoor used in its report: Demystifying the Gender Pay Gap that they also use to analyze their own pay data annually.

Glassdoor also allows employers to pledge their commitment to pay equality through a badge on their benefits section of the Glassdoor profile. So far, the Equal Pay Pledge has more than 3,100 employers committed to an initiative described by Glassdoor as a chance for companies to “Demonstrate their commitment to equal pay” as part of a company’s employer brand – Glassdoor states that 3 in 5 job seekers would not accept a position at a company they knew had a pay gap, although they would have no real way of finding out that information themselves (even the government has this problem).

It might even be good for your business – Glassdoor similarly states that companies with a gender balanced workforce outperformed their less diverse counterparts by 15%, although it’s unclear if those high performing, blended gender workforces have achieved equality in compensation instead of simply composition – in which case these numbers align with other diverse workforce populations.

But there are plenty of problems with the underlying assumptions upon which this Equal Pay Pledge Is built.

Why Gender Isn’t The Real Problem With Equal Pay.

Courtesy: Payscale

You’re going to be reading a lot of statistics supporting the common-sense case for wage parity between genders on Equal Pay Day like the one above, showing how far women must come before “equal pay for equal work” becomes anything more than a cute, convenient tagline or political rallying cry.

The most common one you’ll see is the one about earning somewhere around 80 cents on the dollar, although that might be something of an overstatement, per vendor Payscale, who, like Trump, feels that correlating gender and income is apples and oranges.

By their estimate, that income equality number is closer to 98%, and almost 3 in 5 respondents denied having any sort of issues with equal pay at their companies whatsoever. The problem isn’t with the equal pay part of the equation, which is what most employers and headlines choose to focus on. It’s the “equal work” part where women have the biggest issue, and a problem that’s much more poignant and pervasive than simply compensation audits.

Mundane tactics for income egalitarianism, like instituting pay grades and salary bands, can largely solve any salary inequality issues before they become issues in the first place.

Such mainstream best practices reinforce pay equality, since they effectively standardize and equalize pay in a way that removes both bias and individual discretion, and most enterprise employers have implemented these concepts, along with considerations like internal equity and compression.

They’ve been doing it for almost as long as the Equal Pay Act has been the law of the land, and it’s largely made the issue of “Equal pay for equal work” passé, or at least, mostly solved for women in the workforce (despite the many studies to the contrary).

Girl, Please: The Real Reason For The Wage Gap.

This is because income inequality might be correlated with gender, but when it comes to causation, this proves a secondary concern at best, and one that’s largely irrelevant, just like viewing Equal Pay Day in the context of binary, gender specific constructs.

The research supports this, including today’s release from Payscale, who decided to actually analyze the data instead of make another “us too” PR play – yeah, per Glassdoor data, 90% of people out there support gender equality at work, so these content marketing campaign and public

“Equal Pay Pledges” are only preaching to the choir.

They’re also badly missing the mark, Payscale’s research shows.

“Payscale believes that pay gap is, instead, an opportunity gap since women tend to find themselves in lower paying jobs than men and are also left behind men when it comes to leadership roles or promotions.”

Indeed, the Equal Pay problems are much more closely correlated with issues of race and class then they are with gender – it’s just that women are much more likely to find themselves working low skilled, low paid positions as their primary means of income than their male counterparts, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone.

While it’s of dubious value, the commonly cited statistic that women make 80% of what men do seems outrageous to most of us at face value and an egregious societal injustice. Thing is, that’s only if you’re a white woman.

As slow as progress has been for all women in the workforce, at least there’s been some form of progress in the last 50 years, some small steps closer to achieving income equality.

Compare this with data from a 2016 Pew Survey which showed that white, non-Hispanic women, in fact, made 83 cents for every dollar men did. Black women, by contrast, made 66 cents by comparison, and Hispanic women made only 60 cents to the dollar of their male counterparts (white or otherwise).

Similarly, the survey found only 27% of women of all races felt discriminated against at work due to their gender, in terms of pay equality or otherwise; conversely, about 6 in 10 non whites reported to experiencing some sort of discrimination at work that made it harder to get ahead or advance in their career.

These numbers suggest that being a visible minority is a far larger barrier to achieving workplace equality than gender, which is found to account for less than 8% of the total wage gap, compared with the 52% difference race makes in influencing income and wage inequality. For purposes of comparison, only around 20% of the wage gap is influenced by such conventional occupational factors as skills, education or experience. In aggregate,

Compared to the average female, non-white Hispanic, white women are much closer to gender equality with men than with other women. Compared to black men, white women in fact made an average of 25% more, suggesting that today, on Equal Pay Day, we’re missing the entire point.

If you really want to fight for pay equity and the right of all women to work (and to do so at a living wage), and you don’t want to wait the 170 years economists estimate it will take to close the worldwide gender gap, let’s change the conversation this Equal Pay Day.

Let’s focus on Equal Opportunity, instead.

After all, it’s in all our job descriptions, right?

Seven Ways to Attract Passive Candidates on LinkedIn

There’s not a day or conference that goes by where a herd of recruiters gather around and try to out complain one another about who hates LinkedIn the most. We watch this gladiatorial masturbation of hyperbole as if it were the latest Kardashian collapse. Much like a gun control debate after a school shooting, everyone points and swears off that “they are done with LinkedIn.” But you don’t. You don’t leave. It’s like Kanye: you hate the noise, but you love the sound. Since you’re not leaving, and no one wants to realize that their level of complaining rewires their brain for negativity, shouldn’t we focus on how you can make lemonade vodka out of lemons and spoiled potatoes?

Recruiting Takes Work

Some of the best candidates you’ll work with aren’t specifically looking for a new job. They’re passive candidates — satisfied with where they are, but open to hearing about their next great opportunity. LinkedIn’s 2016 U.S. & Canada Talent Trends report says 90 percent of professionals are interested in hearing about new job opportunities. But only about a third are actively looking; the rest are where you can find your knockout candidates — if you connect with them the right way.

