Blog

This Is Your Table: How Platform-as-a-Service Delivers

Platform-as-a-Service might very well be the key to unlocking the inherent power of big data for recruiters, hiring managers and all of the internal teams they serve.

seat yourselfThe elusive seat at the table story. There are so many woes and weary HR and recruiting leaders who are just trying to get their point across – to convince “old school” C-suites to buy into better talent. Let’s face it – that only happens when it directly impacts them and many times they’re shielded by a barrier of directors who field the brunt of the talent demands.

The challenge has always been how to convince the C-suite that HR is worth the investment. The problem is that we don’t speak in their language, translating people into the PNL but that can all change if we’re willing to go with the times. The mobile-friendly, social-enabled, cloud-based HR technology path there has been a long and winding road to say the least – and there is still a lot of terrain to be covered.

Over the last twenty years, the tools and processes that HR teams have had to vet, implement, integrate and measure to support changing labor demands are endless. That has led to a lot of confusion about the bottom line and given all of us a bad reputation.

Understanding Evolution: HR Software

evolution hr techAt first, customized software was created to address the specific needs of each customer individually. This couldn’t last long, as soon enough it became apparent that it’s impossible to keep up with emerging tech trends and provide updates to a user base that was using custom-built software. As providers moved to a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) subscription model, system updates and accessibility became faster and better. Add to this the lower cost of SaaS technology implementations, and all of a sudden the doors to innovation were wide open and the HR technology market became very crowded, very quickly.

While software providers refined SaaS delivery options, employers still dealt with a software market that lacked specialization in talent acquisition. Despite the fact that the top concerns of executives tend to be sales and talent, there was a disconnect in the investments being made to fill the job candidate pipeline as abundantly and skillfully as sales leads. Processes that were once manually managed in spreadsheets were now simply being managed in systems that lacked a focus on, and true understanding of, the nuances of the hiring process. At this point, it was clear that talent acquisition needed its own suite of dedicated solutions to meet the growing demands of job seekers, who now hold more power within the hiring process than ever before. But more importantly, recruiting technology as a whole needed to get up to speed with other modern business solutions.

So where does that leave us now?

The Awakening: Emergence of the Platform-as-a-Service

viva la evolucionTo help put this into perspective, the U.S. recruiting market is currently valued at $130 billion with talent acquisition in particular comprising $8.5 billion of that. When spending so much, customers want best-to-market applications housed all in one place for an easy overview of return on investment. Better yet, they want to be able to make smarter decisions about resource allocation for future recruiting technology tools and earn that seat at the table.

And so enters Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS), now emerging as the next major revolution in talent acquisition technology. PaaS gives recruiters the ability to seamlessly integrate data from various vendors through a common user interface (UI). This finally solves a common complaint from HR technology users who have been frustrated by the lack of compatibility between their employee-centric tools.

Aside from the unity that PaaS brings among a diverse set of recruiting technologies, the structure also makes it easier to build and bring new software technology into an existing ecosystem of products that work well in tandem. Accordingly, you can expect to see more and more vendors take this approach, as Gartner reports that the PaaS segment has shown the most impressive growth across the entire enterprise software market over the past year. That said, HR professionals truly have a lot to look forward to in terms of new technology that helps get their jobs done faster, easier and with better measurability to prove they’re worth it.

The Dream: Centralized Data

evolution blow upPlatform-as-a-Service might very well be the key to unlocking the inherent power of big data for recruiters, hiring managers and all of the internal teams they serve. Employers today are extremely aware of the importance of investing in the right people to push their businesses forward, now they need one hiring system of record to help make sense of it all. There is a huge demand for technology that fosters synchronization between HR processes with simple integrations. Customers can then enjoy the benefit of one software’s look and feel, but also have a set of best-of-breed tools behind the scenes to power reporting across different functions.

In an era that has seen the disruptive, even revolutionary, releases of Salesforce.com’s B2B AppExchange and Apple’s B2C App Store dominate their respective markets, there is an easy correlation to be made to the future of HR technology. Talent acquisition platforms have the opportunity to become the central starting point for all employee-centric services by realizing the need to create a technology category that addresses top C-level business concerns.

susan_vitaleAbout the Author: Susan Vitale joined iCIMS in 2005 and serves as the company’s Chief Marketing Officer.

As CMO, Susan oversees direct marketing efforts as well as business development across a network of strategic alliances around the globe. Susan also plays an active role in portfolio strategy, helping to ensure iCIMS’ products, power-ups and services remain on the pulse of the ever-changing HR technology landscape.

Follow Susan on Twitter @Susan_Vitale or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Portfolium Raises $6.6 Million, Hoping This Time is Different for Student Portfolios

PortfoliumPortfolium, an 18-person start-up based in San Diego has raised $6.6 million in a first round of venture capital funding, led by SJF Ventures. The company was launched in 2014 by CEO Adam Markowitz, an aerospace engineer with a degree from USC.

The company gives college students and recent grads a digital platform for highlighting their academic projects to prospective employers. Think LinkedIn with a better stylist, including a nice hero image in the header and a section dedicated to your college portfolio. Here’s an example.

“In every classroom, in every city in this country, there are students being left behind by a recruiting system that simply isn’t equipped with the radar to detect their skills and talents,” Markowitz said in a recent interview.

Portfolium believes there’s a void between LinkedIn and young people that it’s looking to fill. A blog post touts three reasons why young folks aren’t hip to LinkedIn:

  1. Most younger people and college students haven’t yet built professional relationships
  2. Young people don’t have a robust resume to showcase
  3. LinkedIn’s news feed is full of old-people content like “great professional insights and articles”

The idea of creating pretty online portfolios isn’t new. Ten years ago, Zolio took a stab at the market. A lack of funding, or maybe just timing killed the company. Many will remember VisualCV, which never made it to the Hall of Fame either.

Count Zolio cofounder Andria Loczi a fan. “It looks like a great platform,” she said. “I really like how they’re featuring not only portfolios, but the project a user is working on which an employer can browse. Success for platforms like these all boils down to focus. If they can continue to focus on the portfolio-building user experience, keeping it clean and easy to use for students and recent graduates, they’re filling an important need in the marketplace.”

Portfolium CEO Adam Markowitz
Portfolium CEO Adam Markowitz

Three years ago, I wrote “This Reinventing the Resume Needs to Stop,” saying, “There’s a reason resumes are the way they are. They work. They work because they’ve become standardized. Recruiters know the format. Job seekers are taught early on this format. And if they aren’t, Google searches are there to show them how it’s done.”

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I should just realize I’m one of the old timers the site disses. A 2011 book entitled “How Cool Brands Stay Hot” says only 13 percent of millennials use LinkedIn. I’m betting it’s a lot higher 5 years later, but maybe Gen Z has an affinity for an online portfolio versus some Word document.

I mean, snoozer!

Portfolium touts 3.75 million students and 200 places of higher education in its ranks. The service is free to students. It makes money by selling access to its database, just like those old farts at LinkedIn. Colleges can also pay a small fee to access data and analytics tools if they’d like information on their students who use the service.

Ryan Craig, managing director of University Ventures, added “Portfolium has revolutionized the ePortfolio by reconceptualizing it as the basis for a competency marketplace wherein students present work samples demonstrating competencies and employers search and match based on employment needs.”

 

About the Author

joel-cheesman-headshotJoel Cheesman has over 20 years experience in the online recruitment space. He worked for both international and local job boards in the late ‘90s and early ‘00s. In 2005, Cheesman founded HRSEO, a search engine marketing company for HR, as well as launching an award-winning industry blog called Cheezhead.

He has been featured in Fast Company and US News and World Report. He sold his company in 2009 to Jobing.com. He was employed by EmployeeScreenIQ, a background check company. He is the founder of Ratedly, an iOS app that monitors anonymous employee reviews. He is the father of two children and lives in Indianapolis. Yes, he’s on Twitter and LinkedIn.

GoldenEye: Life In Clearance Recruiting

Take your most challenging niche, tech role and slap a clearance on it. One that requires bi-annual updates and isn’t listed on any public site, because that’s a national security threat. That’s what clearance recruiting is all about.

James BondBond. James Bond.

The fictional British Secret Service agent has been the star character in 23 movies, books, TV and has been slaying women and bad guys since 1953. Talk about an OG.

How can you not love the man of mystery? Through all the evolutions of actors playing the iconic spy, he’s the epitome of allure and intrigue – traveling the world to catch the bad guys with all the cool gadgets and gear to help him narrowly avoid death or capture. There’s really no comparison to James Bond as far as spy thrillers go. If they’ve got the gadgets, they don’t have the storyline. If they’ve got the storyline, they’re stuck driving the same BMW I do. Woop-de-doo.

But the one thing there’s really no comparison on is the actor that plays James Bond. The legacy began with Sean Connery and set a bar that’s probably too high for your average Hollywood “superstar.” When selecting a Bond, I can only imagine what the criteria looks like – it’s probably a requisition that would make even the most savvy recruiter’s head hurt.

