Blog

Closing the Skills Gap: How Immigration Reform Impacts HR and Recruiting.

In my most recent Recruiting Daily post, Border Wars: Tech Recruiting and Immigration Reform, I took a look at the persistent H1B visa cap problem plaguing employers, particularly within the technology sector, and noted that the draconian immigration restrictions blocking highly educated, highly skilled foreign talent has effectively exacerbated the already endemic shortage of STEM candidates while effectively eroding American employers’ economic competitiveness on a global scale.

Pursuing H1B reform seems to be something of an express lane down the proverbial rabbit hole, tilting listlessly at the windmills of political corruption created through policy oversights and partisan bickering. The bottom line, though, is simple; after all, anyone who’s ever recruited for a STEM related position, and the employers for whom they’re recruiting, already know that the system is fundamentally broken. What we need to focus on, instead, is how we’re finally going to fix things moving forward.

4 Solutions for Tech Recruiting’s Immigration Reform Problem.

Immigration-Reform-Jan2013Now, before I step up fully onto my soapbox, I’d like to make it clear that it’s highly unlikely I’m going to be sitting in Congress anytime soon to facilitate a fix firsthand; thing is, I had a little too much fun in college in the 1990s, and even if my record was completely clean, I have a complete antipathy for the party politics that have created a state of stasis around this and so many other pressing policy problems.

Although, in fairness, I kind of hope that the Donald Trump campaign keeps on bringing the hits, because, well, that at least makes what’s already an exercise in the preservation of power at least a little entertaining, even if every sound bite makes me bleed from my ears or…where ever.

With that caveat in place, then, I wanted to present some potential options, turning the immigration reform shitstorm into something of a brainstorm instead.

Here’s a look at some ideas for how these systemic challenges can be overcome, and how we can kick start our economic competitiveness, reduce the STEM gap and make it easier for the best tech talent to legally obtain the right to work in the United States.

1. Extend the OPT Period

OPTThe law currently allows international students to apply for what’s referred to as “Optional Practical Training,” better known as OPT. This is a 12 month temporary work authorization granted for recent graduates with “STEM-eligible” degrees such as Computer Science, Engineering, Statistics and so forth; OPT participants are also eligible to extend this special work authorization for another 15 months before their eligibility expires.

For employers, the OPT program has been like a breath of fresh air, since logistically, the nearly two years of work eligibility participants receive effectively gives companies two shots at obtaining a full H1B visa for the candidate in question.

While this boost temporarily solves employers’ most pressing short term problems related to tech hiring, and allow skilled foreign workers to stick around temporarily in the US, its major long term effect is that it, in essence, entitles employees to two lottery tickets in the annual H1B sweepstakes for their efforts – and like most lotteries, the odds of winning are laughably low. Employers would be just about as well served allocating some budget room for buying Scratchers tickets at the 7-11; their chances (and subsequent payoff) are ultimately about the same, sadly.

Quick Aside: OPT, in its current interpretation, at least, is a total friggin’ farce. It’s not “optional” for workers unless their employment plans call for sitting around and hanging out while waiting for that small chance that they hit the numbers and walk away with an H1B. 

If you want to make money during the intervening months between graduation and possible work authorization, then participation in OPT is more or less mandatory. Furthermore, the name is something of an oxymoron, since there’s no actual “training” involved, per se. Instead, OPT offers workers a professional position for which they’re paid to come in and perform. That’s why that particular naming convention and associated acronym have always kind of pissed me off.

The STEM extension outlined in OPT legislation seems like it was designed as some sort of compromise, but upon closer examination, proves to be more of a completely arbitrary, super shady backroom deal concocted behind the scenes of the hallowed halls of Capitol Hill.

It’s ridiculous, really; if you think about it, these employers already have to prove they have a STEM degree to qualify, so since that’s the case, why not change the OPT period from its current one year with extension into a one time, 29 month exemption for eligible workers?

By eliminating the requirement for renewals, employers would have their stress greatly reduced while also facilitating the ability to more effectively utilize OPT workers, who themselves would also be saved an inordinate amount of paperwork and peace of mind by this simple semantic shift in legislative language. It’s a small step that makes a whole lot of sense.

Full disclosure: I’m as white as Wonder Bread, Augusta National or Macklemore, and lucky enough to be born in the US, which means that I haven’t ever had to go through the dog and pony show of getting the right to work in the US, nor have I had to deal with the lingering stress and unnecessary uncertainty so many foreign nationals face every day, but even without these added stressors hanging over my head.

That said, I can attest to the fact that for these employees, not knowing whether they’ll be allowed to remain in the US, or retain their work eligibility not only causes them to lose an inordinate amount of sleep, but like any personal problem, preempts full productivity and engagement on the job, too.

The X factor here is simple: if you’re not sure you’ll still have a job in a few months, then you’re probably less likely to be invested in your professional advancement than your personal preservation. It’s like having put in your two weeks notice, but having to stick around for two years instead. Which kind of sucks for all parties involved, frankly.

How corporate interests and the labor lobbyists retained by so many large employers haven’t raised hell over this issue or found a fix is beyond me. But it’s high time we actually tried, because the current OPT policy isn’t helping anyone, and workers and employers deserve better than the draconian parameters they’re now forced to work with.

2. Eliminate (Or Significantly Reduce) Third Party Applications.

Screen-Shot-2015-04-08-at-10.31.20-AM3035637607With so much competition for so few visas, it’s high time to clamp down on the cottage industry of contractors who have more or less built their business model around “farming” out H1B visas.

This increasingly prevalent industry features a handful of companies which hoard H1Bs, capitalizing on demand by limiting supply and snapping up as many visas as possible from the already tightly restricted annual allocation.

These are the companies which bring foreign nationals to the US on H1B visas, more or less owning these expatriates by being the sole arbiters of their employment.

Any sponsored worker who complains about the most endemic problems perpetuated by these H1B farms (notice the prevalence of large professional services firm in the Top 10 H1B employers in 2015 in the graph above), like not doing the type of work they were originally promised, or rotting away doing no work at all on a “bench” while waiting for a work assignment, can be stripped of their visa and sent home, with or without reason.

By allowing these companies to fulfill the associated employer sponsorship mandated by H1B regulations, we’re effectively enabling these shady shell corporations to profit from poor policy while penalizing the thousands of employers lining up to hire these candidates, only to find their hands tied due to the fact that they simply can’t sponsor an H1B due to cap related restrictions.

These restrictions become even more restrictive than they already are thanks, largely, to the prevalence of the farms hoarding an inordinate percentage of outstanding work authorizations and the fact that there just aren’t enough to go around to legitimate enterprise employers.

Because many corporations need H1B authorizations for workers before their OPT eligibility expires, the majority of those people will be unable to have more than a single petition a year filed in their name; after all, they’re likely already employed, and ostensibly, looking for a visa explicitly to remain with their current employer.

And while it’s completely legal for one person to submit multiple applications for different employers, those are largely from candidates without current authorization looking to GET to the U.S., rather than renew or extend their existing eligibility through programs like OPT. Those workers fighting for the handful of available H1Bs are largely willing to do whatever it takes to win one of these coveted Golden Tickets, and will sign on with any employer who can facilitate this for them, no matter how shady or exploitative that employer might be.

This creates a domino effect whereby the companies that end up submitting the overwhelming majority of applications (and ultimately, granted visas) are from third party “consulting” firms. This name is a misnomer, of course, since they consult about as much as I sleep, and let me tell you, with two kids under the age of 7, that’s not a whole hell of a lot.

These firms work with candidates who not only asked them, but multiple competitors, to file visas on their behalf, meaning that when you start doing the math, it’s no wonder all H1B visa allocations are eaten up the day the filing period opens. While direct employers may have the opportunity to participate, the purported egalitarian selection process, in fact, inordinately favors those firms whose businesses are built to beat the odds by rigging the process in their favor, making an already flawed process even more inherently unfair.

Without a doubt, the trend towards firms who act as H1B “farms” have an inherent potential to damage our economy by limiting the ability of direct employers to recruit and retain skilled global workers, damaging our competitiveness by essentially turning these firms into the gatekeepers largely controlling access to the front end of the funnel by which foreign nationals obtain the eligibility to work in the US.