The right way means that you are going to do a little more work. While that’s uncommon for some of you to do more than simply inMail blast, everyone that has the word “DevOps” in their profile, it means you’ll have to do some research. While you will get lucky 13% of the time when you layer praise on top the same candidates, catfish, and unicorns that everyone else is blasting, you could attract passive candidates for free by making a few strategic sweat equity investments. Here are the seven ways to attract passive candidates on LinkedIn.

 

1. The Journey

People who need a new job put all their emphasis on finding the job. They have resumes on Indeed, Careerbuilder, or their personal blog. People who don’t need a job can bide their time until something perfect comes along — and that’s not a job or a position, but a vehicle that gets them to where they want to go next. When you reach out to candidates on LinkedIn, talking about a particular role focuses all of the attention on the job. In doing so, you’ve sucked all of their ambition out of the conversation. Instead, focus on where the new vehicle will take them.

Sending a LinkedIn recruiting message about an open position isn’t enough — instead, offer specific details about the opportunities the position can deliver. Those opportunities could include stretch goals on an accelerated timeline, increased impact to an organization, greater recognition or opportunity for advancement. This approach can get passive candidates to start thinking about a change.

2. Be Present

At least once a day, I get an inMail telling me that recruiters are illiterate. They generally start with another recruiter telling me they  “Noticed your SOX and IPO,” or “With your use of AngularJS,”  that I would be “a great fit.” Surprise, surprise! This is not The Gap, and I am not here to try on a pair of khakis. Besides proving that you didn’t read my profile, you’re evidencing your disengagement in the recruiting process. You need to be present. People like to feel needed. If you can’t say why you’re contacting them on LinkedIn, passive candidates will wonder how you found them or what caught your eye, and that can plant seeds of doubt about the process.

Take note: I just wrote “if you can’t say,” and that is holistically different than “if you don’t say.” In your first contact, be present. Be upfront about what made them stand out to you. Know what made them stand out. Make sure it’s a particular experience, accomplishment, or career trajectory. A sentence or two about what makes them unique will help them understand why the opportunity you’re offering is a good one.

3. Be Googleable

After hearing about an opportunity, a passive candidate is going to want to know more about you. Part of being present is having a complete, fully-baked social presence on LinkedIn. An incomplete profile that’s missing a photo or website is going to look unprofessional to a LinkedIn passive candidate, so make sure you provide a company overview and describe your role.

Two-thirds of interested candidates will then check the company website, according to the LinkedIn report. They’re looking for information about the organization — what are its culture and values, what is the company looking for from employees and so on. If you can point the candidate to a company’s social recruiting efforts, such as a Twitter or Facebook account dedicated to sharing information about the employee experience and company culture, do so.

4. It’s a Social Network, So Be Social

As flattered as candidates may be when someone messages them out of the blue on LinkedIn, they don’t care. Just like how they don’t care about that call from a number they don’t recognize. If they don’t know who you are, they know you are wasting their time. At our most base level, we know we have a limited amount of time. We keep moving. A solicitation from an unknown is a low-return proposition. That means you’re starting from square one every time. Each new position you have to fill turns into a new search — and that wastes time and effort.

Instead, invest your time in building relationships on LinkedIn. Participate in groups dedicated to the industries and positions you’re often looking for. Devote some time each week to sharing news and insights about those industries on your page, and read up on what others share as well. Doing so will help those cold contacts feel a little less cold.

5. Give Without Expectation

Of the many things that I know Jess Roberts and I agree on is that you have to give, give, and give, again, to your community. First, learn who your community is. If it’s nurses, learn about nurses. Salespeople, learn about salespeople. If it’s about developers, learn about developers. Second, bring them value.

I like to give as much as I can up front before I muster up the audacity to go in for the “ask.” Although this is my go-to philosophy, it doesn’t always work, and that’s perfectly okay. It’s just the way of life, and I think we can all agree that being a good person on the upfront is always the best option regardless of what the potential “payout” might be. (Jess knows that I have to attribute this to St. Gary.)

My content strategy is a part automation with “If Then Than That” (IFTTT) and constant blogging about topics pertinent to my LinkedIn constituencies. Regarding IFTTT, I use a recipe to automatically post topics from NYT’s technology section to my LinkedIn feed.

6. Get Trendy

To help with blogging, research Google Trends to see what other people are looking for. You may get some insights into how to make yours show up in passive candidates searches. I make it a point to publish at least one article each week on LinkedIn specifically for these audiences.

While I’m working on the blog post, I also get to learn new things about what I am looking for in my candidates. If you caught my LinkedIn post on the future of UX, then you might realize that I was using that instance to have a conversation around mobile user interfaces, cloud computing, AI, and Amazon’s Alexa Skills Kit — which (holy shit!) I’m recruiting for on the reg!

7. It’s not About You

When you put others in front of yourself, whether intended or unintended, things just happen. It’s magical. Be it in life or business; I implore you always to seek to be the giver first. It’s as my wife says about “Seeking First.” If you can give without expectation, you’ve got everything to gain. It’s not an easy trait to acquire, but it’s certainly something I advise everyone to work towards. Not only will it make you feel good, but it’ll provide you the leverage that you can utilize if the opportunity comes knocking.

LinkedIn is a great place to attract passive candidates, but it means being transparent and active on the site, not just showing up at the bar at 2 AM and looking for someone to take home. Being part of the journey will help you find what you’re looking for faster.

About our Author: Brian Fink

As a member of Relus’ recruiting team, Brian Fink focuses on driving talent towards opportunity. Eager to help stretch the professional capabilities of everyone he works with, he’s helping startups grow and successfully scale their IT, Recruiting, Big Data, Product, and Executive Leadership teams. An active keynote speaker and commentator, Fink thrives on discovery and building a better recruiting mousetrap. Connect with him on LinkedIn or follow him on Twitter @TheBrianFink.

Healthcare Hiring: A Forward March.

It was reportedly Ted Kennedy’s greatest regret and it proved to be Hillary Clinton’s first banana peel on the national stage. President Donald J. Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan appear to be the next victims.

With a body count like that, you can hardly blame the healthcare industry, let alone Americans on the street, for looking at the prospect of reform with bewilderment and alarm.