But not mine.

The Man With The Golden Gun.

Take your most challenging niche, tech role and slap a clearance on it. One that requires bi-annual updates and isn’t listed on any public site, because that’s a national security threat. Yeah, those guys. That’s what clearance recruiting is all about.

There is a subset of recruiters, mostly in what we in the area call NOVA (Northern Virginia, DC Metro/Southern Maryland area) that find these elusive, if not incredibly sequestered behind walls of “need to know” candidates for government contractors and the agencies they serve. DC houses all of the three scary letter US agencies that have movies made about them – CIA, NSA, FBI – and all of these agencies require clearances at multiple levels from a secret to what is called a Full Scope Poly or FSP, as our lovely industry just loves acronyms and red tape.

Yep, we are getting into the pretty cool spy shit of recruiting right now.

The World Is Not Enough

cleared vs non cleared candidatesClearance recruiting is some of the toughest sourcing and recruiting you can do and the burnout rate is mind-blowing. Let me show you a little graph to explain the number of the population cleared vs. non-cleared in the country (left)

Blue is cleared. This should bring into perspective what I’m talking about – just how selective it is. You see, you get to swim in the ocean of blue and my peers of the last 13 years, we get to hang out in that little orange section. More than enough reason to bust out of the sector and go hunt in the bigger sea.

cleared IT candidatesNow, if you count that those folks may also be within the IT field, our slice of the pie gets a whole lot smaller. For the geeks, check out the chart on the right.

Yeah. My pool, somehow, just got smaller than it already was. As if I wasn’t searching for the hay colored needle in my proverbial haystack in the first place.

Now, when you add on the fact that a general FSO (or Facility Security Officer as they are officially called) would never include their clearance level on a LinkedIn profile or any other public page, for that matter, I’m knee deep in a spy search – and I love it.

I’m recruiting people in a cleared building where cell phones aren’t even allowed because they can be traced. If photos are taken and sold to the nearest spy with cash or other trinkets, the country would be at serious risk for a missile attack.  Think Snowden at an Armageddon-level event of knowledge transfer if it was allowed. It sounds more like a Bond movie than a recruiting requisition, but that’s my search.

Recruiters who survive clearance recruiting have to be tenaciously scrappy. The James Bond of recruiting. It’s like dancing in a minefield – one wrong step and then click, click, boom! Sure, there is always going to be the rogue out there who defies the rules and lets the world know that they are cleared. However, a janitor with a clearance is of little use to me while recruiting in the IT/Cyber security. The high-level security recruiters’ world is small as noted in my not so clever little graph situated above to belay the point.We need to not only understand the technology but the scope of the clearance as well.

It’s an odd little club and although there are no membership fees or meetings, you are looked at with awe and fascination. There is an odd perception of being part of some secret group where we all know one another and we share a secret handshake that lets us know we are in the group. We don’t, although it sure would help in finding people. The truth is we are just fishing in a smaller pond than you and frankly it sucks in the worst way, especially if you have moronic managers who tell you how easy it really should be. We’ve all been there before, cleared or not.

For Your Eyes Only

So, how did I go about finding candidates who in most cases do not want to be found? Some of my tricks of the clearance recruiting trade.:

  • Referrals are a must have when looking for cleared talent, for all the reasons you know. But especially because people with top clearance typically work alongside other people with the same level of clearance doing the same work.
  • Post and pray. I know, you’re probably in shock right now. Derek Zeller just encouraged post and pray. Well, it works – if you’re working a clearance level job. See, just because these candidates don’t want to be found doesn’t mean they won’t apply for a job. In fact, they’re more likely to apply because they know they’re hard to find.
  • Social Groups: Either digital or in real life, go to events and online gatherin places that are for cleared professionals. Source their lists and attend to build relationships and fill your pipeline for later.  You have to invest time to use this option but there are big opportunities if you get it right.
  •  Zip Code Searches: The higher level folk, like the CIA or NSA have a tendency to want to be near the office. DC traffic is ridiculous; I’d live closer if I could afford to. A good boolean string can garner some very good leads

Derek ZellerAbout the Author: Derek Zeller draws from over 16 years in the recruiting industry. The last 11 years he has been involved with federal government recruiting specializing within the cleared Intel space under OFCCP compliance. He is currently serves as Technical Recruiting Lead at Comscore.

He has experience with both third party agency and in-house recruiting for multiple disciplines and technologies. Using out-of-the-box tactics and strategies to identify and engage talent, he has had significant experience in building referral and social media programs, the implementation of Applicant Tracking Systems, technology evaluation, and the development of sourcing, employment branding, military and college recruiting strategies.

You can read his thoughts on RecruitingDaily.com or Recruitingblogs.com or his own site Derdiver.com.  Follow Derek on Twitter @Derdiver or connect with him on LinkedIn.

Here’s Why Glassdoor’s Fame May Be Fleeting

The number of herculean success stories in the online classifieds space as it pertains to job postings over the past 10 years are few and far between. Two obvious medal winners, however, include Indeed and Glassdoor. Not surprisingly, they have a lot in common. Indeed is a job search engine with a lot of user generated content. Glassdoor is a job board with even more user-generated content.

GlassdoorIn most cases, this loser-generated user-generated content takes the form of anonymous employee reviews. Glassdoor built it’s whole business on this foundation, and still rides the wave even though finding reviews aren’t as easy as it used to be. Indeed serves up tons of pages that Google loves, both indexed and original in content. Both have turned out to be winning strategies.

Glassdoor recently had its third summit in San Francisco. The event brings in over a thousand attendees, many of whom are clients, and covers all kinds of employer branding-type topics, as well as general business highlights. It’s a good time to appreciate the success Glassdoor has enjoyed, as well as think about the challenges that may lie ahead.

I’m not the only one who’s noticed the success of these two sites. Prosperity is commonly followed by copycats, and Glassdoor is no different. Job boards who have felt the pain of the last 8 years are looking for ways to rebound. Startups already launched, and those still to be born, know what’s up too.

The Future: “Glassdoor for __________”

Let’s talk existing job boards first.

Job postings used to be all the content job boards needed. Customers did the posting. Job boards did the optimizing. Google did the indexing. Job seekers did the searching. Voila! Everyone’s happy.

Until they weren’t.

IndeedPostings became commoditized. Indeed freely indexed jobs from company sites and kicked the competition’s ass in the process, driving Google traffic and being a far better user experience than anyone else once someone landed there.

Eventually, job boards lost huge chunks of their content. Traffic dropped. They created their own professional content, which brought us gems like “How to dress for an interview,” but professional content is expensive and doesn’t scale all that well.

Job board owners have stayed away from anonymous employer reviews for a long time. If you talk to them, they’ll tell you things like “Customers don’t like them” or “We can’t police it” or “Our lawyers say so.” All valid reasons. Glassdoor had to do a lot of damage control when they started hitting up employers, and they’re in court a lot because of employers who would rather pay legal fees than actually figure out how to fix their company.

Either way, job boards stayed away. But that’s changing. Earlier this year, Monster partnered with a European-based employee review site called Kununu. Research a company on Monster, and you’ll see reviews powered by them.

So, if Monster is comfortable sticking its toe in the user-generated waters, I suspect this will help validate the practice and empower more job sites to do the same. Now, imagine all those niche boards out there adding reviews to their sites. I believe that’s going to be reality.

Death By A Thousand Cuts: The Newbies

Just like ABC, NBC and CBS fragmented into the world of screens we know today, Glassdoor is no different. They may share the horizontal with Indeed, but verticals are arising and will continue to do so.

FairygodbossInHerSight and Fairygodboss are probably the two best examples of this. These are two anonymous employee review websites that cater to women. Users rate employers on things like family friendliness and thickness of the glass ceiling for female employees. TruckersReport is where truckers go to discuss trucking companies who employ them. InternshipRatings, well, you get the idea.

Likewise, I suspect we’ll start seeing “Glassdoor for New York City,” “Glassdoor for Baby Boomers,” and “Glassdoor for African Americans” to name an endless few. Locality is an important part of this game too, as Glassdoor knows all too well, gobbling up the “Glassdoor for Brazil” in a site called Happy Mondays.

Indeed came to market saying it was “Google for jobs.” It was. And it was a winning message and strategy. For their sake, I hope Google doesn’t decide it wants to be “Google for jobs.” Their competition may go upstream as opposed to downstream, but that’s another post.

Unless Yelp gets into the employee review business or LinkedIn allows users to “endorse” employers like they do connections, Glassdoor should be safe in its current lane. The big challenge, as I see it, is that a lot more lanes are opening up and will continue to do so. Death by a thousand cuts means Glassdoor runs the risk of becoming the next Monster or CareerBuilder and selling itself 15 years from now for pennies on the dollar.