That these firms continue to profit means that, ultimately, we all lose out. Without the ability to hire the workers required to sustain their growth (or maybe to scale it – hell if I know, I suck at buzzword bingo), they may inevitably have to offshore or outsource these jobs overseas simply because those are the only options available to them to find employees with the requisite skills and expertise they need to help them succeed.

The founder of microblogging site Reddit, Alex Ohanian, has been a vocal proponent for H1B changes, alluding that this might be exactly what happens to the next Google.“The next Stripe, or the next Google, is one annoying visa application away from just starting in Canada,” he said. “We’re losing out on the next Zuckerberg just because of stupid visa applications,” Ohanian said. And he’s right.

Another quick aside: Can we PLEASE stop referring to every asshole with a computer in his garage as “the next Google?” Even Google is tired of hearing that crappy cliche by now.

3. Establish A Company-Specific Application Cap

2015-08-11_09-13-23Another alternative to immigration reform for recruiting is to somehow create a process for employers to submit their current headcount and hiring projections for the upcoming fiscal year and allocate a fixed number of visa applications based on this number, adding some modicum of method to the madness while leveling the playing field by fixing the inequity created by the rise of H1B farms.

Of course, this solution seems sound, but it’s not without its inherent obstacles – nothing related to visas can be simple, of course.

The challenges inherent to this seemingly straightforward fix include actually expecting employers to conduct this sort of audit and assume the associated work that comes along with this process; requiring some type of pre-established ratio of visa applications to projected hiring figures (which ratio would be right – one visa for every 100 hires? Every 50?

I suspect Congress would find this issue too contentious to just draw a line in the sand on this one); and finally, to institute centralized controls and compliance initiatives to deter fraud, audit and attest for accuracy of employers’ submitted headcounts, hiring plans and other required application information, with enforcement representing a extra cost likely assumed by the government or Department of Labor (who have shown a hesitancy to approve such additional budgetary line items, however much the opportunity costs actually cost).

The hard truth is, finding the right formula for this equation isn’t going to be easy, and there’s no “one size fits all” answer here that could be packaged into legislation that’s palatable enough to survive partisan bickering and pork barrell provisions.

But the aim of enacting this sort of recruiting related immigration reform, simply, is that it would eliminate those companies who put in petitions ad nauseum just to have a stable of captive candidates ready for “consulting” gigs at a moment’s notice – a practice that, no matter what, we need to figure out a way to stop sooner rather than later. Details be damned.

4. Just Increase The Cap.

CBdTFb4UYAAqs8UHere’s the easiest fix, and one that the feet dragging, status quo protecting imbeciles in Congress can actually understand – and thanks to its simplicity, actually sell to their constituents, too.

Foreign workers with STEM degrees aren’t going to stop competing for the opportunity to work in America, no matter how convoluted or complicated obtaining work authorization might be, no matter how daunting or slim the odds of successfully landing an H1B might be.

The opportunity for better pay and a better quality of life are worth any amount of work; the potential payoff for these skilled foreign nationals and their families is just too great not to at least take a chance on fulfilling what for many has been a lifelong dream, and the promise of living the American Dream seems a small price to pay for the nightmare that comes with pursuing an H1B.

Having said that, We, The People, those that Congress purports to represent and who are the very same workers whose jobs blocking immigration reform supposedly protects, have a simple request for our elected officials. If you aren’t going to do shit to make the situation better, or take a hard look at the hard truths of immigration reform for skilled workers, then at least increase the number of visas available and finally lift the annual cap for the first time in seven long years.

That’s one workaround that’s not much work, and while you have your cronies in K Street iron out the details, at least in the interim your protectionism won’t put the entire employment market and economy at risk while this process plays itself out. Anything beats inaction at this point, because the less we change, the more of a problem immigration reform becomes for the long term sustainability and viability of American employers, particularly in terms of technology and the sciences – areas where we can ill afford to effectively surrender any competitive advantage, particularly one that’s so easily fixed.

Immigration Reform: What HR and Recruiting Pros Need To Do.

stem-immigration-chartIt seems like there are a handful of members of Congress who actually get the fact that our economy and visa reform are inextricably intertwined; while it might be more of a step in the direction than comprehensive long term solution, Utah Senator Orrin Hatch is sponsoring a bill (click here to read it in its entirety) which “Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish an annual cap on H-1B nonimmigrant visas (specialty occupations) at between 115,000 and 195,000 visas depending upon market conditions and existing demand.”

Compared to the 65,000 currently available every year, this bill, introduced to the Senate in January 2015, seems like a simple, sane way to at least start to address this problem before it becomes too late – and even though immigration reform is seen, in the prism of party politics, as a left-leaning, progressive issue, the fact that this particular Amendment is being put forward by one of the most Conservative members of the GOP (and one from Utah, no less) shows that this is one legislative concern that impacts us all, and a fight all of us can – and should – support.

Ultimately, I know this is a complex and divisive issue that’s not going to be fixed by some recruiter writing a blog post. The problems are too widespread and systemic for my voice, alone, to matter too much. But as recruiters and employers, we’re the ones most impacted by this issue, which is why it’s up to us to speak up about this essential issue that’s too often overlooked.

We need to make our voices heard – because as the people fighting in the talent trenches, it’s not only our fight, but together, as the people most responsible for driving the job market forward, we have the potential to have enough power to make sure that our voices are listened to, too.

Now that you’ve heard my version of what’s going on out there, I want to hear what you think, too – and how we can work together to raise awareness and change business as usual in the business of recruiting and retaining top talent.

What issues do you face daily? What can we do to fix those issues? Leave a comment below and let us know your take on tackling H1B and immigration reform in talent acquisition today.

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.

 

 

How To Make Twitter Work for Talent Acquisition.

twitter boxThere’s no denying that I love Twitter. And I know a lot of you do, too. With 284 million registered users, its a perfect place to look for candidates, especially those active in their industries and are thought leaders.

Recently, I can’t help but notice that a lot of people are trying to shoehorn their “usual” talent acquisition strategies into Twitter’s framework, and I can already tell you this: It’s not going to work.

Why Recruiting On Twitter Doesn’t Work: A Blind Case Study.

Let’s look at the followers of the careers-focused Twitter account that belongs to a large and very well-known retailer. The account has thousands of followers scattered around the country, which seems great. (We’ll ignore followers from other countries in this example.)

The issue is that this company is huge, with retail branches in pretty much every metropolitan area in America. (For example, here in Chicago, there are three different branches I can frequent without driving more than a few minutes.)

Along with all those retail branches, they have a massive headquarters in the Midwest and regional distribution centers scattered across the country. In the world of talent acquisition, we think every problem can be solved by sending more job postings. And that’s not true at all.

So when the company tweets a job, what percentage of its followers will actually be able to apply for that job? For a job based at the Midwest headquarters (where there is the highest fan density), only 14 percent of the followers could reasonably expect to apply because they live within driving distance. This means that the company just spammed 86 percent of its followers. And if it promotes a branch manager job outside its HQ, it could only be reaching 1 percent (or less) of its follower base.

How many useless tweets does it take for a person to stop following your Twitter account? 10? 20? If you continue this strategy, you’ll find out pretty quick.

But that’s what most companies do. They have a channel, so they flood the channel with job postings. It’s like the joke that “to a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” In the world of talent acquisition, we think every problem can be solved by sending more job postings. And that’s not true at all.

Recruiting on Twitter: Welcome To The Real World.

The_real_world_title_cardThis isn’t a hypothetical situation. One talent acquisition Twitter account, that I won’t name, just posts directly from their ATS. They’ve tweeted 2,500 times and only have 130 followers. This is a massive national brand you would all recognize, and their careers account only has 130 followers?

Given a pretty standard distribution relative to the U.S. population, that job in Pensacola was potentially only of interest to one of the 130 followers, annoying the other 129. The next job in Pittsburgh might be attractive to two of their followers.