In the meantime, the healthcare industry has to find a way to conduct its business and plan for the future.

With contentious policy debates hanging over it, healthcare employers may delay certain investments and other business decisions, but there’s no question that the industry will continue to grow.

All the hurly-burly in Washington, D.C. cannot change the country’s demographic trends, and whatever the future may bring, it appears likely that some key elements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will be preserved.

Healthcare Hiring on the Way Up.

However the debate evolves, and however the Trump administration approaches implementing the ACA, two elements of the ACA that support broad insurance access have proved popular: disallowing denials for pre-existing conditions and allowing children to remain on their parents’ plans through age 26.

In addition, even if support for senior citizens is eventually decreased, more Americans are still getting older. As they do, they will need more healthcare, and that will translate into increased healthcare hiring.

That trend has been in place for some time, straight through the vicissitudes of the rest of the U.S. economy. The chart below shows payrolls in two growing industries, with gray regions indicating recessions.

The trends are clear enough when you present the numbers in absolute terms. But a minor tweak to the data emphasizes something even more striking.

As a share of total U.S. non farm payrolls, healthcare has been gaining every time the rest of the U.S. economy pulls back. In contrast, even an up-trending sector like professional and business services turns down with the rest of the economy.

Healthcare Hiring: Size Versus Composition.

For many Americans, the stakes of this debate couldn’t get any higher, but they’re lower for healthcare recruiters. For the daily life of a recruiter, the challenge remains finding winning strategies and tactics in an ever tighter competition for talent.

And even from what you might call a macro-focused recruiter perspective, the issues are more about education and employment – the marketing to and mentoring of the next generation of healthcare workers – than they are about who has to pay how much for each procedure.

From a truly macro perspective, the debate over healthcare is a complicated knot of several contentious issues: household and government budgets, entitlement programs and the scope of human rights, and the challenges of providing health insurance via employers at a time when the labor market is going through profound change.

How much will we spend on Medicaid? How will we incentivize young people to get health insurance? How much will the young and the wealthy be encouraged – or required – to support the poor and the aged?

It’s too soon to say how we will ultimately answer these questions, or how long our government will stick with the latest answers before taking another crack at it. That makes it hard to predict the precise health services and occupations that will be most in demand in the coming years.

Our best information remains forecasts that the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) published in 2014, after the ACA survived several legal challenges and seemed to have finally become settled law. According to the BLS, healthcare professions will add the most jobs of any occupation group from 2014 to 2024.

The occupation types expected to grow most rapidly are in “healthcare support” – occupations such as medical assistants who will help carry the administrative burdens associated with coordinating care across specialists.

Older people will require more primary care and support from allied health professionals to manage chronic diseases and help them age in place, so while these forecasts probably need revision, much of the general thrust should remain intact.

Healthcare Hiring: The Long View.

 

As an economist, it’s my job to think about the long term. And as you’ve probably heard, in the long run we’re all dead. But before that, most of us get sick. In fact, more and more of us are living long enough to grow enfeebled and decrepit – and need support.

You can easily enough browse the web for partisan pontifications about how our society is going to deliver and pay for the concomitant services. If you want to find out who exactly might provide those services and how we can ensure we have enough of those people in the right place at the right time, you’re going to have to dig through policy papers by think tanks and industry associations.

The broad strokes look clear enough though. One way or another, as America changes, U.S. policies will change in response, and one thing they can’t do is turn back the clock.

For more information on the state of hiring in healthcare, please see iCIMS’ latest report, Hiring in Healthcare: No Relief in Sight.

About The Author:

Josh Wright is Chief Economist at iCIMS, and is responsible for analyzing proprietary data in order to produce fresh insights on emerging trends in the U.S. labor market. He contributes to the publishing of quarterly trends reports, as well as semi-annual reports and blog posts on ad hoc labor topics.

In addition, Josh supports in the development of software that allows customers to analyze their own performance relative to industry benchmarks by collaborating with data scientists, software developers, and marketing executives. A former Federal Reserve staffer, Josh helped build the Fed’s mortgage-backed securities (MBS) portfolio of more than $1 trillion, among other responses to the global financial crisis.

As a researcher, he has published on labor and housing markets, as well as U.S. monetary policy, and advised policymakers across the legislative and executive branches of government.

Follow Josh on Twitter @JWrightStuff or connect with him on LinkedIn.

The Week That Was 3.31.17: Wonderlic, HiringThing, 1-Page, Bullhorn, Seek

Every Friday in case you missed it, ‘The Week That Was” is your weekly recruiting news update. AKA All you need to know about anything that matters in recruiting. We go out to the interwebs and gather interesting and insightful recruiting news we will interest you. This week we learned job interviews are dead, pre-employment tests are alive and it’s time to dust off your Crocodile Dundee VHS.

 

Phrase of the Week:

Jobnesia– While at work, you learn something necessary to do your job either through training or job experience and then forget it.

 

Tweet of the Week:

https://twitter.com/nthnbeyonce/status/847770748328562689

 

Job Interviews? That is so 2016.

According to a INC. Magazine article, “The Job Interview Will Soon Be Dead. Here’s What the Top Companies Are Replacing It With,” companies are ditching job interviews and going with job “auditions.” The reason for the change is because there is too much bias in the way of making good hires. By auditioning candidates, companies will be able to see how a candidate will work with the team in the actual environment. It spoke about one particular company that after this massive interview of 50 people, they pick some to work for 3 weeks before making a final decision. Novel. In my day, we used to call this contract to hire but, whatever.

Wonderlic + HiringThing = <3recruiting news update

There is a new partnership between HiringThing and probably the most painful per-employment test of all time, the Wonderlic. “HiringThing is committed to providing our customers with best-in-class solutions that will help them streamline processes and grow their business,” said Josh Siler, Founder & CTO of HiringThing. “Wonderlic is a logical addition to our platform, and will help our customers further achieve hiring happiness.” While I am sure this is a great partnership, I can’t help but wonder when people got so completely inept at hiring people. Amiright?

https://www.hiringthing.com/v2/images/ht_ss1.png
Joanna Riley President & Co-Founder, 1-Page

1-Page Drama. Shit is Getting Real.