About the Author

joel-cheesman-headshotJoel Cheesman has over 20 years experience in the online recruitment space. He worked for both international and local job boards in the late ‘90s and early ‘00s. In 2005, Cheesman founded HRSEO, a search engine marketing company for HR, as well as launching an award-winning industry blog called Cheezhead.

He has been featured in Fast Company and US News and World Report. He sold his company in 2009 to Jobing.com. He was employed by EmployeeScreenIQ, a background check company. He is the founder of Ratedly, an iOS app that monitors anonymous employee reviews. He is the father of two children and lives in Indianapolis. Yes, he’s on Twitter and LinkedIn.

Applicant Abandonment and The Paradox of Value.

paradox of valueHave you ever heard of the paradox of value? If not, let me catch you up on that lesson from Philosophy 101. The paradox of value describes the discrepancy of meaning when it comes to value. For example, why is water less expensive than diamonds? We need water to survive but diamonds? Not so much. At least if you ask any girl who didn’t grow up as the Princess of some country or in Belair.

Many great philosophers have touched on this theory including Plato, Nicolaus CopernicusJohn Locke and John Law. What they’ve all come to acknowledge in their writing is that in this comparison, the definition of value itself changes in this context.  The value of use versus the value of exchange. Water, for example, we can’t live without. But let’s say we were trying to make a trade. In this context, water is valued at nothing, unless you happen to be making a trade with someone who’s dehydrated.

The beauty of philosophy, is that as we change the situations, you can argue the value – with this theory or any other. You can negotiate and create contexts where value changes and rules adapt. It’s an underlying principle for every decision we make and there’s always a scenario that can shift perspectives and make someone look at the situation a little differently. Maybe even change their minds.

Being a philosopher, of sorts, about recruiting – this got me thinking about applicants. The way we, as managers and recruiters, value them.

Candidates Are Water

water for saleIf we go back to the philosophy lesson, candidates fit both sides of the value paradox. They’re water, in that we must have them to function in our roles. But we also treat them like water in a trade, as if we don’t need them at all and their value is $0 by providing the worst experience possible to apply to a job. I know hundreds of top professionals who all have said, “I wanted to apply to company XYZ, but after trying to apply for 10 minutes and seeing no end in sight, I just closed the window.”Right now our candidate experience is more like the ice bucket challenge then an elite experience and it’s causing problems that bleed into our metrics.

You may not realize the candidate application process at your company is broken. You’re not alone. In fact, you’re in an unfortunate majority. 70% of potential candidates abandon the application because the application process takes too much time. If you were a standalone business, relying on that applicant flow – you’d be out of business. It’s simple math, really. If you have over 1,000 people read the job description, let’s say 1,000 feel they are qualified and start to apply. Taking the above 60%-70% abandonment rate, you might get 300 applicants.

These metrics will make any results-oriented executive nervous, and they should. As a CEO/CFO/CHRO, perhaps these are data points you don’t see. You’re distracted by monthly hiring reports with “X” number of people hired, “Y” number of “days open” per requisition, and maybe a few other data points.

Burying your head in the standard numbers is leaving you blind to other metrics that could imply huge losses of candidates in the beginning stages, potentially costing you untold time and money in opportunity costs.

The Argument For Abandonment Metrics

philosophy argumentThe result is that these recruiters then have to market their roles and many go into it with a “diamond” style marketing technique to convince applicants to apply. I see so many recruiters practically begging people to apply to their open roles, only to hear horror stories of how they’ve treated the applicants like garbage. Our pipeline can’t survive on the diamonds that make it through. We look desperate when we post those roles with APPLY NOW or “this job is on fire.” It’s the equivalent of sleazy car salesmen in hiring. The after effects aren’t too different either, leaving people broke and broken down.

These marketing metrics become overly-hyped and distracting to improving the process. Hate to break it to you but impressions aren’t tangible and don’t get applies. They just don’t. If you’re an executive buying into that when it comes to recruiting metrics, it’s time to look at another number. One that’s rarely mentioned but hyper-critical.

It’s the abandonment ratio. This is quite simply the number of people that start applying to the job, then stop and abandon the process. Learning about this number could improve quality simply because more will complete the application, finish the process, and potentially become a candidate. The other cool part? It’s a metrics that translates into action items you can control, unlike time to fill.

To assess this metric, start by applying to a job at your company. Set a timer. If it takes less than 5 minutes, great. If it takes longer, note how long and note any frustrations you have while doing it. Did you get any errors? Did you encounter anything else making your applying frustrating? If so, good. These are quick and easy-to-fix opportunities to improve your processes.

Now, calculate your abandonment ratio. For a rough estimate, take the total number of applicants to any requisition. Divide it by 0.30. This will give you the estimated amount of people that probably read the job description based on the CareerxRoads study that started applying, and then abandon the application.

If you want a more specific number, calculate your own abandonment percent by “scoring” your apply process. For every error or stopping point you encounter, add .02. For every 2 minutes over 5, add .10. So for 4 errors and a 10 minute apply, I’d estimate about 40% abandon versus the standard 30%.

Moral Motivation

life chance and changeTo start treating your candidates like the water you need to survive, it’s time to make changes to your technical apply process. Start looking at your ATS and set up something I call first and second level applications.

Some ATS systems allow you to configure a first level application: uploading a resume, validating name, address, phone, and email. This is enough for any good recruiter to do a first pass evaluation. When candidates get to a phone interview or in-person, you can email them a link to complete a more in-depth, second level application. This may reduce your applicant abandonment immediately by getting the process down to 5 minutes or less.

About The Author

alan fluhrerAlan Fluhrer is a 20+ year talent acquisition manager & recruiter. Industry experience includes banking, engineering, and high-tech, (of all kinds), government intelligence agencies, (I could tell you but I’d have to kill you…joke), and more. His expertise includes talent management, recruiting at all parts of the process and improving processes and methods with a blend of art, science/data, and smattering of common sense. Including onboarding, candidate experience, social media recruiting, branding, and a whole lot of strategy creation and execution.

This Startup Hopes to Crush Upwork and Freelancer, One Text at a Time

woman-smartphone-girl-technologyThe last time they counted, there were 53 million people doing freelance work in the U.S., which is roughly 34 percent of the entire workforce. People who freelance contribute an estimated $715 billion in  earnings to the economy.

Popular sites like Upwork and Freelancer support this community, bringing ‘lancers and companies together. Additionally, LinkedIn is getting into the game with Profounder. It’s definitely trending.

Add TextACoder to the fray.

As the name suggests, those in need of a little web development help can text their request to a phone number, (202) 683-8384. The company promises to save you time and money that would otherwise be spent interviewing Upworkers and other freelancers via a 3-step process, as described by their site:

  1. Shoot us a text message with details of your task.
  2. We’ll shoot you a quote for completing the task.
  3. You pay and we get started immediately!

The cost? Work starts at $75 total, and “most small tasks” hit a ceiling at $500. Sample jobs include landing page design, WordPress bug squashing and data crawling. If you want to create a self-driving car, I’m guessing that would be significantly more expensive.

If you’re like me, at this point you’re asking “why not email?” I mean, SMS-based services are neat, and it probably opens up opportunities overseas that don’t exist in the developed world, but good ol’ email seems much more efficient, being able to attach things like files and images.

TextACoder - Nick O'Neill
Nick O’Neill of TextACoder

The reason to go text can be found with the company’s chief coding officer, Nick O’Neill, who is also the founder of Holler. His flagship company enables organizations to support customers via SMS or Facebook from a single interface. So, it’s Holler that serves at the backbone for TextACoder.

But it’s the people that will make-or-break the product. Where is TextACoder getting its coders? O’Neill explains, “The app doesn’t find people, I find people. I have my own process for finding people to support projects. As of today, clients have been happy with the deliverables so as long as that’s the case, I am happy.”

Unlike Upwork and others, who rate developers based on reviews from past jobs, TextACoder basically serves as a curator of the best developers and directs them accordingly. That’s a tough model to scale, but I suspect O’Neill, a self-described “full-time tinkerer” isn’t in this to get-rich-quick.

The service also offers a money-back guarantee, stating “If we are unable to deliver your project in the stated time (typically 48 hours), we will give you back your money. No questions asked.” They also guarantee the quality of their code.

About the Author

joel-cheesman-headshotJoel Cheesman has over 20 years experience in the online recruitment space. He worked for both international and local job boards in the late ‘90s and early ‘00s. In 2005, Cheesman founded HRSEO, a search engine marketing company for HR, as well as launching an award-winning industry blog called Cheezhead.

He has been featured in Fast Company and US News and World Report. He sold his company in 2009 to Jobing.com. He was employed by EmployeeScreenIQ, a background check company. He is the founder of Ratedly, an iOS app that monitors anonymous employee reviews. He is the father of two children and lives in Indianapolis. Yes, he’s on Twitter and LinkedIn.