Who would follow an account where 99% of the material wasn’t useful? I wondered if the follower list was just bots and spam accounts, so I used a spam tool (Simply Measured has a decent tool), I found that Twitter lists the talent acquisition account as a spam account.

This national brand, by automating its job feed into Twitter, turned itself from a beloved consumer brand into a spammer without ever realizing it. And without getting any return on their efforts.

The Real Problem With Talent Acquisition on Twitter.

stuff twitterBeyond the logistics of having a very geo-targeted job distributed to a wide network of people, there’s another major issue with Twitter: You can’t convince anyone of anything in 140 characters.

Here’s a list of things Twitter is great at: complaining, asking people for ideas, quipping, talking about what you are doing/seeing/feeling, sharing news and thanking someone. Unfortunately, none of these things are particularly persuasive.

If you post a job to all your Twitter followers and someone applies, I can only tell you this: They were already going to apply for the job. “Project manager job at our San Diego location, great team! [link]” is about as persuasive as “Hey you! Click this! [link].”

People who do click are already predisposed to click. Alternatively, the people who click are simply “click happy” and will click on every job posting they come across without any discrimination; perhaps they are incredibly desperate to find a job.

And you don’t want to interview the person who just clicks on every available job posting, do you?

So, based on all of the above, it sounds like Twitter is a waste of time for talent acquisition, right? Wrong. Twitter can be a powerful tool if you treat it as a tool that can do more than simply distribute job postings.

Talent Acquisition on Twitter: Starting Small, Thinking Big.

TwitterRecruitingWhat Twitter (and, to be honest, most social media) does well is something we can think of as “micro conversions.” Twitter can’t get someone to buy something, but it can get a reader interested in a picture of the product.

That interest in the picture can then inspire interest in the product and eventually, result in a sale. The tweet didn’t create the sale (or conversion), but it led to a webpage where a conversion could happen.

How do we apply this approach to talent acquisition? A tweet shouldn’t link to a job, but rather, it should link to a place where the reader can find material that engages and informs. This “place” sounds like your career site to me.

Keep in mind that you can’t just drop your Twitter followers onto your career site homepage—that’s asking for trouble. In the second or two it takes to get from the tweet to your homepage, readers will forget what prompted them to click the link in the first place. Directing them to your homepage is like saying “There’s something amazing in the next room!” and then leading them into a room filled with worthless junk.

Maybe, if they look hard enough, they’ll find a gem in all the detritus, but more often than not, they’ll just turn around and walk away. You can’t expect them to do the work. If you want them to see something, create the shortest path to that thing.

The best way to maintain their interest is to send them to a page with content that engages and informs them. That content should be connected to the job you really want them to see in a way that’s easy to see—don’t make people search for it.

Imagine that you are the large retail chain I previously mentioned and that you are trying to drive more interest to your IT jobs. You could build a great page of content about what it’s like to do IT work at your company and include Instagram pictures of real employees doing real work. You could also incorporate employee quotes and testimonials from those who appreciate or benefit from your employees’ work. Most importantly, you could include links to your 5-10 most-needed IT jobs.

In this example, the tweet’s job was to get followers interested in the content. Once landing on the content page, followers learned more about the company at hand, including its work culture and the everyday life of an IT employee. And right there, in a semi-obvious place, was a way for followers to look at job listings and sign up for job alerts.

Using Twitter to generate micro conversions is much more beneficial than just using it to push jobs onto whomever happens to be reading. When you recast Twitter as a tool that creates interest in your content, you can finally harness Twitter’s full power. (And that’s a lot of power!)

As a result, your talent acquisition strategy will receive an incredible boost, and you’ll stop driving away followers.

Read more at Meshworking from TMP.

james_ellis_tmpAbout the Author: James Ellis is a Digital Strategist for TMP Worldwide, the world’s largest recruitment advertising agency.

For more than 15 years, James has focused on connecting cutting-edge technology to marketing objectives. As a digital strategist for TMP Worldwide, he helps some of the largest companies in America answer their most pressing digital questions.

Follow James on Twitter at @TheWarForTalent or connect with him on LinkedIn.

Learn more about TMP Worldwide at www.tmp.com.

Venture Capitalists are Loving HR Tech

Venture capitalists are strongly investing in HR Tech,  human resources and recruitment software startups. The trend is showing that 2015 could be the largest investment year ever and beat the previous record, an investment high of $859 million set in 2000. Deborah Gage, a reporter for VentureWire, a Dow Jones company, stated that during the first six months of 2015, $811.6 million was invested in software targeting the HR Tech and recruiting software. These numbers are enormous when you compare it to $569.8 million for all of 2014 and $233.6 million in 2013.

HR Tech

The Wall Street Journal blog reports that “A few of the larger deals in the second quarter of this year in the sector include SmartRecruiters Inc., Workday Inc., and HireVue Inc.” The HR Tech bandwagon trend was seen as early as November of 2014 when HR Tech pulled in $2.3 billion dollars in funding.

CNBC spoke to Bobby Franklin, CEO of the National Venture Capital Association and he said, “With software companies continuing to disrupt entrenched industries and in some cases creating new industries all together, venture investment in the sector increased 30 percent from the first quarter to $7.3 billion,” He went on to say, “As valuations increase and more and mHR Techore companies choose to stay private longer, we are likely to see software’s share of total venture investment continue to rise.” On Angel list right now, there are over 1,000 Startups targeting the Human Resource industry.So what does this mean for the world of HR Tech? Tools. Lots and lots of tools. I haven’t tested all of these, but here are some HR Tech companies that have been moving and shaking in the past month:

 

BrightMove,a leading provider of on-demand recruiting software for staffing firms, outsourcing providers and corporate HR departments, today announced that it has released version 12W.4.0 of its recruiting platform for Staffing, RPO and HR companies. Enhancements to this release will enable BrightMove customers to more easily source, connect and hire talent anywhere, anytime, from any device.”

PeopleFluent, “a leading cloud provider of social human capital management technology, announced this month strategic enhancements to its Talent Management Software Suite, including significant updates to its Recruiting software. Based on an increased need for real-time access to data, the enhanced PeopleFluent Talent Management Suite includes an enriched user experience with personalized dashboards, extended data integration across the suite and newly added reporting capabilities, enabling organizations to efficiently communicate and engage with their workforce.”

HackerRank: “HackerRank, which hosts online competitions that help programmers flaunt their skills to potential employers like Amazon and Quora, said today it has landed a $7.5 million investment from the funding arm of Japan-based human resources giant Recruit.”

Jazz: The Resumator has had a facelift and is now Jazz. The name change is not just cosmetic. Users now have the option to utilize Jazz’s hire to fire “performance recruiting process.” The “Role Model” module takes into account an employee’s skills, work styles, cultural fit, and other attributes that the hiring company seeks. Next, the “Role Match” module will help recruiters see if the candidate is a real fit for the enterprise. Next, by using the “Role Review” for coaching and better hiring all based on data, not just opinion.

Mytasca, “is a database of contacts at universities and colleges around the country, which includes career centers, and diversity focused departments on more than 4,500 campuses. The website includes streamlined searchable university data and statistics along with direct connections and key contacts at higher education institutions in America. The Mytasca product was designed to remove as much guesswork as possible when it comes to connecting companies with college students to hire and is adept at identifying diverse groups that will ultimately contribute to inclusive workplaces.”

So as you can see, between money and innovation – things are going crazy. Buckle up. The world of HR Tech is going to be an exciting ride! Which startups are you tracking?

 

About the Author: Jackye Clayton is a recognized people expert who puts the Human in Human Resources. Jackye Clayton Editor RecruitingTools.comAn international trainer, she has traveled worldwide sharing her unique gifts in sourcing, recruiting and coaching. She offers various dynamic presentations on numerous topics related to leadership development, inclusionary culture development, team building and more.Her in-depth experience in working with top Fortune and Inc 500 clients and their employees has allowed her to create customized programs to coach, train and recruit top talent and inspire others to greatness. Follow Jackye on Twitter @JackyeClayton  and @RecruitingTools or connect with her on LinkedIn.