Seriously, this is getting better than Love and Hip Hop. If you are not familiar with the story, let me catch you up. So, this company came out, everyone loved them. The CEO and founder, Joanna Riley was the darling of Silicon Valley and was able to get her company on the Australian Stock market in 2014 and had a market cap of over $100 million. Flash forward to this past week. So now Joanna Riley attempting to overthrow the board. I mean she literally filed a motion to dismiss the recently-appointed board member Andrew Chapman of Merchant Funds Management, executive chairman John Fennelly, Michael Shen, and Tod McGrouther. And while she was filing her motion, Mr. Chapman moved to remove Ms. Riley. Grab the popcorn, this is getting VERY interesting.

recruiting news update

The Thunder Down Under.

Speaking of Australia, Bullhorn, of Candidate Relationship Management (CRM) fame, has partnered with SEEK, Australia’s number one jobs site.The SEEK integration provides customers with the ability to publish their jobs to the SEEK job portal and receive candidate applications from SEEK into Bullhorn. The integration is particularly notable in that it is one of the first solutions to be built on SEEK’s latest APIs.

April Fools

In other news, April the Giraffe still has not had that baby. But, she got a new sponsor. Here are highlights from her week.

I hope you enjoy “The Week That Was.” If you do, let me know in the comments below. And remember, we love you.

Guarantee Your IT Hiring Managers a Great ‘Return on Interview’

It takes tech expertise to properly gauge tech competencies and experience and let’s face it most recruiters fall short in their capacity to  interview for the nuances of these specialized IT roles.

You and I know this, but hiring managers struggle to understand why Talent Pros will never really be able to tell them if someone is a great coder or not!

Tim Sackett shows you a number of things you can start doing immediately to increase your ROI! Plus, you’ll hear from real talent leaders in the field who have already put a number of these ideas into place and hear about the success and struggles they had in launching this process.

Learning Objectives:

  1. Learn five ways successful companies are doing technical interviews differently to choose great talent.
  2. Design a technical interview process that attracts talent, and learn the things that turn off technical talent in interview.
  3. Develop an interview strategy for technical talent that will increase your hiring manager satisfaction.

Launch and Learn: 5 Tech Recruiting Takeaways From HR Tech World.

If we’re being honest, I must admit that I’m still reeling from last week’s HR Tech World Congress in London. This is perhaps the premiere industry event on our side of the pond, and by sheer numbers alone, it’s the year’s biggest gathering of talent technology vendors and HR leaders in Europe, with around 6,000 attendees for this year’s edition.

As big as HR Tech World Congress has become (5 years ago, for comparison, there were only 400 attendees), this year, it was an even bigger event for us.

That’s because we were finally able to show the rest of the world what we’ve been working so hard on behind the scenes for so many months.

The inordinate of amount of sweat equity and the countless hours of coding we’d invested in building our product were finally rewarded – and I’m chuffed.

Pulling Back The Curtain: A Founder’s View of HR Technology.

I am proud – and a bit relieved – that we finally launched DevScore, and not only did we have a viable product we could show to the public, we now have proof of concept, too. The response we had was overwhelming, and the team was delighted by the glowing reception our premiere received from the industry experts and leaders in attendance.

It’s a scary thing as a founder, watching what was once just an idea become a reality in real time. After pouring so much into a product without knowing what to expect when it’s launched and live, the experience can be a bit nerve rattling.

Even if you’re confident (as we are) that it’s not only a minimally viable product, but one that end users will love, and employers will realize real value from, too – you never know what to expect when you pull back the curtain, as we did last week.

I am relieved to report the early returns prove promising. And something of a relief, as one can imagine.

Admittedly, it has been some time since I’ve worked in the HR sector (having done a previous tour of duty as a developer), but when it comes to technology, I’ve been doing the rounds for a good decade or more. Now that I’ve returned to this industry, I must say I’m more than taken aback when it comes to how tech savvy HR has become.

It’s no secret that to keep pace and gain competitive advantage, companies across industries, sectors and markets are finally upping their game and reinvesting in recruiting; this is decidedly good news for companies like ours who focus on helping employers anticipate and overcome the many oncoming challenges companies face when it comes to talent acquisition and management.

It’s A Small World After All.

I went to HR Tech World Congress to launch a product, but I was surprised to have come away from the event with so much more than a successful coming out party.

Here are some of the key things I learnt in London last week, from conversations with prospective customers to talking shop and strategic partnerships with other exhibitors and from the conference’s content itself about what’s really happening at the crossroads of HR and technology.

1. Get Smart With Tech Recruiting.

The proliferation of smart devices will inevitably tip the supply and demand ratio for good developers even further away from employers, with what’s already a finite supply of tech talent becoming an even scarcer, and more expensive, commodity. The seemingly exponential increase in developer demand that we’re already seeing should not only continue, but intensify over the months to come.

Smart devices aren’t limited to phones, of course, nor is the increased demand for developers limited to mobile; the emergence of the Internet of Things will add millions of new programming positions to an already oversaturated market.

If you think coders are hard to find now, just wait a few months. We should see the need for qualified and experienced tech talent scale to an unprecedented high sooner rather than later.

2. Hiring Bias Is Bad Business.

As more and more smart devices, from appliances to voice recognition technology like Amazon Echo or Google Home, continue to come online and move from high end to mass market, companies who have never before employed a core team of developers and programmers will find themselves faced with the daunting challenge of quickly upskilling their workforces to keep pace with business and market needs.

We’re talking about big manufacturing companies, here, the kind of conglomerate who makes everything from vacuum cleaners to electric screwdrivers to lightbulbs. These companies are already seeing their traditional business models upended.

For these employers to successfully compete and remain relevant in our digital and interconnected world, they have to shift not only how they do business, but who they hire.

This means moving from the traditional roles associated with manufacturing, from assembly line workers to process automation engineers and supply chain specialists to technologists who are equally adept at hardware and software alike.