Fashion Forward and Hiring Trends

Claiming one recruiting method or tool is better than any other is like debating whether bell bottoms, skorts or cargo shorts are best.

80's fashionIf you pull out of a picture of any of my friends in the 80’s or 90’s, there’s a moment of fear. Fear of side pony-tails, daisy dukes and other fashion trends of the 80’s and 90’s that leave us feeling like a spectacle or some character from an “old” movie. We quickly try to explain to our children using standard phrases like “that was the fashion at the time” and “we were cool!”

What was cool back then, isn’t cool today to these young generations of man buns and plaid. Which, by the way has already been fashionable at one point in my lifetime (see Nirvana era). Hell, even bell bottoms have made their appearance in the fashion trends twice in my time on earth. How, I do not know.

Kids don’t get the trends. They don’t understand how these fashion faux-pas become fashionistas in just a few years, or just how hip we were with our side pony tails. They just care about the now, ignoring what worked way back then.

Just as unpredictable as fashion trends that weave out of style just after we’ve taken that box to Goodwill, so goes human resources trends. Every blog is stacked with another round of predictions for top performers and top talent trends you must know in whatever year is coming up. I mean, they’re cut and dry, pretty cliche and they’re on most blogs about recruiting annually.

Editor’s note: Yes, even this one – we just tell the story with better gifs.

Talent Trends are Tiring

Experts keep telling us that everything is changing, and if you don’t keep up, it will be the death of you as a recruiter. When I see hyperbolic claims of tectonic shifts in recruiting and disruptive disruptions disrupting all things deemed disruptable, I merely yawn. That’s a bit dramatic for my taste, considering I know for a fact there are still companies that against the trends and odds, survive with 40 minute apply processes and paper applications.

I’ve lost track of how many industry related things supposedly died or are on the brink of dying. One minute, phone fanatics are all the rage. The next thing you know, e-mail enthusiasts are winning the war for talent. Next, mobile moves ahead. Oh let’s not forget social recruiting sliding in on the action.

Claiming one method or tool is better than any other is like debating whether sweats, bell bottoms, daisy dukes, skorts or cargo shorts are best. There’s so much stuff allegedly going in and out of style that not even the fashion police can tell the difference between a normal nerd and a haughty hipster.

Making a decision on what kind of pants you wear usually depends on the situation, perhaps as much as your physique. That’s probably exactly how decisions are made about which recruiting techniques make the most sense in any given scenario. In other words, your taste, sense of style and whatever flatters your figure fashion-wise is quite similar to figuring out how to find what fits when you’re trying to recruit the right fit.

So go ahead, try everything on for size, but don’t become a fashion victim – just chasing trends. I enjoy observing the latest developments as much as the next person. I try to keep up, but don’t recommend blindly adopting each new thing that comes along. Sometimes being old-fashioned is wiser and more cost-effective than trying to be in fashion. Just like building a wardrobe, invest in the timeless search and selection staples that serve a purpose. Getting the basics right will never go out of style.

Sure, runway super-models look chic wearing items that would appear outrageously hideous running errands. How about those high-waistline trousers? Nothing but unflattering mom jeans reincarnated.

There’s something refreshingly avant-garde about rebelliously sticking with what works.

That’s So Last Season

But, that’s not a favorite of the business publications. Instead of focusing on what works, they’re perpetually pushing out snippets of the trendiest ideas, a few of which I wish would fade away, like those jeans you swear still fit.

  1. Hot start-up interview questions: The questions rarely seem to have any discernable job-relatedness, but that doesn’t deter anyone from deciding to use them when making hiring decisions. Just like gowns, interview questions run the gamut from red-carpet worthy to thread-bare thrift-store rejects. It’s not just that the questions themselves are dubious (at best) but it’s the interpretations the leaders provide for how they decipher important information from the answers that I find so questionable. When they strive to catch someone off-guard or put people in an awkward power-play disadvantage it doesn’t prove anything other than arrogance. Ultimately, regardless of whichever “curveball” questions any given leader relies on, they always tend to believe what their gut tells them. These smarty-pants leaders somehow seem to think they have woven together a tell-all talent tapestry simply by asking candidates “gotcha” questions.
  2. Time to put on the big girl or big boy pants: Bias is everywhere. Why isn’t anyone trying to kill it off? Death to discrimination! There’s a lot of talk about discrimination but there are even more examples of ridiculous and even discriminatory hiring criteria. Certain recruiters (internal and external) apparently believe they are entitled to ask intrusive non-job-related questions whenever the mood strikes. I’ve seen some recruiters proudly proclaim that they are expected to do so on behalf of their client or hiring manager. Those same interviewers make snap decisions based on nonsensical assumptions and presumptions. Big-billers aren’t shy about boasting about their hard-core style which they justify in braggadocious psychobabble. What those recruiters should be realizing is their actions are a direct reflection of their client. If they cross the line, it not only establishes a negative candidate experience, it creates a liability for the hiring company. Third party agents are not exempt from professionalism or employment laws.
  3. Who wears the pants in this relationship? Such an old-fashioned concept about pants wearing, but alas the sexist mentality behind it keeps making a comeback. In fact, there’s a plethora of topics arranged around all things ending with ist. Much of the recruiting $#!+ show revolves around treating people poorly. When a recruiter or someone else involved with a hiring process maintains bigoted or biased beliefs, the relationship is unbalanced. That person is the pants wearer. The rest of the participants in the process, especially applicants and candidates, end up at the mercy of Mr/Ms bossypants. Bullying others and enabling or excusing that behavior is an ugly, mismatched, ensemble that needs to be pulled out of the closet and thrown in the dumpster.

Fashion Forward

You don’t have to be a fashionista to know apparel changes with the seasons. That same idea could apply to recruiting practices. However, there’s no shame in your game if you aren’t a trendsetter. No need to lunge toward the latest fad like paparazzi pounce to capture celebrities’ nip slips. Instead of worrying about the instagramiest must-have “accessory” as featured by HR-famous-twitterati types, how about purging the shelves and racks of outdated habits?

In this profession we have an obligation to enlighten, educate and hold hiring parties accountable. If some @$$hat struts in with his/her stereotyping, shut that sucker down. If some nincompoop spouts off ding-a-ling ditch the ring advice, set ‘em straight. If a hiring manager picks people apart for some imagined faux pas, put that person on notice to notice what matters.

As a “brand”, recruiting does not fare well in the image and reputation department. Some people in this field need to pull themselves together. Maybe we can help them. Maybe not. L’Oréal’s updated slogan “because we’re worth it” seems fitting for this effort.

Behaving professionally and treating people with courtesy, dignity and respect will always be stylish.

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.

Reputation Repair: Analyzing Glassdoor Ratings of the Fortune 500

reviewsWhen you’re going to a town you’ve never been to before, where do you go to find advice and help on what to eat? Yelp, of course.

You want to know where the best food is. What people think. We need to ask the expert and get advice from friends because we’re overwhelmed with options. We tend to actually make decisions based on those references, especially when we’re interacting with people online.

There are armies of academics doing research on this new economy, driven by user-generated content. User-generated content has a bigger impact on consumer product knowledge and purchase decisions than anything they’ve figured out in the lab. It’s probably obvious why – online reviews and ratings reduce the uncertainty factor for prospective consumers. We know we’re eating something good. We know we’re buying the “right” thing.

Now, right or wrong, people believe this stuff. Nielsen found that online opinions were trusted by two-thirds of consumers. That’s 66% of your buying audience.

Shopping For Jobs

In studies from major analysts and researchers in our world, everyone is reporting that candidates are “shopping” for jobs the same way we shop for food – by the references. We trust strangers who generate content more than we trust our instincts and that has evolved into today’s user-generated jobs economy.

That has driven a dramatic increase in the attention recruiters are placing on Glassdoor feedback, of course. Some talent acquisition organizations are even including their Glassdoor interview ratings in their corporate metrics.  Others are looking to find ways to increase the number of interview reviews. It’s becoming an agenda item to the C-Suite so I wanted to take the time to figure out if reviews even matter.

To test the theory given the greater emphasis and priority being placed on the user-generated candidate experience story, I thought I would research the interview performance of the Fortune 500.

Here is what I learned:

number of glassdoor reviews of fortune 500

1. The average number of interview reviews is 481, but most have less than 154 reviews

There is a wide distribution in the number of interview ratings, with about 10% of companies having more than 1000 reviews, however, many organizations do not even have 30 reviews. The mode number of Fortune 500 Glassdoor interview reviews is only 154, thus half of the F500 have less than 154 interview reviews

2. Not surprisingly, for most companies, only a small fraction of candidates  leave feedback, but have a big impact on company perception

Average Glassdoor Interview Rating F500

 

The average number of employees in the F500 is about 69,000.  Assuming 15% of the total workforce is close to the number of annual hires, and each filled-position interviewed 2.5 candidates, then, on average, 25,000 candidates are interviewed each year for an F500 company.  With a mean of 481 cumulative reviews collected since Glassdoor started, then it is easy to see how less than 1% of interviewed candidates actually post feedback on Glassdoor. Thus, similar to Yelp, the critical few have a big impact on the many candidate readers.