 

10 Free Job Posting Sites for #Recruiters and #Employers

Free Job Posting Sites

 

A great deal has changed since we first posted our five free job posting site article. What has not changed is the desire to find free recruiting tools and/or free sourcing tools.  For today’s freebie Friday, you will find an updated list of  free job posting sites, plus a reminder of the classics.

 

 

Free Job Posting Sites

 

PostJobFree, is a job board. To recruiters it provides: – Job posting and distribution. – Resume search. – Resume search alerts. Candidates can: – Post resume. – Search and apply for jobs. – Create job search alerts. The focus is on speed, clean and simple UI and UX and providing free service if possible.”

Free Job Posting Sites

 

Angel List – “Posting a job is free. Meeting candidates is free. Hiring is free. That’s why over 2,200 companies have hired candidates from AngelList.”

 

 

Free Job Posting SitesLearn4Good – “Post jobs for free online for employers/ recruiters: Free job posting site for employment ads in USA – CA, NYC, NY State, TX, FL, OH, IL, NJ, PA, GA, VA.. Post jobs for free for UK, London and places in Europe, Ireland, Germany, Holland, Spain, Canada. Search free job boards for expat jobs abroad & overseas jobs for Americans in Asia, UAE, Dubai, China, India, Thailand, Saudi Arabia.”

Free Job Posting SitesIndeed – “It’s free for any employer to use Indeed Apply with jobs on Indeed. Check our ATS Integrations page to see if your applicant tracking system supports Indeed Apply or Contact Us for more information.”

 

Free Job Posting SitesSmartRecruiters – “With the SmartRecruiters free recruiting software, you can create a job ad within seconds and one click of a button, we will dispatch it to all the free listing sites right for you.”
Free Job Posting SitesJobCrank – (I chose this one because I like the name mostly) We provide job listing and bidding services for a wide range of industries. We help employers find the help they need, and our members find work.

 

 

Free Job Posting Sites

The OG Five:

Resumark.com – “Unlike most other job websites on the Internet, we will list your jobs for free. That’s right – you can post as many jobs as you want – completely free.”

Jobvertise.com –“ Jobvertise basic services are FREE to employers and job seekers… As an employer using the basic services you never have to pay a fee to post jobs or search over 800,000 resumes in our database!”

JobZoom.com – “To make posting easier, we want to go beyond the norm. You have the option of posting INSTANTANEOUSLY, without lengthy processes, boring signups, or hassle, in under a minute your job is up and running, it activates simply through email.”

JobSpider.com – “Employers and Recruiters can search our extensive resume database and/or post a job opportunity making it viewable to millions of possible employees for free. That’s right FREE job postings!!!”

ZipRecruiter.com – NOT FREE  – No Link for you! (was it ever free?) I do not remember this being free, but it was on the original list… “The Starter Plan, 3 Jobs, Monthly Subscription is $105.54 ($99.00 + $6.54 tax) ZipRecruiter does however push your post to multiple free sites.”

Free Job Posting Tools“Free job posting sites used to contain very little functionality, or at worst, be a simple forum of spam type posts without very much value. However, it seems now like free job boards may be able to offer some interesting services. Free job posting is here to stay and will keep the non-free job boards innovating and adding more value for recruiters, employers, and job seekers.”

The OG sites came off of the original 2010 post where we wrote about five free job posting sites starting with the mantra, “If it’s free, it’s for me.” Trust me, I love free. The new mantra in regards to free recruiting tools is, “If it is free, you are the product.” In this article it states, “in this digital age we have sacrificed our privacy in order to access all manner of free stuff on the web.” Yes – it used to be fun to get free stuff – now it is fun as long as you know what you are getting into. Be smart.  Not all cookies are good.

 

About the Author: Jackye Clayton is  a recognized people expert who puts the Human in Human Resources. Jackye Clayton Editor RecruitingTools.comAn international trainer, she has traveled worldwide sharing her unique gifts in sourcing, recruiting and coaching. She offers various dynamic presentations on numerous topics related to leadership development, inclusionary culture development, team building and more.Her in-depth experience in working with top Fortune and Inc 500 clients and their employees has allowed her to create customized programs to coach, train and recruit top talent and inspire others to greatness. Follow Jackye on Twitter @JackyeClayton  and @RecruitingTools or connect with her on LinkedIn.

 

Does Anyone Actually Care About Candidate Experience?

make it stopI recently had the chance to sit down with the head of talent acquisition, tasked with overseeing hiring at a hot 200 person (and growing) startup and filling around 40 open reqs. Since we were already talking shop, I figured it made sense to ask him, as a recruiting leader, exactly what he thought about candidate experience. “Is candidate experience actually important to your company,” I queried, expecting some softball answer.

Instead, he thought for a moment and replied that, while of course the concept of candidate experience was important (how could it not be), it still didn’t really rank on his list of most pressing priorities. Why?

Because, he assured me, they were already doing a pretty good job providing a world class experience for job seekers. He seemed so confident in that assertion I couldn’t help but ask what measurements he was using, exactly, that led him to that conclusion.

His answer surprised me a little – he told me that his primary source of feedback on candidate experience was by asking new employees about how they were treated right after they’d onboarded, when the hiring process was still fresh in their minds. Makes sense, he assured me. I couldn’t argue that point, of course – which led me to something of an epiphany: While everyone cares about the candidate experience, not everyone thinks of it as a problem.” 

Turns out, there’s a pretty wide spectrum of opinions around the concept of “candidate experience,” and quite a bit of dissention, even if everyone unilaterally agrees on its underlying importance to an organization’s talent attraction efforts. I admit I’m something of a data wonk, which means I’ve spent more time than I should analyzing the results from the Talent Board’s Candidate Experience 2014 report.

Most of you are probably familiar with this annual report, which has come to represent a blue chip industry benchmark and authoritative barometer on the state of candidate experience. The survey compiles very detailed, very nuanced data on candidate behavior and employer brand interactions from over 95,000 candidates who had applied for jobs at the 140 employers who voluntarily opened their talent books and submitted to the scrutiny required to be considered for this annual accolade.

Of the small set of companies represented in the survey, it’s clear that these organizations are truly committed to transforming their recruiting process so that it centers not around hiring managers, HR or red tape, but instead, around the candidates themselves. Radical idea, right? But it’s a sign of the times – and a sign of how our overall perception of candidate experience seems to be shifting.

Like any business process improvement initiative, the ultimate goal of candidate experience involves providing a consistently superior level of service and support throughout the entire hiring process, treating job seekers with white gloves from end-to-end, from sourcing to selection. This level of consistent delivery necessitates aligning those processes and people with the technological infrastructure to ensure that both are constantly producing the best possible results – and immediately correcting any areas for improvement as they arise.

The thing is, each of these pillars – process, people and technology – that represent the Holy Trinity of candidate experience, and delivering for both candidates and the employer currently recruiting them means balancing these three disparate elements while continuously looking for ways to improve both individual results and collective outcomes. This, as you can imagine, is no easy task.

This post is the first in a three part series focusing on each of these primary factors directly responsible for determining candidate experience; success means getting all three right, but hopefully by breaking this often amorphous concept of experience into its individual elements, it will be even easier to see how you can improve your own organizational capabilities and outcomes.

We’ll start with the most obvious element of the candidate experience: people. Which both candidates and recruiters qualify as, by the way, even if sometimes some of us forget that fact once in a while (or at least act like it).

What the CandE report makes clear is that behind all the numbers and analytics involved in the results, each of these was driven primarily by people in general – talent acquisition practitioners, to be specific – and without whose conscious, continuous commitment to candidate experience makes process and technology more or less irrelevant. Once you get the people part right, the rest is pretty easy, pretty much.

As we start examining candidate experience more closely, the most obvious and pressing question becomes what, exactly, are the key components and characteristics your organization needs to set up both regular employees and recruiting teams for candidate experience success?

From my personal experience and first-hand observation, I’ve realized that it all comes down to a few basic drivers: company values, mission and vision; empathy and emotional intelligence; awards and recognition; and finally, being tech savvy. It’s as simple as that. Of course, like everything else in recruiting, that’s easier said than done. Trust me.