This is a difficult profile to find – I believe recruiters often refer to these candidates as “purple squirrels,” which is to say, there is a quite finite supply of programmers who know both of these disparate disciplines.

To successfully attract, engage and convert these elusive candidates will require employers to overcome many of their entrenched hiring biases and established practices for recruiting developers and other highly skilled tech talent. Finding developers is a huge challenge, obviously.

Even harder, however, is finding the right developers with the skills needed to tackle your mission critical tasks. But as difficult as this may be, companies have no choice if they want to remain competitive today – and tomorrow.

3. Change Your Source Code.

While the battle for recruiting and retaining tech talent will only intensify, the good news is that there remains a significant amount of untapped potential talent out there that traditional companies haven’t traditionally considered.

There are a wealth of coders who are as proficient in their craft as any computer scientist or corporate IT leader out there who, despite their obvious skills and capabilities, haven’t been able to break into corporate roles, largely due to non-traditional backgrounds, lack of corporate IT experience or lack of formal training, education or professional certifications.

HR has always put a premium on pedigree, but this is a price most will no longer be able to afford – nor should they overlook the vast pool of programmers whose potential remains largely untapped.

To build great products, we need to have great people. This means we need to develop new ways to find tech talent and bring them into the fold. Development is truly democratized, an open field where anyone with the skills can (and should) play, irrespective of education, gender, racial or religious boundaries.

To accomplish this, businesses need to objectively analyze developers skills, and hire based not on where they’ve studied or worked, but what they’re capable of when it comes to writing code.

If you’re fluent in a language, you can communicate in any context, and programming is no different. Blind hiring is nothing new; employers have long looked at ways to remove bias and improve objectivity in recruitment.

What is needed, however, are new ways to proactively source and develop developers from passive candidates into the hires they need to satisfy their growing demand for programmers and coders. Casting a wider net and encouraging more programmers to participate professionally relies on both HR and IT leaders completely rethinking everything they think they know about “how a developer is supposed to act.” Instead, they need to focus on “what a developer can do.”

There are several initiatives across both the US and UK that demonstrate how employers are reprogramming their program for pursuing programmers. Two examples that stand out are The Last Mile in the US and its UK counterpart, Code4000.

Both of these programs tap into a decidedly different pool for developing developers: their mission is teaching prison inmates how to code.

This gives this literally captive talent pool practical work experience and the chance to develop the skills they’ll need after incarceration to land professional positions as junior developers (one can assume they’re already familiar with the importance of scheduled releases at this point, too).

There is perhaps no better way to contribute to today’s society, after all, then developing and programming, given the profound ways in which technology continues to shape our individual lives and the world we live in. If rehabilitation is the goal of prison, these programs offer an ideal example of how to actually achieve this often nebulous or amorphous outcome.

I personally took a rather untraditional path to my career in web development, getting into programming with the help of a good friend who, of all things, happened to be working as a chef.

By pointing me to the profession and its possibilities, he not only changed the trajectory of my vocation, but helped me discover my true avocation, too. For this, I will be forever grateful – and remain committed to passing along that mentoring experience and paying it forward when it comes to developing new developers.

In fact, we’re currently building a platform, DevForge, to do just that. This isn’t an attempt to sell a product, so forgive the shameless plug, but rather, to advance the idea that everyone has the potential to program. No one is born knowing how to code, but everyone can learn, if given the right tools and training.

We hope we’ve built that tool, but of course, a product’s value is dictated by the end user. It’s early days, but we think we’re on the right track – and if we succeed in broadening the supply of capable coders out there, then every employer out there will win, whether or not they ultimately become customers.

We hope they do, but we’re committed to democratizing the discipline, rather than erecting obstacles and barriers to entry. It’s encouraging to know so many companies feel the same way.

4. Develop Your Developers.

As important as recruiting developers may be, retaining them remains even more imperative. Doing so successfully means it’s incumbent upon employers to help them evolve and grow in an industry where the competition for talent is turning into a recruiting arms race.

Winning this war means putting aside retention drivers like money and work life balance; developers see their careers (like their products) as a work in progress. Most of them place a premium on learning and development, whether that’s learning new software languages or getting to work with cool tools and cutting edge technologies and stay aligned with what’s new and what’s next (which in tech, is quite a lot, really).

A crucial part of this, as Google most prominently proved, is giving programmers “hack time,” for lack of a better word, allowing them anywhere between 10-20% of their total working to dedicate to skunkworks, pet projects and learning new skills. This sounds like a sacrifice for employers, but in truth, these initiatives can be hugely beneficial to their businesses and bottom line.

These initiatives ultimately help insure developers continue to evolve and grow, while remaining challenged and engaged enough to stick around a company. After all, if an employee feels their company is as committed to developing its people as it is to developing proprietary products and programs, that loyalty will likely be reciprocated with improved retention rates, longer tenures and lower turnover, too. This is a business case that works at any business (including yours).

5. HR and IT Have To Work Together To Make Work Work Better.

I know that there’s a wide divide between IT and HR, but no matter how sophisticated a tech organization or programming team may be at building products or writing code, every IT team can improve with increased input and involvement from HR.

And I say this coming from the tech side, which I know seems a little antithetical to conventional wisdom: HR is one of the most valuable tech assets any company can have, provided there’s a partnership between the people and product teams.

There can be no doubt developers are one of the tricker resources to manage, human or otherwise. Few companies have any sort of specific capability or in-house expertise focused on managing developer talent, which means it can be easy to overlook how an individual coder contributes to the bigger picture and product.

This is why it’s imperative for IT departments to assume a more active role in recruiting and retaining developers, partnering with HR to effectively map the skills and capabilities of their development teams (both internal and outsourced) to make better informed strategic decisions. These can include who should be promoted, who may be redundant or who should be assigned to which project based on their technical expertise, coding experience or proficiency with a program or platform, for example.

Recruitment isn’t just about satisfying IT’s increasingly insatiable appetite for developers and meeting demand; a developer’s aptitude, attitude, professionalism and potential all directly impact the business and bottom line, not to mention their reputation as employers amongst programmers and developers.