 

Positive Glassdoor Rating F500

3. The average positive experience across the Fortune 500 is 63%.

I have heard many recruiters hypothesize that most candidates only go to leave feedback on Glassdoor if they had a bad experience.  The data clearly does not support this perspective.

In fact, the mode is also 63%, thus almost two-thirds of all reviewers had a good interview experience.  On the flip side, there are only a handful of companies who crossed the 80% positive threshold.  This tells me that there is still long way to go for almost every company to improve their candidate interview experience.

Note: Graphic excludes 19 companies where the number of reviews was less than 30.

4. The average negative experience across the F500 is 16%

While a 16% mean negative rating may not seem like much, let’s look at the math if you are a consumer-oriented company.  If a company is interviewing 25,000 candidates, and the 16% is a statistically representative sample, then about 4000 candidates are unhappy with their experience. Not only might they tell friends and colleagues about their bad experience which impacts other potential hires, but losing even half of those customers (2000) for a lifetime could be worth millions of dollars in lost revenue.  It’s pretty easy to do the math on why investing a little more in the candidate experience has a positive ROI.

Note: Graphic excludes 19 companies where the number of reviews was less than 30.

5. Glassdoor’s feedback methodology isn’t that helpful for employers. 

While I realize Glassdoor wants to make it simple for candidates to submit feedback, there are a few glaring issues to make the data useful for employers. The 3-point ‘Rate the Overall Experience’ scale is oversimplified to provide differentiated statistics. Using the Net Promoter Score scale would provide more meaningful, standardized data to use for analysis. Similarly, Glassdoor’s current method of capturing open-ended feedback relates to their ‘Describe the Interview Process’ question with additional ‘Briefly describe the interviewing and hiring process’.  While this is helpful to set expectations for other candidates to know what to expect, it does not consistently guide candidates to detail what went well and didn’t go well for their interview experience.  Here are some good examples where candidates detailed answers were very helpful. Unfortunately, a majority of the time, candidates detail the process steps without adding an explanation for their rating.  Putting in an additional text field after the rating scale with the question ‘Why did you give this rating?’ would be helpful to both candidates and employers.

6. It only takes one person to create a negative candidate experience.

After reading hundreds of negative reviews, one pattern quickly became apparent. No matter how many times a candidate detailed interactions with several interviewers and multiple positive experiences, it took a single bad event (like an interviewer didn’t read their resume, the recruiter didn’t follow up in a reasonable amount of time) for all that goodwill to be forgotten. This shows how a great candidate experience is only as strong as its weakest link.

Review To Do

My key take-away from this analysis is that it is still early in the game for companies to shape and change their Glassdoor interview ratings and reviews.  By both improving their candidate experience and leveraging new ways to encourage candidates to leave feedback, employers can drive up their positive feedback rates to improve their employer brand and candidate perception.

 

Resume Spam Goes High-Tech with Jobscan

JobscanKeyword stuffing is the act of, well, stuffing a web page with keywords, hoping to get found online. It’s commonly referred to as spam. And before Google got pretty good at filtering this spam, it was very prevalent. Remember the days of white-on-white keyword stuffing?

Keyword stuffing has been a problem with resumes, too. Candidates will do anything to improve their chances of being noticed by an employer, which should surprise no one. It’s also no surprise to learn that employers stuff keywords into job postings for similar reasons.

The fact that tech solutions pop-up to take advantage of this reality is no shocker either. Enter Jobscan.

Founder James Hu says the idea came to him as a frustrated job seeker. “We set-out to learn how applicant tracking systems worked, and how the filtering worked on so many of them.”

This philosophy comes through clearly on the company website, which says:

“Ninety percent of large companies use Applicant Tracking Systems to search for qualified candidates from large applicant pools. These systems help employers by analyzing resumes and CVs, surfacing candidates that best match the position and filtering out those who don’t. We have researched the top systems used by thousands of companies, and built our algorithm based on the common patterns among them.”

Jobscan-Resume-TechnologyThe service is clever. Users copy and paste their resume into a box. Then, they do the same with the job posting. From there, Jobscan spits out an analysis about how a resume can be beefed-up to better the chances of getting through ATS filters and noticed by a recruiter. An example of a recommendation a user might get includes, “This job requires or prefers an advanced degree. An advanced degree is not found in your resume.”

The technology isn’t evil. The potential for human deceit, however, is present. In theory, a candidate would look at the fact that the job requires an advanced degree, and move on. At the opposite end of the spectrum is the candidate who adds some advanced degree to get noticed by the employer. “If I just get in the door,” they think, “I can talk my way into the job.”

It’s not rational to add skills to a resume for a job you’re not qualified for, but it happens. Trust me, I used to work for a background check company. Humans do human things. And employers end up wasting time and money because of it. Will Jobscan work really well for many job seekers who are looking to improve their chances of landing a job morally? Sure. Will it empower others to skirt the system? Yes, that too.

I’ll also add that the resume black hole phenomenon is likely the reason technologies such as this exist. Because too few candidates and prospects actually hear back from employers and there’s such a lack of transparency with hiring, people are going to search for ways to get past the perceived gatekeepers.

Users get up to five job scans for free. After that, Jobscan charges $49.95-per-month, or $89.95 for a 3-month commitment. The site markets itself primarily through content, getting picked up by search engines. The company is also looking to target employers with new features and services in the future.

 

About the Author

joel-cheesman-headshotJoel Cheesman has over 20 years experience in the online recruitment space. He worked for both international and local job boards in the late ‘90s and early ‘00s. In 2005, Cheesman founded HRSEO, a search engine marketing company for HR, as well as launching an award-winning industry blog called Cheezhead.

He has been featured in Fast Company and US News and World Report. He sold his company in 2009 to Jobing.com. He was employed by EmployeeScreenIQ, a background check company. He is the founder of Ratedly, an iOS app that monitors anonymous employee reviews. He is the father of two children and lives in Indianapolis. Yes, he’s on Twitter and LinkedIn.

No Drama Demo: Jobvite

 No Drama Demo: Jobvite

Do any of these sound familiar:

  • Is your time to hire taking up way too much time?
  • Are your referral rates dismal?
  • Has reporting become a hub of chaos where stakeholders are missing key information?
  • Did you outgrow your ATS?
  • Can you quantify quality talent?

_____________________________________________

Issues in our company like referral rates, time to hire and big data aren’t just buzzwords. They’re challenges we all need to pay attention to. And for the savvy hiring team, they’re obstacles they want to overcome.

These teams start by scouring the internet for checklists and case studies only to figure out that sometimes the checklists don’t address your specific problems. At this point, it’s important to pivot to a new search. One for the right technology that can help you not only identify the problems in your organization but also indicate the right direction you should head to find the solutions. That’s why we want to introduce you to Jobvite.

Don Archer, Senior Solutions Consultant at Jobvite, hosts this private demo to show you the technology solution for these key questions. He’ll cover how this product addresses these core challenges in your corporation and show you the in’s and out’s of this new solution from a recruiting perspective.

Busted: I Have Resume Bias

We all have resume bias – errors and mistakes that are deal breakers and will stop you from ever getting an interview.

college resumeAh, college. It’s where so many of those “this one time..” stories start, unless you attend a lot of open bar HR conference happy hours, of course. College is the place where you start to learn your story – personally and professionally. You being to refine those dreams and realize that maybe you don’t want to be a doctor or lawyer after all.

Upon graduation, 5 or more years later for most kids, you’re responsible for telling that story. For translating all of your learning and “work experience,” or lack thereof, into a cohesive and coherent resume. Of course, up to this point – you’ve never been taught to write a resume in the first place so your resume advice comes from an array of sources: family, friends, the Internet, of course. But many colleges also offer another resource, your college career center.

The first resume advice many of us get from an actual human is from that college career counselor. They’re supposed to be experts on careers, after all, and at the low price of $0 (if you ignore the tens of thousands you’ve already paid for college), they’re worth it.

I can almost hear the recruiters cringing now, especially those of us who have looked at a thousand resumes with the same formatting. The same mistakes. In general, we have a bit of mistrust towards these guys, often 20 plus year tenured veterans of the career counseling department. Our hesitance is valid considering they haven’t actually applied for a job since faxing in your resume was a thing at most companies.

I’m Resume Biased

college resumeThe thing is, most of these kids don’t learn better. They don’t back off that terrible template until a recruiter makes suggestions to help them find a specific job. That version becomes their new template and the cycle continues. I’m that recruiter who stops to offer advice because, well. I have a confession. It’s been there for years, eating at me. But I’m ok with it now. I’m ok with who I am as a person and as a recruiter. And it’s time to stop hiding.