Candidate Experience: If Your Company Doesn’t Care, Why Should You?

no-one-cares-facebookYeah, we know, we know. “People are your greatest asset,” right? That’s a convenient (if hackneyed cliche) that’s easy to say, but chances are your behaviors and culture do little to demonstrate the value of that asset is being reciprocated or reinvested in your current workforce.

If your company has a high voluntary turnover rate, then it’s duplicitous at best, flat out lying at worst, to sincerely assert to any candidate – external or internal – that you’re an employer of choice or even a tolerable place to work.

If people are your greatest asset, that means your senior leaders should be involved in the candidate screening, selection and workforce planning processes – if they’re not, then you’re essentially undervaluing your most valuable competitive differentiator. Furthermore, like all other consolidated business functions, those leaders should be measuring recruiting success in terms of bottom line results, overall financial impact and other baseline metrics that actually tie talent acquisition initiatives to broader business outcomes.

Companies who truly care about people generally tend to use quality of hire as a key performance indicator, and the most successful talent organizations place a higher premium on measuring quality than more traditional, more transactional talent metrics like time-to-fill or cost-per-hire. As a result of this commitment to quality, companies like  Zappos , Capital One or Enterprise have put candidate experience at the center of their recruiting and talent strategies, and reinforce their commitment to their people by putting them – and by extension, candidates – at the center of all recruiting processes.

Capital One, for example, provides all candidates with information about what to expect from the interview process even before they apply; Zappos Insider program allows prospective hires to “choose their team” for personalized career communications and relevant department/function specific information, and Enterprise actually lists the direct contact information of its talent team through its “Contact A Recruiter” feature (see image below), eliminating the much maligned ATS black hole while also facilitating increased interactions between the company’s recruiters and the candidates considering Enterprise career opportunities.

2015-08-06_12-31-31
Enterprise recruiters. They’ll pick you up.

Contrast this against a company like Mass Mutual, which despite being a Fortune 500 company with billions of dollars in annual revenue and tens of thousands of employees, consistently ranks as the company with the least loyal workers and highest turnover – not exactly the kind of list you want to be #1 on. A quick glance at their careers site shows that this apathy towards employee engagement and retention really starts with candidate experience. For example, it’s impossible to even see a list of job postings on their career site unless you complete a form with your personal information.

If this weren’t enough of a red flag, the position for which the company does most of its recruiting, the Financial Services Representative role, is actually a 1099, independent contractor position – but there’s no language on their careers site to give potential candidates at least a heads up that their employment opportunities don’t technically involve employment at all. This isn’t only deleterious for the candidate experience, but probably one of the primary reasons workers turnover so quickly and have so little loyalty – their poor treatment starts even before an offer is extended. Sad, really.

It’s apparent that companies who have candidate experience as a structural part of their culture and organizational DNA demonstrate those values throughout the hiring and employee lifecycle, and even an interaction as simple as visiting a career site are engineered to show this commitment from candidates’ very first experience with the company.

If you’re a recruiter at a company who deprioritizes people and undervalues its human capital assets, then you’re probably going to face some pretty significant challenges with leadership buy-in, organizational commitment and any resources required to develop and implement a world class candidate experience. While individual recruiters are obviously the primary arbiters of this experience, success starts with support from the top – and a continuous commitment to candidates from across the enterprise.

Candidate Experience And Empathy: You Feel Me?

feel me brah“Do unto others” is the Golden Rule for recruiting, too – and that’s why the best filter for figuring out how you’re doing in terms of candidate experience involves a simple question:

Am I treating candidates the way I’d want to be treated if I was looking for a job?”

If the answer is truly affirmative, chances are you’re doing just fine providing candidates with a positive experience. If not, well, at least you’re not alone.

If you’re committed to candidate experience, but don’t know where to start or how you actually measure up, listen up.

Here are some good questions to ask yourself and your organization based off some of the common best practices Candidate Experience Award winning companies are getting right:

 

  • Have you ever audited your application process and actually tried applying for a job?
  • Do you set expectations with candidates for your recruiting process – and fulfill those commitments?
  • Do you actually help candidates prepare for the interview process or spend time prepping them to be successful, or is it up to them to sink or swim after they’re scheduled?
  • Do you take the time to inform candidates when they’re not selected? Do you provide any feedback or additional insight as to why? 
  • Would I recommend applying for jobs at my company to my friends and family?

Asking these critical questions should really demonstrate whether you’re truly committed to providing candidates with a world class experience, or whether you’re just paying lip service to candidate experience, focusing more on filling reqs than the people potentially filling those open roles?

If you’re in the latter group, that’s OK – you’re among the significant majority of recruiters who put the ends well before the means, even if they mean well. But ignoring the candidate experience comes at some peril, impairing your ability to generate referrals, sustain meaningful long term relationships or build an effective employer brand. Improving candidate experience, even at the line level, can be a ton of effort, requiring not only a fastidious attention to detail, but also a significant investment of time and, often, resources.

The payoff, however, is almost always worth it. But you’ve got to be willing to put in the upfront investment, first – and either you’re willing to go the extra mile for candidates, or skip steps and short change them in the interests of expediency or, often, laziness.

Since most organizations don’t measure recruiter performance against any sort of candidate experience related metric, there’s no real incentive, monetary or otherwise, for doing anything except putting butts in seats as quickly and cheaply as possible, experience be damned. Of course, provide candidates with a consistently crappy experience, and inevitably, even these metrics will eventually suffer. Committing to candidates isn’t just the right thing to do morally; it’s also the right thing to do for your career and company, too.

Candidate Experience: Do As I Say, Not As We Do.

11296680_104345849902562_1115112020_nBottom line: you can’t manage what you can’t measure, and you can’t measure what doesn’t actually get done. Recruiting metrics must reflect the right balance between short term, tactical operational outcomes like cost-per-hire and time-to-fill with long term results like quality of hire, internal mobility and referral rates, and employee retention, productivity and satisfaction.

If companies aren’t measuring the latter set of numbers, too, then they’re ignoring any initiative designed to impact the Candidate Experience, to the detriment of both their recruiting KPIs and bigger business bottom line.

Consider the correlation between candidates and consumers; as the latest Candidate Experience report finds,24% of candidates are more likely to buy from a company if they have a positive experience. Conversely, a recent CareerBuilder study found that 69% of interviewed candidates are less likely to buy if they had a bad experience.

Of course, we shouldn’t ignore the elephant in the room – the time and money organizations commit to recruiting, and the expectation (and pressure) that this investment produces immediate and optimal ROI. One recruiter, even with the right resources and incentives, can’t fix candidate experience by themselves – they need cross-functional support, leadership buy-in and the right tools and technologies in place in order to have any shot at success.

Ultimately, candidate experience really isn’t about recruiting process, but instead, organizational mindset. And there’s no better time than now to start changing those minds about committing to candidate experience.

Candidate Experience: How Technology Helps.

Yes-I-love-technology...There are a ton of great tools out there designed to help both recruiters and organizational stakeholders improve the interactions employers have with job seekers while automating or optimizing many of the processes and procedures impacting candidate experience.

While some need to be implemented or integrated by the company on an enterprise basis, there are a ton of SaaS enabled point solutions that individual recruiters can use on their own, and immediately leverage as part of their personal talent attraction processes.

These can be as basic as sharing information via Google Docs or Dropbox, or using e-mail extensions like Tout or Yesware to make managing candidate communications a little bit easier, or using messaging apps like Skype or WhatsApp to increase engagement and interpersonal interactions.

No matter what you need to do to improve candidate experience, there’s a tool out there that will help – the options are almost infinite, and it really requires recruiters to figure out which ones will work best for them – and be the easiest and most impactful for their candidates, too.

Chances are your company already has a few of these tools in place, many of which, like your ATS, can easily be reconfigured or adjusted to streamline processes, communicate en masse with candidates, or automatically notify candidates not only when their application is received, but also, when they’re no longer under consideration for a role. Because most of the time, for candidates, no news is worse than bad news – and that should be old news for anyone who’s ever looked for a job.

If you’re tech savvy, flexible enough to implement and adopt new tools or independently implement workarounds, figure out feature sets and how to leverage consumer software for recruiting related activities, you’re going to have a huge leg up when it comes to building scaleable, sustainable processes and procedures which have a meaningful impact on candidate experience outcomes.