If the programmer isn’t a fit for the tech culture or team you’re hiring for, then it leads not only to a bad hire and the many associated costs, but also higher turnover, lower productivity and disruption in business & project continuity – which, of course, is essential for successful software and systems development (or any tech project, really).

And that’s one opportunity cost no company can afford – which, in retrospect, is sort of how I feel about missing the HR Technology World Congress if you’re in our industry.

As great as the connections and conversations were for DevScore, it’s the lessons learned about the current state and future direction of HR and technology that will likely prove the most tangible takeaways and actionable insights from what can only be described as a whirlwind week in London.

Of course, now that our launch is over, the real work really begins. And I’ve never been more excited.

HR Tech World Congress is coming to the US! Join us in San Francisco June 14-15 at Fort Mason for the greatest show on earth (or at least in our industry). Click here to learn more.

About the Author:

Peter Cummings started working life as a chef and restaurant professional, before teaching himself coding and making the leap into software development.
He’s now an internationally renowned IT consultant, thought leader, and founder of DevScore; a SaaS platform that helps recruiters and HR managers source the right developers for their businesses. He’s lived and worked everywhere from Greenland to Nigeria and speaks five languages.
Follow Peter on Twitter @CummingsPeter or connect with him on LinkedIn.

Lever Presents: HR Tech: Time To Stack Up

The HR Tech Stack: Build the Case, Get the Buy-In, & Get What You Want

Recruiting software—in the eyes of executives, IT professionals, operators, and procurement—is often no more than an add-on to a core HRIS suite. The pain caused by poor recruiting software never hits their consciousness. This can be a bitter pill for talent acquisition teams, who then spend most of their days mired in sub-optimal software, can’t do their jobs well, yet can’t get decision makers to help them fix the problem. Sucks, right?

Before you throw up your hands in despair, you CAN turn that perception around so that your execs understand how important it is to choose the software your business really needs, not just software that’s convenient to buy. We’re going to show you how.

Join Jason Seiden, Head of Strategy at Lever and Mike Podobnik, Head of Talent at Medallia, as they talk through how to build a case and get buy-in for your HR tech stack. In this webinar, they’ll cover:

  • How to talk to your vendors about the right tech stack for you
  • How to build trust with your executives as you build your case
  • Why it’s important to build allies across the business
  • What your business case should look like

 

About Jason & Mike:

Jason Seiden is Head of Strategic Development at Lever, where he leverages a robust and cross-functional background to help clients improve the way they hire. Lever, a modern upgrade to the
applicant tracking software (ATS), is a SaaS-based Talent Acquisition Suite that improves hiring in a way that directly improves business results. Prior to Lever, Seiden amassed robust, cross-functional experience that spans talent acquisition, talent development, employer branding, marketing/strategy, management, and entrepreneurship, with a recurring focus on communications and positioning. He is the co-founder of Brand Amper, an employment branding software solution, and the first LinkedIn-certified training company in North America. Seiden earned his MBA from Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management.

Mike Podobnik is currently the Head of Global Talent Acquisition at Medallia, a technology company that provides SaaS-based Customer Experience Management (CEM). Now Sequoia Capital’s largest investment, Medallia is the industry leader, powering customer experience behind over 500 of the world’s most renowned brands. He was previously a Director of Global Talent Acquisition at the same company, where he led efforts for worldwide R&D. Mike also serves as an Advisor for Teamable, an intelligent employee referral technology, which unearths, matches, and engages top talent, already connected to a company’s employee network.

 

Tool Review: Sourcin

Weekly, people ask me, “How can I find phone numbers?” You can find my answer in the Secret Sourcing Group and RecruitingDaily’s Facebook page. In fact, there have been several articles written here on RecruitingTools.com as well. Even so, recruiters never seem to be able to find those elusive phone numbers. I am happy to tell you that there is a relatively brand new discovery tool. And, it can find phone numbers and emails called Sourcin. Developed by Yogev Ben-TovSourcin, is a real-time discovery tool that uses Artificial Intelligence (AI) to discover talent that is the best fit for your company.

Is That a Typo?

No that is not a typo. As a matter of fact, Sourcin is a part of a company named Searchin. They offer Sourcin as a stand alone product. This tool will allow you to discover hundreds of qualified leads in one search. Equally important, it is in real-time. You may be asking what is so great about a real-time search. What this means is, if your candidate changes their contact info or adds a new social media account, this tool will automatically update your list with the new information. From there, you can download the info it has discovered, download it into a .csv or Excel spreadsheet, Then you can upload it to your ATS. Click here to try Sourcin for yourself.

Please watch my video below to learn more about Sourcin.

About the Author: Dean Da Costa is a highly experienced and decorated recruiter, sourcer and manager with deep skills and experience in HR, project management, training & process improvement.Dean is best known for his work in the highly specialized secured clearance and mobile arenas, where he has been a top performing recruiter and sourcer.  Connect with Dean at LinkedIn or follow @DeanDaCosta on Twitter.

 

MOS Deaf: Veteran Recruiting and The Diversity Double Standard.

As I talked about in the first post in this two part series, the fact is, “veterans” are a pretty huge and diverse population. Employers often approach veteran recruiting as a one-size-fits-all approach, but the fact is, there’s no such thing as a “typical” veteran.

That we’ve all served in the military at some point in time is maybe the only similarity many veterans share.

One of the most notable distinctions recruiters need to know to further filter “veterans,” however, is the drastic difference between those just now moving out of the military, and those who have already successfully made that transition, many of whom have extensive private sector experience and established careers.

Close Edge: Why Not All Veteran Talent Is Created Equal.

First off, there are the veterans who are currently transitioning, or whose service recently ended. This veteran cohort are the guys and gals who are currently hunting for their first “job,” after dedicating somewhere between 4 and 20 years to doing something that’s more than a job – and almost impossible to put down into a resume.

One of the most common objections many employers have is that they don’t recruit active military members due to uncertainties about availability, start dates and the timing involved in “just in time” hiring. Many employers encourage these transitioning soldiers to reapply or reconnect after they’re officially discharged, but the truth is, top veteran talent doesn’t always wait until after they’re officially discharged to lock down an offer.