My name is Pete and I’m particular about resumes. In fact, I’m biased about resumes.

I spend a good deal of my time reviewing resumes for tech-centric roles. Resumes from software engineers, UXers, research, product and analytics candidates are the center of my world and have been for some time. Agile, production environments and user-centric design are all part of my daily vernacular. Because of this (or maybe in spite of it) whether we like to admit it or not, all resumes start to look alike. Which is probably why when we see a resume that breaks the mold, we get all googly-eyed.

But the dark side of our mass consumption of resumes is that there is a proliferation of resumes that defy logic and wind up influencing some of these biases I’m talking about. I realize I’m commiserating with fellow resume biased recruiters. We all have those pet peeves that are no-go, deal breaking, resume in trash moments. However, how often do you take the time to educate candidates on why their resume is garbage?

So in hopes of educating the candidates and venting my frustrations with like-minded folks, I present my resume biases.

Missspelllingss

misspellings resumeI can never overstate how confounding misspellings in a resume can be. It’s the first representation of you as a candidate and it needs to be a good one. There is also some credence to this skill being mission critical for the job you apply for, considering one typo in code means the code will never work. While it may seem like petty stuff,  it can have implications that have a far and wide reach for the future of your company. As a candidate, if you are a quality assurance (QA) engineer or a statistician and your resume is littered with misspelled words, I can make some safe assumptions as to your level of attention to detail.

Say what you want about Microsoft and their suite of products, but their core office basics are relatively novice to use. You should be able to run a simple spelling and grammar check before flailing a resume about. And because no software program is perfect, candidates should also be getting a second set of eyes on their resume, and a third and final look over with their own eyes. I shouldn’t be the one proofreading it for you.

Bolding without Borders.

resume blundersBack in the old agency days, you could tell which resumes came from the 3rd party firms. And to be clear, by 3rd party I mean the subcontractors that were used to fill our deals with clients. We could spot them a mile away with their first and last name centered at the top, a phone number and an email. And in most cases that actually wasn’t the candidate’s email, but rather the account manager of the 3rd party. I could deal with this because it was the price of doing business.

But then there was the bolding. So much bolding.

It seemed that every third word (or alternatively, every third technical skill – take your pick) was bolded. It made a resume difficult to visually scan over and thoroughly reading it made my eyes want to bleed. And since the vast majority of these resumes kept coming from the same types of sources – sometimes solicited, but usually not. They were easy to categorize – or more accurately, generalize. The same thing happens when the career counselor uses the same format for everyone in the graduating class of 2016.

For the most part, I stopped looking at these resumes and wasting my time. Even in the limited scenarios where I was able to persevere past the bolding and call the candidate, it usually was a bust of a call with the same scripted answers to questions. As I developed relationships with these 3rd parties, I’d tell them and their candidates to never send me a resume like that. If it irritated me, it likely irritated my clients who didn’t look at half the volume of resumes that I did.

I figured that in making a leap to the corporate side, I would see far fewer of these types of resumes, seeing as I’d be doing more direct versus indirect hiring. In all fairness, I did see less of this faux pas but they seem even more prevalent now than in past years. I’m still seeing them and I’m not sure what the impetus of that is. In a random sample of 50 resumes, I looked to see how many had a bolding pattern of some kind. It was 13. Over 20% of the resumes had this attribute. It’s a brutal assault on the senses.

I’m not sure if this is being coached by resume writers, and if it is, I’d love to know more about the rationale. Maybe I’m missing some science behind it all. Perhaps it’s a format that someone was given earlier on and they were given bad or outdated advice about what recruiters want to see. I doubt it was purported by the ATS companies considering many of them struggle with basic functions like resume parsing. Imagine if we threw standardized bolding into the mix?

The One Page Lifetime

resume blundersThe third thing that irks me is people trying to cram their entire career and/or life story into one page. Now let me be clear here, if you are a new grad or in your first or even second job, then the one-pager is probably completely suitable for your purposes.  But for a seasoned 10-15 year veteran of the industry, one page can’t possibly cover all you have done. By no means am I asking for the employment-seeking version of War and Peace, but 2-3 pages is fine by me, especially if you are in the technical realm. I want to see what you actually did.

When I ask someone why they only have one page, they often reply with “well I was told that recruiters only want to see a one-page resume”. Instinctively I tell them that this went the way of the Dodo bird, and want to know who gave them this advice. My suspicion is that they are getting canned advice from non-practitioner hacks and not from people who are in the field who can give them unbiased information, rather than clickbait garbage. It’s a plague of our industry, I’m well aware.

Maybe it’s me. Maybe I’m more sensitive to all of this because it’s part of what I do for my CAREER, and I know that other colleagues have shared frustrations. But I’m more likely to move along quickly from a resume that crosses any of these lines, and I’ve developed this bias against them because of my past experiences. And the truth of the matter is that I’ve probably missed a few would-be strong hires along the way by employing this approach (or validating my bias), but I’ve probably saved myself some headaches threefold.

But it sure is nice to be able to say it out loud.

unnamed (11)About the Author: Pete Radloff has 15 years of recruiting experience in both agency and corporate environments, and has worked with such companies as Comscore, exaqueo, National Public Radio and Living Social.

With experience and expertise in using technology and social media to enhance the candidate experience and promote strong employer brands, Pete also serves as lead consultant for exaqueo, a workforce consulting firm.

An active member of the Washington area recruiting community, Pete is currently a VP and sits on the Board of Directors of RecruitDC.

Follow Pete on Twitter @PJRadloff or connect with him on LinkedIn, or at his blog, RecruitingIn3D.

It’s Different for Girls: LinkedIn’s Unprofessional Network

feministThe bias behind being called a feminist is rampant. To this day, just saying the word feminist strikes fear in most men’s eyes. They look shocked and scared by the mental image of burning bras and screaming women and forget that this is an important passion point. Bottom line, women aren’t treated with the same lense and equal opportunities in the workplace, in government and now, even on social media sites.

But before I dig into the LinkedIn side of this spectacle, I have to proclaim that I, too, am a feminist. Yes, men can be feminists too. I will always advocate on behalf of women on the grounds of political, social and economic equality to men. I am honored to say that the majority of friends I have, and not just in my professional life, are women. They are some of the most intelligent, confident and charismatic people I know and they have taught me valuable lessons both personally and professionally. Not that they have to be anything superiorly special for me to believe they deserve equal rights but for some reason, they’re not always given the same respect we would all expect.

Mahatma Gandhi was quoted as saying “Of all the evils for which man has made himself responsible, none is so degrading, so shocking or so brutal as his abuse of the better half of humanity; the female sex.” Unfortunately, I think he got it right. While I know it’s rampant across all industries, it most disgusts me when I see it in our own.

The misogyny I’ve witnessed in the recruiting world blows my mind. Despite the fact that women are the majority in our industry, men are flippant and, at times, disregard women in the hiring process.  I have personally witnessed phone and in-person interviews where the candidate wants to negotiate compensation with the male manager as opposed to the female recruiter who got him through the process. In that situation and every parallel, all I can say is what the fuck.

Unwarranted InMail

feminist on linkedinWhat always concerned me about LinkedIn is the profile photo. LinkedIn put in their service agreement years ago that it had to be a picture of the person that owned the account, no cool avatars like other sites; they wanted it to be “professional.” Sure. You are supposed to be professional. They want us to approach our profiles with a certain level of professionalism and not treat the site like Facebook or Twitter.

However, over the last couple of years the site has morphed into anything but, featuring everything from political posts to cat gifs and slowly transforming into the most unprofessional network. All of that behavior has, apparently, convinced men the website is a way to contact women and proposition them from behind a screen. Match.com with a resume attached – how nice.

But no. I don’t get why these Casanova’s think they should be finding dates trolling female recruiters on a networking site.  It’s like they know that we, as recruiters, say yes to every connection to build a pipeline with, who we think, are legitimate sources for applicants or the way to one. This expectation of connection has set women up to be the target of aggressive and unwanted advances.

For example, take a look at what these wordsmiths are putting together to entice a lady.

Hi.How are you doing, Hope good? I saw your profile, so I decided to write you because I could not resist you. I must tell you that you look pretty, would you be interested in our getting to know each other over a Few Text: (number removed so we don’t kill them)

Or this short but creepiest of creepy email:

“But you must know am a Single man, who will love to start a new life. you are really a very beautiful woman and i hope to read from you soon..Allen”

I would love to interview these asshats to determine their exact thought process behind this behavior but no matter what they said, I think I’d be stumped. There’s no excuse.

This doesn’t just happen blindly online, unfortunately. Take the case of a very close friend of mine. She attended a conference and was harassed by a guy who decided to drink a few too many of those free cocktails. He spent the evening hitting on her then, I assume, praying to the porcelain throne. When he came to his senses, he decided that an InMail would be the wisest course of action to apologize.