Don’t blame your ATS or HCM for a crappy candidate experience – ultimately, the efficacy of any tool is primarily determined by the people using them. And without an engaged recruiter who’s actually committed to candidate experience, all the talk in the world won’t actually change anything – and sticking to business as usual will usually cost your business big time when it comes to recruiting and retention.

In the business of people, if we don’t put people first, no fancy process in the world can fix what’s really broken. That’s all up to you.

ray (1)About the Author: Ray Tenenbaum is the founder of Great Hires, a recruiting technology startup offering a mobile-first Candidate Experience platform for both candidates and hiring teams. Ray has previously spent half of his career building Silicon Valley startups such as Red Answers and Adify (later sold to Cox Media); the other half of his career was spent in marketing and leadership roles at enterprise organizations including Procter & Gamble, Kraft, Booz & Co. and Intuit. Ray holds an MBA from the University of Michigan as well as a bachelor’s in chemical engineering from McGill University.

Follow Ray on Twitter @rayten or connect with him on LinkedIn.

 

American Hustle: How To Hack LinkedIn Advertising.

hovaI’ve spent quite a bit of time on planes lately, jetting between Denver, San Francisco, Boston and Orlando in the past few weeks alone. For whatever reason – maybe it’s because I’m a glutton for punishment, or some sort of brand loyalty sadist, I chose to fly Southwest on every one of those trips.

I’ve realized after exercising my freedom to move about the country, the value of flying Southwest extends far past free checked bags or cut rate ticket prices.

A Southwest flight is also something of a microcosm for human behavior and situational decision making, like the Stanford Prison Experiments served with some peanuts and snappy flight attendant banter. Don’t believe me?

Look no further than the phenomenon of seat selection for proof that Southwest is really running a giant consumer psychology experiment under the guise of operating an airline. Now, if you haven’t flown Southwest before and haven’t had the chance to witness this ritual firsthand, let me take a few minutes to explain.

While Southwest offers travellers the option to pay a nominal fee to get on the plane early, most of the cheap schmucks flying the Greyhound of the Skies refuse to ante up even this minimal amount, and therefore subject themselves to the luck of the boarding assignment draw, an order which is determined by how closely the traveller checks into their flight within the 24 hours before the plane is scheduled to take off.

This means that as soon as check in opens, you’re more or less forced to sit at your computer, hitting refresh until you can snag a decent seat within the much coveted “A” group. Being part of this elite milieu, of course, means there’s guaranteed space in the overhead bin, no having to deal with cramming into a middle seat and the ability to avoid high schoolers, frat boys, youth sports teams and other large, obnoxious groups of random travel companions that seem to be a feature on pretty much every Southwest flight ever.

If it wasn’t for my getting a glorious “A” boarding pass, for example, I’d have had to fly cross country with an entire high school orchestra – and therefore was on the other side of the plane, and more or less oblivious, when they started singing their way through their songbook. I’ll tell you from experience, you really don’t want to be trapped in a confined space for hours on end listening to a medley of Jimmy Buffett songs orchestrated for the trumpet, oboe and Sousaphone. Shoot me now, right?

Of course, after A Boarding, the groups quickly disintegrate into chaos and anarchy as Groups B and below fight for premium seats, overhead stowage and staying far away from brass instruments badly blaring Margaritaville. Now, when I’m on a full flight, after getting a choice seat thanks to my perpetual “A” group badge of honor, I watch the unwashed masses of “B” and “C” boarding cards come in and pick over the rows of seats, employing some vague, uniquely personal and secretive selection criteria for determining where they end up – and I’m always fascinated by the decision making process by which the two strangers who end up sitting on either side of me end up choosing my formerly empty row.

Butts in Seats: The Sociology of Southwest Airlines.

I’ve noticed there are a few approaches to picking seats. There’s the self-defense maneuver, which involves subtly eyeing a stranger to make sure they’re not going to touch you (or worse, try to talk to you) during the course of the flight

This is one of my tried and trued strategies, particularly when I’m planning to sleep off whatever conference I’m coming from and wish to do so undisturbed by bratty teenagers, bored businessmen or, worst of all, the person who needs to go to the bathroom or get something from their bag a minimum of a dozen times a flight, no matter how short that flight may in fact be.

These assholes, inevitably, always choose window seats, which is never good news for anyone with the bad fortune of sitting between them and the aisle.

The next strategy I like to try out is the “they look like me” approach, which might be a little discriminatory, sure, but no more so than your average hiring process. We’re all guilty of this – don’t lie. I’ve actually had a couple of potential employers say something to me lie, “We knew you looked like you were military. We’re military, too.”

Now, let me go ahead and clear up the fact that I am in no means ‘military,’ but I guess my parents combined 40 years of service have rubbed off on me by this point, the result of being raised as an Army brat. So, yeah – if it helps me get my foot in the door at a good employer, I’m willing to dance around the fact that my service to my country involved following my parents around to so many bases over so many years that I eventually lost count. And if it helps me score an active soldier – reserved, polite, quiet and courteous – as a seatmate n a Southwest flight, well, I’m not complaining, either. This happens a lot, proof I’m not the only one guilty of seatmate profiling.

The final approach to snagging a seat is the lesser of all evils. This is when you screw up, forget to check in and get stuck anywhere after C10 in the boarding order, meaning that you’re officially stuck in a middle seat. This means once you finally get to board, you immediately dispense with any strategy and just get your ass into a seat as close to your bag as possible and try not to worry about that breaking sound you heard as it was forcibly shoved into the overhead bin by a stewardess eager to get you and the other stragglers on and the flight in the air.

Social Ad Platforms for Dummies (A Handy Guide for the Rest of Us):

HustleFlowI mention the phenomenon of Southwest seat selection because many times as a marketer, selecting an ad platform requires more or less the same strategy as choosing a plane seat: you can’t really win, and most of the time you’re stuck choosing the best of a bunch of bad options. For example, you can always invest in Twitter, which drives a ton of impressions, but almost never converts those impressions into actual clicks.

Then, you’ve got Facebook, where you are guaranteed to get no impressions or clicks whatsoever without paying a premium for the privilege of sponsoring stories and promoting posts. Big results on Facebook mean spending big bucks, and even if those results are often really relevant, it’s often not enough to realize any real ROI from making it rain with your PPC and social marketing budget.

Finally, there’s LinkedIn, where, similar to Facebook, generating brand reach or converting impressions into qualified traffic and click throughs is strictly a pay for pay proposition. On LinkedIn, you get what you pay for – and if you want to actually make this a viable marketing destination, you’d better be willing to pay a small fortune for the privilege of serving up display ads and premium job postings – and that’s in addition to whatever your recruiting department is spending on a LinkedIn Recruiter license, a fee that’s as high as seven figures a year for enterprise employers.

The thing is, as marketing professionals, even if we’re not seeing the results we want, we’re forced to keep trying, tweaking, reinventing and reiterating our strategies to figure out how to make these limited offerings pay off, even as we pay through the nose for what is, at best, a bad ad decision when compared to other potential recruitment advertising or marketing platforms.

But for some reason, social media budgets are burning a hole in our pocket, and we feel compelled to spend with these half-baked, ineffective and inflexible solutions. You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find, you get what you need, right?

And what marketers need is qualified leads. Budget and resource allocation be damned – it all comes down to results. Even if those results are pretty shitty, most of the time.

While marketers are inundated how-to articles about making “fill in the blank” social networks work for their advertising initiatives, or attend sponsored “best practices” webinars run by these ad networks’ biz dev guys, or forced to subscribe to mailing lists, private groups or paid forums to opt-in to product updates, pricing changes and a whole lot of direct mail trying to get us to improve our results by increasing our spend.

When we push back, we’re told that whatever problems we’re having are easily cured for whatever new dashboarding feature or third party integration that’s always just on the verge of being released. While these vaporware product updates never seem to actually ship, we’re left with the belief that, in the words of whatever social advertising platform is trying to upsell us, they’re working as hard as possible to redesign and improve their existing offerings “with users like you in mind.”