The reason is that contrary to what most employers think, currently transitioning veterans can tell you the exact date, from 6-12 months in advance, when they’ll be available to start. It’s incumbent on the recruiter, of course, to ask – but make sure you do so before telling them to come back later.

The best never do, and you’ll have lost out on a great chance to connect with great veteran talent simply by not asking the right questions. This group is actively looking for jobs, are hungry for any opportunity to get their foot in the door and will often do whatever it takes to get a shot to join your team.

In recruiter speak, you don’t have to convince them to leave their current employer to take your job, and almost all of them actually want the job, rather than simply “settling” for something. There’s no such thing as a sure thing in recruiting, but if you’re looking for someone who’s dedicated, eager and willing to work, these guys and gals are a no brainer.

Trust me.

The other group of veterans employers need to know are those of us old dogs who have already been out of the service for over a decade, spent years working for the man, and if any of us still tell boot camp stories and reference our MOS in our job interviews instead of concentrating on our professional and industry experience, well, let’s just say, “Back in ’82, I used to be able to throw a football a country mile,” Uncle Rico. Get over it.

Let’s just say there’s a pretty big divide between these two distinct veteran groups, and each requires a distinct recruiting strategy and differentiated initiatives in order to effectively position yourself as a veteran employer of choice both of these groups continually choose.

Do It Now: How To Recruit Veterans Without A Veteran Recruiting Program.

If you’re a sourcer, or a recruiter, you know active candidates are preferable to passive ones; after all, talent pipelines are where the real money’s at. Filling that pipeline is what we do; it’s what we hunger for. Well, I’m here to tell you, if you’re trying to recruit veterans, you don’t need some flash career page or employer branding initiative splashed across your website to do it.

Me, you, us, we…can (and should) hire veterans not because it’s some bigger diversity initiative, or part of some formal program. We should be doing it because that’s what recruiters do. We source, we engage, we attract, we convert, we hire.

Our ability to do that effectively is tied directly to the strength of that all important pipeline. And when you look at building a pipeline for actively transitioning military talent, it really doesn’t get any easier than this.

“I came across your profile on LinkedIn and saw that you recruit for supply chain analysts at ABC Company. I’m Dan, and I’m a supply chain specialist in the Army. I’m getting out in 10 months, and I’ve always dreamed of working at ABC Company. Can we connect?”

Admit it; a few of you just salivated at that message, right? Trouble is, even more of you just got done replying back to this guy with some message that you don’t hire people 10 months in advance, and in the interim, he really needs to work on translating his resume.

An even bigger percentage of you just sent back some flippant reply telling him to join your talent network, or maybe some information on veteran careers at your company and your commitment to veteran hiring. In 10 months.

For now, though, you’ve got reqs that need to be filled now. That’s your duty, no matter when their tour of duty is up.

But here’s the truth: transitioning veterans – like the one who sent me the above message a few weeks back – clearly do their homework. They probably know what your company does, what kinds of jobs you hire for, and are likely to find you through a lot of solid networking, due diligence and good old fashioned online stalking. In other words, they’re doing exactly what we tell candidates they need to do in order to get their foot at the door in our companies.

The problem is, with veterans, we too often slam that door, and more often than not, it’s completely unintentional. But the reaction recruiters have to veteran talent is practically Pavlovian, remember?

Maybe if you’d gone through the veteran recruiting certification, understood how to properly apply camouflage face paint or had built a veteran specific EVP, you’d feel qualified to talk to transitioning candidates.

Recruiters often steer clear of veterans not because of an aversion to hiring them, but because they feel that veteran recruiting is some specialized function for which they’re not properly qualified, or often, is someone else’s job entirely.

This is, of course, total crap.

Veteran recruiting is all of our jobs. And at the end of the day, “veteran candidates” are just candidates, like everyone else. And like everyone else, they deserve to be considered because of, not in spite of, their status as a protected class. Veterans are often the focus of diversity initiatives, but the fact is, we’d all be better off focusing on inclusion, instead.

Fear Not of Man: Why We Should Treat Veteran Candidates Like Candidates.

You want to cut through the BS? The guy in the message I outlined above (one that was really sent to me, by the way) wasn’t connecting to talk about the Army, complain about his K Rations or discuss the benefits of indirect artillery fire. He wants to talk about a supply chain analyst job at an employer. And as a recruiter, what do you know about jobs and careers at your company?

Oh, yeah. That’s kinda your subject matter expertise. So, talk.

Sure, he might be 10 months from being available, so approach it like this. Schedule an introductory conversation, let him know a little bit more about what the job entails, what the company looks for in candidates, what to expect from the hiring process and anything that he might do in the meantime to improve his chances at getting hired. Make sure to ask him to reconnect when he’s about 60 days out from the end of his service. This takes like, 10-15 minutes, tops.

And then…wait for it…actually schedule a note to follow up in your calendar. I know, crazy, right? Put it in your CRM, jot it down on a sticky note and put it on the wall, whatever it is you do that works for you to keep organized. Once you do that, well, guess what?

You’ve just started a pipeline there, champ. You’ve given the candidate valuable information to allow him to actually translate his experiences to YOUR organization, rather than simply “translate” his resume from military to civilian standards.

You had meaningful, helpful engagement, given him insights into working at YOUR company in YOUR words, not some boilerplate statement on veteran hiring, and defined next steps and when to expect them for both you and the candidate.When we hide behind our own internal lingo, we don’t expect our candidates to pick up on our internal acronyms, job titles and company-specific terminology and translate those into their resume.

Similarly, we shouldn’t expect veteran candidates to do the same. There’s no need to translate anything when you’re speaking the same language. And veterans, like all job seekers, really just want jobs. Which is something you, as a recruiter, should be able to talk about ad nauseam.

No translation needed.

I Against I: How To Make Sure Veteran Recruiting Isn’t Lost In Translation.

Think about it: we take these steps for all of our other candidates. Let’s say, as in the above example, we’re actively searching for a supply chain analyst.