I have a headache just trying to understand his logic and I’m a guy. I know we do stupid things. However, I cannot begin to understand this behavior. I will say my friend is as smart as she is pretty and her response was both eloquent and epic #truestory:

The real truth is this asshat used a supposedly professional networking site to ask out, and then try and apologize for, afterward realizing that using a networking site for a hookup is a tremendously stupid idea. Sadly this was not some frat boy at Stanford, but a so-called industry thought leader in social marketing. Lovely. That is the type of conference I want to attend.

The Rant: Rallying Against Bad InMail Behavior

feminist“Life is hard, it’s even harder when you are stupid.” – John Wayne

All of this context is more than enough for me to rant, and you know how I love to rant. To all the guys out there that are doing this sort of thing and thinking they’re cool: STOP IT!

There are literally thousands of websites that are designed to match you to women. A brief list to save you the trouble of actually finding these on you own or using a lack of information as an excuse: Match.com, Eharmony.com, Zoosk, Tinder, POF (Plenty of Fish) and last but not least if you want to meet professional looking for love check out professional Match.com.

These sites are both on mobile and desktop and created with the intent of speaking to people who actually want to meet up with someone. Everyone on those sites is trying to meet someone as a prospective mate – not vulnerably under the impression that this site and your outreach is relevant to their job search or product hunt.

You are shaming the feminist men in the world who actually respect women. We have had enough of this bullshit, and the women that we should be championing are instead being intimidated by your craptatistic advances. I, for one, am sick of it.

I set-up a group, ironically enough, on LinkedIn so that women can add screen shots of these losers so that we begin to track how much of a problem this is. Surely LinkedIn/Microsoft will start taking the issue more seriously than they are now, right?

Sadly I’m laughing at my own naivety but here’s to hoping. #truestory

Derek ZellerAbout the Author: Derek Zeller draws from over 16 years in the recruiting industry. The last 11 years he has been involved with federal government recruiting specializing within the cleared Intel space under OFCCP compliance. He is currently serves as Technical Recruiting Lead at Comscore.

He has experience with both third party agency and in-house recruiting for multiple disciplines and technologies. Using out-of-the-box tactics and strategies to identify and engage talent, he has had significant experience in building referral and social media programs, the implementation of Applicant Tracking Systems, technology evaluation, and the development of sourcing, employment branding, military and college recruiting strategies.

You can read his thoughts on RecruitingDaily.com or Recruitingblogs.com or his own site Derdiver.com.  Follow Derek on Twitter @Derdiver or connect with him on LinkedIn.

Sourcing Niche Tech Talent: Tools Breakdown

 Sourcing Niche Tech Talent: Tools Breakdown

No one knows recruiting tools better than veteran RecruitingTools.com writer, Dean Da Costa.

As technology roles become more niche and nuanced, standard recruiting tools just won’t do. You need a new layer that digs deeper and turns up more information than ever.

In this webinar, we’ve asked Dean Da Costa to present an array of new recruiting tools. Also tips and hacks for sourcing niche tech talent. He also presented his philosophy and approach to 3 niche roles to help you build pipelines. That and how to connect with candidates. As well as  source efficiently on the right tools.

Watch and learn sourcing hacks like:

  • Incognito tools that will dig into tech communities to hyper-target your sourcing strategies
  • Profile scrapping and clipping tools to export your most sought after profiles on your target list to excel or your ATS
  • And more!

Meet the Presenter

Dean Da CostaDean 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.  Dean’s keen insight and creation of innovative tools and processes for enhancing and changing staffing has established Dean as one of the top authorities in sourcing and recruiting.

Connect with Dean at LinkedIn or follow @DeanDaCosta on Twitter.

CareerBuilder is Officially ‘For Sale’

tegna-inc-logoForget what I said about CareerBuilder circling the wagons.

Turns out, Tegna, the company that was spun off from Gannett last year and 53 percent stakeholder in CareerBuilder, has other ideas. Announced today, Tegna, also the largest independent owner of NBC and CBS affiliates and Cars.com is evaluating strategic alternatives for its job directory website CareerBuilder.

If you’ve watched a couple hours of business television or read a few pages of The Wall Street Journal, you probably know that “strategic alternatives” translates to “We’re for sale, everybody! Make an offer today!”

The struggles of the help wanted business for most providers is well known, but damn! According to a release Tegna said Cars.com will be able to invest more in buying digital automotive assets. They’re keeping the online car buying business, but ditching the employment business? Seriously?

What are they going to do when self-driving cars are transporting everyone around and no one is buying cars anymore? I jest, but it says a lot when a company believes there’s a brighter future in selling cars than selling talent. Cars.com will be headquartered in Chicago and will trade under the ticker symbol CARS.

Want more proof? Also reported this week, CareerBuilder has severed its partnership to power the job sections of newspapers sites like Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times.

This news also shines a light on why CareerBuilder has been making some of its recent moves and acquisitions. By becoming more of a technology solution instead of a job board, they’re able to spin-off the job posting business while keeping the tech business. It might even explain the logo change.

So who’s a good prospect to buy the job posting business? Private equity? Staffing firm? AOL? You’re guess is as good as mine at this point, but the smart money is probably with private equity. Reports predict timeline for such a deal could be early 2017.

It’s also worth noting there will be no love lost with many employers to see CareerBuilder under new ownership. For years, employers and agencies I know have complained about the heavy-handed sales tactics of CareerBuilder. “Clients jump for joy when we move their budget out of CareerBuilder and into Indeed,” said one agency veteran who requested anonymity. As a result, any prospective acquirer needs to take a hard look at its brand reputation, not just awareness.

Got a few hundred million burning a hole in your pocket? A job board stalwart could be yours. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: I’m hearing rumors that the most likely acquirer will be a staffing company, like Robert Half or Allegis. This makes most sense, considering that fact that Monster is in the process of being acquired by staffing company Randstad.

About the Author

joel-cheesman-headshotJoel Cheesman has over 20 years experience in the online recruitment space. He worked for both international and local job boards in the late ‘90s and early ‘00s. In 2005, Cheesman founded HRSEO, a search engine marketing company for HR, as well as launching an award-winning industry blog called Cheezhead.

He has been featured in Fast Company and US News and World Report. He sold his company in 2009 to Jobing.com. He was employed by EmployeeScreenIQ, a background check company. He is the founder of Ratedly, an iOS app that monitors anonymous employee reviews. He is the father of two children and lives in Indianapolis. Yes, he’s on Twitter and LinkedIn.

Surviving The Times: Millennials And The Death of the American Dream.

tumblr_mk2velZcyu1rkghn2o1_1280Millennial themed content is kind of like the minstrel show of the new Millennium.

It’s blatantly offensive to a protected class through sweeping stereotypes for the purposes of entertaining the masses who largely distrust this largely marginalized group, who find great pleasure in the overt, exaggerated and hyperbolized presentation of perceived Gen Y foibles.

In fact, this cottage industry of discriminatory ageism disguised as some sort of “best practice” or workforce strategy, which is akin to cryptozoology or phrenology in terms of the validity of a field that is at best, the collision of pseudoscience and pop culture.

At its worst, it’s unadulterated ageism, and often pundits and practitioners don’t even bother hiding their bias or completely irrational (and illegal) beliefs on gender theory. This has become almost as cliche as me writing a post decrying this specious and silly phenomenon. Hell, at this point, the spurious study of “Millennials” is almost a generation old itself.

The World Is Yours: Millennials Falling and the Rise of “Gen Z.”

tumblr_n2p3y8OryW1rpc1rco1_500But, it seems, there’s good news, as studies and surveys increasingly turn their speculative gaze and ridiculous statistics from my generation to “Gen Z,” which, of course, is pretty much the same exact thing as “Gen Y,” but with a different age bracket and some slightly differentiated talking points.

This makes sense, given the negligible difference between these two cohorts really only exists for the purposes of consulting services and content marketing.

Monster, in what might be one of their final PR pushes before going into hiding in the Secret Annex that is Randstad Global, in fact just released a comprehensive study, involving a lot of survey design, administration and data interpretation, which is pricy and involved pretty much no matter what.

And for all the resources invested in this report, the key findings about these enigmatic workers of the future were, well, basically a combination of common sense and stating the obvious. Exhibit A, the title of this fascinating bit of fake news, entitled: Move Over, Millennials! Gen Z Is About To Hit the Workforce, which basically means, “same shit, different demographic.”

genz2Click here for the full version, but the first bold faced conclusion in the report is that “Gen Z Is Motivated – By Money And Ambition.” 

Well, thanks for that one, Captain Obvious. Apparently this huge finding confirms that, unlike generations before them, those crazy kids you’re going to have to manage in the indeterminate future go to work for a paycheck, would like that paycheck to be bigger, and actually have some professional goals beyond, you know, hoping shit works out.