Right. I’ll believe that when these aren’t publically traded companies trying to keep increasingly agitated and impatient shareholders happy. Even if it comes at the expense of marketers like me – or recruiters, like you. Or anyone else trying to make social media work at work, really.

LinkedIn Advertising: What Recruiters Need To Know.

rick rossLet’s face it: any change to any of these products is designed to trick end users into thinking that suddenly, there’s a seismic shift or sweeping change impacting the audience you’re already paying to reach – and that improving your results, even if they’re not measuring up to your expectations or their promises, is as simple as spending a little bit more on whatever new features these platforms are rolling out, features that will finally inspire those elusive qualified viewers to take action and click through your targeted ads.

Of course, nothing about the audience, their online behaviors or media consumption habits have changed at all – nor, really, has the platform you’re relying on to reach them.

The problem is that for marketers trying to tap into a target audience or buyer persona, or for recruiters looking to reach the right candidates, no matter how many impressions you generate, most of these ads fail to make any sort of impression on potential leads whatsoever.

That’s because, on sites littered with more logos than your average Sprint Cup car, the average end user doesn’t really care about your sales proposition. They’re there so they can engage on these sites, not be directed off of them. This seems to be a universal truth, at least looking at average click through rates.

Now, while we might argue about whether or not it qualifies as a social network for the purposes of recruiting, from a pure marketing perspective, LinkedIn is really no different than Facebook or Twitter for running ad campaigns for both brand awareness and lead generation initiatives – and it’s decidedly a social advertising platform, if you consider its PPC/PPA business model, campaign management and reporting features.

Beyond these basic structural similarities to other social sites, however, LinkedIn is a little different purely because of the very specific kinds of information marketers can choose to target, information that’s simply not available on any other social network – namely, any consumer (or candidate’s) entire work history. This can be a potential goldmine for marketers if used properly – from serving up offers for alumni of specific schools to targeting current and former employees of a specific company or competitor with career or job related CTAs.

The problem with leveraging this potentially powerful data as a marketer, however, lies in the limitations inherent to LinkedIn’s advertising platform, which is light on innovation and heavy on generic “me too” features that look like poorly coded and designed reproductions of Facebook’s backend bidding platform. LinkedIn has special information, but the marketing product required to turn that information into results, sadly, is nothing special at all.

LinkedIn Advertising: Much Ado About Nothing.

drean us freeAnd that’s what the latest change to the campaign manager feature for LinkedIn Marketing Solutions comes down to: fake innovation, little real change except a few superficial tweaks to the UI/UX and the product marketing collateral.

LinkedIn, still struggling to decrease its dependence on recruiting and its Talent Solutions business and diversify its marketing services offerings in a desperate attempt to increase revenue and justify its outrageous share price, has touted the new Campaign Manager as being a big step in the evolution of LinkedIn from professional network to best-in-breed social advertising platform and display ad network, as touted in the official blog post announcing the changes.

Hey, if you’re too busy to click on that link, I understand. If it’s got anything to do with LinkedIn, and you’re a content consumer, turns out that you won’t click on any link or ad whatsoever. That’s why I thought it was apropos to provide you all with a quick recap – in LinkedIn’s own words.

“We’ve completely re-designed and rebuilt the LinkedIn Campaign Manager to provide our customers more control and visibility over their LinkedIn campaigns. You’ll notice many of the changes immediately, like the new look and feel, but it’s also important to note the major technological enhancements behind the scenes, giving us a new foundation upon which to build more features and capabilities in the future.” – Linda Leung, LinkedIn Product Manager

To put Linda’s jargon into actual English, the new LinkedIn Campaign Manager basically involved overhauling the product’s overall look and feel, but are still a ways away from rolling out anything actually innovative or groundbreaking…”yet.” You know how much marketers love their “just-you-wait” lingo, which supposedly entices users to stick around to see what happens, even though I’ve yet to see a situation where people actually do.

There are enough options out there where waiting on one platform doesn’t make a whole lot of sense for advertisers, particularly when most of us need immediate results over the short term instead of vague promises for the long term.

LinkedIn Advertising: Knocking The Hustle.

larryThis is why, as I sit here having been assigned to write a post on what LinkedIn is doing in terms of marketing innovation (thanks to my editor trying to provide more “balanced, objective” LinkedIn coverage, mostly), I find myself a little lost.

That’s because LinkedIn has achieved very little in the way of innovation, and where there’s nothing new, there’s really no news worth covering – including this Campaign Manager release, which is really the same shit as before in a slightly different package.

Yawn.

So, because LinkedIn won’t actually improve their core product offering or do anything to innovate or add additional value to anyone advertising on their platform, I thought as a marketer it might make sense for me to look at some really creative, low cost ways that HR and recruiting professionals can use LinkedIn ads to drive results.

Sounds crazy, I know, but stay with me here. Seriously.

Earlier this week on Twitter, I happened to spot a pretty compelling headline: “The LinkedIn Hack That Made Me $120,000.” With a title like that, I kind of had to click through to this post from e-zine TheHustle, which tells the stange story of Jack Smith, an ambitious entrepreneur with visions of Silicon Valley venture capital dancing in his head.

Smith had his eyes set on a spot in a high profile, highly competitive startup incubator – but getting a place meant beating the odds and getting noticed by one of the decision makers responsible for deciding which startups made the final cut. Smith, by investing a nominal budget in a LinkedIn display ad campaign, was able to explicitly target the founder of this incubator – and after serving him enough ads, was actually able to turn those impressions into action. The payoff? 6 figures worth of seed funding.

You’ve got to admire the guy – he’s a hustler, and there’s no knocking anyone who knows how to play the game by their own rules. And his definition of the hustle is particularly applicable to LinkedIn ads in particular, and recruitment advertising in general. As Smith recounts in the post:

“The word ‘hustle’ has lost its meaning. Everyone who works hard is called a ‘hustler,’ even if they don’t win. Fuck the conceptualization of ‘hustling’ as working hard. I only care about results. A great hustle without results isn’t a great hustle.”

So how did he get the great results he did from this unquestionably great hustle?

4 Essential Hacks for A Great LinkedIn Advertising Hustle.

The-Hustle1Let’s get to the good stuff, and reveal what Smith learned while testing LinkedIn’s ad platform – and how you can leverage those lessons into your own great hustle and your own great results.

It’s easy, it’s cheap, and best of all, it’s actually an innovative approach to social advertising – which is a welcome change from the long standing status quo of stasis in social advertising.

1. Utilize LinkedIn’s unique data to target ad campaigns for viewers based on information no other social network can offer – like job title and company name. When running his hustle, Jack specifically targeted the title “Founder” and the company name, meaning that his campaign would ultimately only reach one user – the man responsible for slotting startups within a specific accelerator.

That means the only PPC spend required involved clicks originating from only a handful of highly qualified end users – and improving the chances those click throughs are coming from the only end user that really mattered as far as achieving the campaign’s ultimate objectives.

2. Target a minimally viable group to ensure LinkedIn approves your ad. The magic, minimal number of users a LinkedIn advertising campaign has to target? Seven. That’s right – only 7 people have to fit the criteria for your campaign before you’re allowed to launch an ad. This is pretty simple – just add another direct competitor or similar job title to your search criteria to get to the minimum number of users allowed. Before you do this, though, make sure that the number of users you’re targeting is wide enough to reach your intended audience while staying within your budget.

li ads

3. For LinkedIn Advertising, Use CPM, Not CPC, When Targeting Your Ad. If you’re not familiar with these marketing acronyms, CPM represents the cost per 1,000 unique impressions (and no, I have no idea why it’s not “CPT” instead) – and CPC represents the cost per individual click. Because you’re ideally targeting a very small group of potential leads, CPM makes much more sense because it more or less guarantees that your ad will only be seen by your tightly defined targets, and those targets see the ad a lot – at a minimum, 1,000 impressions split among seven people. You don’t have to be a math wizard to see why this ad buying formula just makes sense.