We’ve got a plethora of candidate profiles, resumes and leads sitting there in our systems; we’ve got files full of niche directories and professional associations, Excel spreadsheets filled with the names of sundry supply chain analysts in our network, their titles, the companies they work for and notes on their status.

Often, we even have reminders so that we remember to check in on them every few months – or at least, shoot them an automated email that they never open. Yet when it comes to veterans, for some reason, these best practices, for some reason, are rarely practiced, consigning this talent to a separate, but rarely equal, hiring process.

I know, I know. But Dan, you’re saying. I don’t speak ‘Marine!’ That’s cool. I was in the Navy myself, so I feel  you. But here’s the thing. No matter if you served or not, everyone needs to stop thinking of the military as some completely foreign concept that exists independently of the rest of the employment ecosystem and start thinking about the military as just another employer, albeit one with around 1.8 million full time employees and another 800,000 or so reserves.

Of course, the military is just as adept at managing that headcount as any enterprise out there – if not more so, considering the complexity and scale associated with their particular line of business, as it were. Still, most of the time, there’s little to distinguish military service, on an organizational level, from any other career.

There are clear paths for advancement, opportunities for training and development, and tightly defined roles with specific job titles, responsibilities, reporting structures and a defined hierarchy, just like every other employer out there.

Sure, they sometimes use funny words, ambiguous acronyms and different conventions for job levels and titles than some private sector companies, but those differences are superficial and largely negligible, as anyone with even a perfunctory knowledge of the military can probably tell you.

This isn’t so different from the phenomenon by which someone who’s a “Associate” at our company might be an “Analyst” at a direct competitor. It’s the same job, the same responsibilities, the same professional profile, but with slightly differentiated naming conventions.

Why is it that we have no trouble translating these titles, but when it comes to veteran recruiting, we’re so often stumped? It’s the exact same exercise as job leveling from any other private sector employer, and we do this dozens of times a day as a matter of course.

It’s our job as recruiters, after all, to seek out the information we need to accurately target candidates, understand their job level, previous experience and specific expertise and determine whether or not their role and responsibilities match with a req’s requisite requirements.

If they do, it’s our responsibility to make a compelling pitch and meaningful connection to help them understand more about our opportunity, our company and our culture so that we can convert them into candidates, and, ultimately, new hires.

These essential recruiting conversations require speaking the same language as the candidates, the onus of which falls largely on talent acquisition, who must ensure that their calls to action are actually being heard. Except for veterans, of course. Because for this one single segment of the candidate population, well, translation is their job, not the recruiter’s.

Talk about a double standard, and a potentially discriminatory one at that. I’m sure I don’t need to translate “compliance violation” for you, right?

(Re)Definition: Creating A Common Language for Veteran Recruiting.

Now, no one is insinuating that you’ve got to quit your day job to become some sort of career counselor or veteran hiring expert to successfully recruit transitioning talent.

But if you’re a good recruiter, you know that learning agility and natural curiosity are imperative, and broadening your base of knowledge to add as much value as possible to your business needs to include at least a perfunctory understanding of how veteran hiring works and what it takes to be successful.

This doesn’t mean you have to know everything about veteran recruiting or the military, but you should try to understand which veteran profiles and job functions are pertinent to your recruiting efforts. For example, if you’re a tech recruiter, you should familiarize yourself with the various job families and functional responsibilities of the Army’s Signal Corps, the Marine Corps’ Communications, the Air Force Cyber Command, and the Navy’s Information Dominance division.

Each of these groups is a potential gold mine for tech talent that could represent a whole new pipeline of untapped, but highly qualified, tech talent for you to source from. These are smart people with specialized skills, extensive tech training and the ability to add value to an employer beyond their simple status as “veterans.”

Most of their professional experience and expertise is universal, and goes beyond those veteran hiring tropes like “they have leadership skills” or “they respect authority.”

For those candidates currently transitioning out of the military, these highly skilled veterans aren’t only out there, many of them may actually actively be seeking out you, the recruiter, 8-12 months before they’re ready to go. If this sounds like a dream candidate, you’re right. This is why it’s completely inconceivable why so many recruiters make hiring veterans a nightmare for these qualified, interested and available candidates.

It’s time to stop making excuses and start connecting with these veteran candidates. Answer their questions, address their concerns, understand their aspirations and motivations and set expectations for the hiring process, just like you would with any other passive candidate. Don’t avoid them because they’re veterans; embrace them because of it.

Do this, and you’ll already be ahead in the hiring process next time you open a position that requires leveraging that pipeline. Your candidates will be ready to go when you are, and you never have to make a cold call when you’ve got warm leads.

Instead of waiting until you have a position to post, and forcing whatever veterans happen to be looking to guess whether they’d be a better fit for a “Senior Team Supervisor” or a “Junior Manager,” recruiters should be transparent and share what these really mean to candidates, along with any other company specific lexicon or internal definitions they might need to best translate their experiences to the role and your company.

There are over 500 different MOS codes across the military and its branches. The idea that any given recruiter will understand the nuances of every one of those military specialties, what they entail and the skills involved is completely unrealistic and crazy.

But every recruiter should know every job we recruit for inside and out, and if we have that insight and information, it’s easy to share what the role entails, what it takes for a candidate to be competitive and which specific skills and experiences you’re looking for.

That way, veteran talent has a tangible framework to translate their past skills and military experience specifically for the job and your company. You should never again force people to translate their history into a language or lexicon that’s unique to your company; that’s your job as a recruiter, honestly.

Nothing gets lost in translation when everyone’s speaking the same language.

Part 2 in a two part series. Click here for part one, “Military Intelligence: Can You Handle the Truth About Veteran Recruiting?”

About the Author:

Dan Piontkowski is a fun loving guy that has spent too long in the recruiting and sourcing world waiting to figure out what to be when he grows up.

He’s done time enlisted in the Marine Corps, a graduate of the Naval Academy, a commissioned naval officer, developed robust veteran hiring initiatives at big companies and still doesn’t know what a Space & Missile officer in the Air Force does.

He likes Sugar Free Monster because it’s healthier than the regular stuff.

Dan isn’t on Twitter, but you can connect with him on LinkedIn.