The solution here: pay employees fairly and develop them. Yeah, I know. Gen Z is f-ing ridiculous, am I right? And, obviously, outliers that necessitate the publication of even more insights into stuff that anyone who follows either logic or personal observation could tell you without hiring a couple data scientists and retaining an Omnicom subsidiary to package a priori BS with a pretty little bow.

The report, in order primarily to justify the existence of such a ridiculous manufactured news item based on a hypothesis clearly created by creatives instead of people who actually work for a living, did outline some perceived differences between Gen Y and Gen Z that the data supposedly supported.

You know, because they’re like, totally not the same thing and it’s not just a question of career maturity and age, because that would make for a shitty marketing campaign and probably not a great play for consulting services.

Street Dreams: Moving From Ping Pong Tables to Picket Fences.

6902284383_2bc80c495eIn this report, Monster found “an unexpected twist,” which is that they differ from Gen Y workers “by valuing benefits and security that have traditionally been associated with Boomers and members of Gen X.”

Get ready for a generation of workers who actually care about stability instead of, you know, solipsism.  In Monster’s words: “Forget Ping Pong – Gen Z Wants A White Picket Fence.”

That’s right. They could give two shits about table tennis – unlike Gen Y, who will obviously only work at places where they can play ping pong on company tables that are in no way props for the Potemkin Village that is startup culture.

Gen Y, apparently, just wanted beanbags, maybe free lunch Fridays and to move up or out every six months. Their successors, however, actually would like to have some modicum of a predictable, steady and otherwise materially oriented existence which separates work from life, and subsidized health insurance.

Since Gen Z hasn’t really hit the workforce yet, this is all guesswork (although that will be the case even post facto), but accepting the survey and results as at least statistically valid (if not completely necessary), then this trend is actually not only a headline, but further evidence that age ain’t nothing but a number, and our circumstances determine our expectations.

For Gen Z, those circumstances are far more favorable than their Gen Y counterparts, and the fact that they apparently have some sort of hope of things like job stability, affordable home ownership or expect benefits from an employer is a really, really good sign that things have turned around.

Because even holding these as false hopes would have been, for Gen Y, anyway, a complete and utter disdain for the macroeconomic realities and personal hardships so many of us have faced every day of our careers, the majority of which have transpired after the Recession.

In fact, for a whole cohort of workers (myself included), it’s not that we didn’t want these things, as I’ve written about relatively extensively; it’s that the circumstances and timing preempted that vision of normalcy now slowly returning to the ranks of the emerging workforce.

And if home ownership levels among first time buyers actually start ticking up again, it’ll be a really encouraging sign that maybe, just maybe, we’re almost back to normal.

But for Millennials, there is no normal, only a lot of instability and insolvency. We watched the real estate market precipitate the downfall of the economy, changing the course of our lives and careers, but as that market recovers, our ability to participate in that market becomes an even more distant fantasy. Maybe Gen Z will be luckier, but for now, we remain a generation of renters priced out of the same lifestyle we grew up with by circumstances over which we had no control.

The hurdle of homeownership seems far too steep for many to overcome, and most Millennials seem content to continue renting for the foreseeable future.

Life’s A Bitch: Pricing Millennials Out of the Market.

giphy (7)It’s not like the housing market is necessary malicious at the moment; in fact, while the Economist recently reported that home values in the United States have reportedly increased around 60% since the depths of the Recession, the ostensibly good news for Millennials is that prices are still down an estimated 20% from 2008.

In theory, this means that this cohort of first time homebuyers would enjoy comparatively lower prices (and economic barriers to entry) while simultaneously avoiding the burdens of depreciation or debt driving the existing market downward.

The reality, of course, is a little different.

Price inflation has well outpaced wage stagnation, meaning individual purchasing parity has actually diminished. Property values might be down, but cost of living, conversely, is up; further, a recent survey showed 4 in 5 Gen Y workers had any savings at all, and approximately 3 in 5 report living paycheck to paycheck (68% said an unexpected $1000 expense would be “financially devastating,” underscoring this phenomenon).

For those Millennial outliers who actually are actively participating in some sort of structured long term savings strategy, a study by Apartment List estimates it would take them a full decade (10.2 years, to be exact) simply to stash away enough savings for the standard 20% downpayment.

This preempts most from obtaining approvals for loans like mortgages (even with favorable interest rates), not to mention making a downpayment on an actual property. According to a study by Apartment List, in fact, it would take those Gen Y outliers who actually do have savings a full decade (10.2 years, to be exact) simply to stash away enough to afford the standard 20% downpayment.

Of course, by then, most will be at an age where they’d be better advised to allocate those savings towards retirement, instead. Rent, it seems, is hard enough, which is why so many Millennials have been forced to move home with their parents, a phenomenon too many American households are too familiar with these days.

The Pew Research study estimates that this number peaked at 36% of millennials living with their parents in 2016, a staggeringly high figure that has shifted the “American Dream” of home ownership for millions of Millennials from that of moving up to simply moving out of Mom and Dad’s.

Home ownership in the US at an all time low of 66%, compared with an all time high of over 95% occupancy in rental properties in 2016, according to a recent PwC report. This has actually inflated the price (and availability) of even apartments well out of reach of many Millennials.

Exacerbating this trend is the fact that since the recession, the market for entry level properties has plummeted, too – with a survey by the National Association of Homebuilders showing that less than 15% of new construction starts since 2008 have been for properties classified as “starter homes,” compared to well above 30% of new homes built in the preceding decade.

Those inexpensive, entry level homes that do hit the market tend to be bought up by experienced investors and either turned into rental properties, “flipped” for a sound short term profit or, most commonly, serve simply as investment vehicles for foreign investors who see US real estate as a sound investment.

Taking advantage of a weak dollar and real estate market to snap up around 2 in 5 of all residential property sales in the US in 2015, foreign investors have more or less replaced first time homebuyers as the most active participants in the low end of the real estate market (in addition to their dominance of the high end, too).

It Ain’t Hard To Tell: Millennials, Mortgages and Foreclosing on the Future.

6951980016353be52b94be257b22a829This confluence of circumstances means too many Millennials, simply face an insurmountable wall in a market that does little to nothing to accommodate an entire generation of prospective homebuyers.

According to G.U. Kreuger, a housing economist at CALPERS, the nation’s largest public pension fund and institutional investor, writing in Mother Jones Magazine:

“This is the first time in the supply history of housing where, for whatever reason, a giant new generation is not being served … To me, it’s incomprehensible.”

That makes two of us, brother. The even more incomprehensible thing is, it doesn’t look like there’s any end (at least in the foreseeable future) for what’s quickly transforming into one of the most endemic problems confronting an entire generation – my generation – of workers whose future was mortgaged to preempt us from a future mortgage.

This isn’t a shift in personal values. Just economic ones. So, next time you’re ready to bitch about the lack of stability or long term loyalty among the Gen Y workforce, remember that without a place to call home, putting down roots is damn near impossible. The good news is that’s a perfect fit for the “gig economy” creating further economic instability and uncertainty for the emerging workforce of today (and tomorrow).

Turns out, for Gen Y workers, our generational “entitlement” apparently doesn’t entitle us to a damn thing except getting screwed over.AAEAAQAAAAAAAAbUAAAAJGIzNzlkYmM5LTJmYjAtNGJlYS1iOWZhLTczZWZmMDExYmVhOA

The lack of home ownership so endemic to an entire generation, of course, means that Millennials’ perceived job hopping, the proliferation of home decor and accoutrements in most offices – looking at you, Ping Pong tables – and that whole “entitlement” myth are, in fact, driven at least in part by the precipitous decline in home ownership rates among this generation of workers.

When you don’t have a home, you have no incentive to put down roots, and flexibility is the tradeoff for not having any real stability whatsoever in the age of the gig economy, so obviously this lack of security at home is going to translate to many of the negative manifestations employers seem to be seeing among Gen Y workers at the office.

The difficulties many Millennials face by being priced out of the housing market could likely be easily overcome, particularly when it comes to things like cost of living increases, corporate subsidies and incentives designed to transform a generation of irresponsible renters living month to month into homeowners who are also willing to put down roots at the office, too.

The time is right for employers to help lead this transformation – and help eliminate the fundamental reason retention has become so damn difficult these last few years.

When you have a 30 year mortgage, you start thinking about tenure a little bit differently. When you have to pay worry about ensuring the ROI of your property through improvements and upkeep over the long term, it kind of changes your outlook on things. There seems to be no way to easily overcome this challenge and create some modicum of parity between generations at work and their respective attitudes, values and beliefs.

Because there’s no need for a lost generation if we can help this one find its way.

Matt Charney is the Executive Editor of Recruiting Daily. Follow him on Twitter @MattCharney or connect with him on LinkedIn.