4. Copy Counts. Of course, Jack didn’t just use some generic copy in his campaigns – instead, he used the actual headshot of the person he was looking to reach as the ad’s associated image – which could be a bit creepy in recruiting – and redirected anyone clicking through to a landing page with an introduction video.

Put in recruiting terms, you could use a picture of a desk with a name plate with the job title you’re hiring for or a “We’re on The Hunt” sign with your target audience’s current company logo or brand imagery on your ad, and then redirect those viewers to a landing page with a very direct, highly personalized and extremely impactful direct video ad. This helps extend the LinkedIn campaign to another network, and augment the advertising with even more content designed to convert those incoming links to engaged leads. If you need a refresher on some best practices for video job ads, click here.

Look, LinkedIn advertising probably won’t work if you play by the rules. But it’s not hard to see how with a little bit of hustle and a whole lot of creativity, you’ll be able to produce awesome results that are not only innovative, but cost effective, too. And that’s the only way you’re probably going to get your money’s worth on LinkedIn. Unlike, say, the cost per hire realized by most employers’ investment in LinkedIn Recruiter licenses.

Hey, this is all a hustle. Just don’t hate the player – change the game, instead.

katrina-300x300About the Author: Katrina Kibben is the Director of Marketing for Recruiting Daily, and has served in marketing leadership roles at companies such as Monster Worldwide and Care.com, where she has helped both established and emerging brands develop and deliver world-class content and social media marketing, lead generation and development, marketing automation and online advertising.

An expert in marketing analytics and automation, Kibben is an accomplished writer and speaker whose work has been featured on sites like Monster.com, Brazen Careerist and About.com.

A graduate of Pennsylvania State University, Kibben is actively involved in many community and social causes – including rooting for her hometown Pittsburgh Steelers.

You can follow Katrina on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

 

Keep it Real – Candidate Screening Software Review HoneIt

Candidate Screening Software Review

How can we get feedback from hiring managers?

It is the age-old question.  Have you thought perhaps the reason is that they don’t trust you? The standard process is to source, review, candidate screening and submit. Then the hiring managers go through the same candidate screening process with your submits.

After they choose the top candidates, and an in-house interview is scheduled, the candidate has to go through the same thing again! Next, the department team gets together and reviews candidates again before making a decision.

From the time a candidate  search is kicked off, to the time a team makes a hiring decision, it could take two weeks or more. And what is the candidate doing during that time? Applying for other jobs, interviewing at other companies but all the time watching your hiring process.   And that is the in-house process. If using an agency, just add a source, review, screen and submit to the beginning of the process. Redonkulous.

What I like is that after the interview is completed, you can send the full interview to the people who are involved in the hiring process if they want it.  Honeit makes the process easier because you can send “chunks” of the initial interview by highlighting the important parts, AKA the answers to the important questions and all interviewers are getting the same answers to the same questions. The candidate screening interview from is set up so that you can also go directly to the questions that are most important to you rather than listen to the whole thing.  I also appreciate that you can add attachments like a resume or portfolio to the interview information.

The biggest benefit is the time saved.  No more scrambling for an entire team to be available to interview or pulling people from an important project.  The interview can be watched on the hiring managers time.  This also saves time on the recruiter side.  No more taking notes hoping that you got the right answer.  You are getting the details straight from the horses mouth!

Click Here to view a live example of how recruiters easily phone screen & introduce talent to hiring managers – saving everyone time, money & frustration.

Honeit

Pricing:

Free two-week trial.  After, $120 per seat.  Volume Discount Available

Sizzle:

  • Consistent Answers for Hiring Managers
  • Built in Branding
  • Ability to add attachments
  • Mobile Ready
  • Audio Quality
  • Live Interview Responses (not pre-recorded)

Drizzle:

  • No automatic resume parsing
  • Scheduling Just a Tad bit Confusing

 

Honeit allows hiring managers not just to take your word for it, they can take the candidate’s word for it! I encourage you not to take my word for it! Listen to Co-Founder and CEO of Honeit discuss the benefits of this interview platform! Click here to listen to Nick Livingston

 

About the Author: Jackye Clayton is recognized as a people expert who puts the Human in Human Resources.

Jackye Clayton Editor RecruitingTools.comAn international trainer, she has traveled worldwide sharing her unique gifts in sourcing, recruiting and coaching. She offers various dynamic presentations on numerous topics related to leadership development, inclusionary culture development, team building and more.Her in-depth experience in working with top Fortune and Inc 500 clients and their employees has allowed her to create customized programs to coach, train and recruit top talent and inspire others to greatness. Follow Jackye on Twitter @RecruitingTools and @JackyeClayton or connect with her on LinkedIn.

The 9 Circles of Recruiting Hell: A Divine Comedy.

satan escapesLasciate ogni speranza, voi ch’entrate; the final words of the inscription on the Gate of Hell.” Abandon every hope, you who enter.” – Dante Alighieri

I know it probably sounds kind of weird to hear a recruiter allude to Classic literature, but there’s nothing I love more than curling up with a good book – and I mean a really good book, and not, say, some statistically skewed Malcolm Gladwell pop psychology or the kinds of cheesy Penny Dreadful that land authors like Sue Grafton on the New York Times Best Seller List (“C is for Crap,” coming soon to a Hudson Booksellers near you!).

Nope, I’m talking about the canon of literature that constitutes the Classics in the most literal sense, stuff like Shakespeare, Voltaire, Milton and Tolstoy.

So pretty much anything dense with a lot of war, incest and subtextual societal commentary – this is the stuff I was raised reading, and it’s kind of hard to revert to Down the Rabbit Hole by former Playboy Playmate Holly Madison, which at the time of this writing is one of the Top 5 best selling books in the world. I know, right?

One of my favorite writers, and I say this as unpretentiously as possible, which turns out, is quite impossible, is one of the more obscure – but one of the greatest – poets in history, the French satirist François-Marie Arouet, better known by his nom de plume, Voltaire. Voltaire wrote one of the most viciously satirical and cuttingly cynical pieces of prose in the history of literature, an extended allegorical sendup entitled, appropriately, “Inferno.” 

It’s a quintessential (and surprisingly easy) read for anyone who prefers their morality served up with a side of snark and sarcasm, skewing what had, by Voltaire’s time, become somewhat sacrosanct: the great epic poem “The Divine Comedy”  by Dante Alighieri.

“A poem, moreover, which puts popes into hell excites attention, and the sagacity of commentators is exhausted in correctly ascertaining who it is that Dante has damned, it being, of course, of the first consequence not to be deceived in a matter so important.” – VoltaireInferno.

I mention Voltaire to establish a pretty compelling precedent for sending up Dante’s classic first person narrative of his descent into the nine circles of Hell, guided by the ghost of the Roman poet Virgil; these nine subterranean strata of suffering must be endured by the narrator as he descends closer to sin, ultimately rejecting the Devil and therefore beginning the journey of his soul to God. I know, there’s nothing that probably excites you more than a 14th Century extended morality metaphor written in Italian and subdivided into Cantos.

Oh, that’s just me? Then, well, bear with me as I channel my inner Voltaire, and take a look with modern eyes at a classic that, even hundreds of years later, still seems relevant and renowned enough to find itself the subject of something of a send-up. But after rereading The Divine Comedy recently, I realized that there were actually some pretty poignant lessons for recruiting and staffing professionals in there, too.

OK, there’s the obvious: we, as recruiters, are not without sin – in fact, sinning is often just business as usual, or as we call it in this industry, “contingency search.” I’m kidding, of course. Not every recruiter is wicked, but you wouldn’t know that if you talked to a random sampling of recent candidates, promise you that.

And the point is that we, as recruiters, could take a page from Dante’s book and learn that in our industry, too, there are differentiated degrees of sin, resulting in what could be construed as the 9 Circles of Recruiting Hell. A journey through these is the ultimate “candidate experience,” but the inevitable moral at the end of this story is that the more we screw over candidates, the more we’re really just damning ourselves.

Karma, as Dante knew, was kind of a bitch. But even if you’re dancing with the Devil (or CyberCoders, as the case may be), and have egregiously and repeatedly sinned as a recruiter (and lying counts, people), there’s still hope for salvation. You just have to see the error of your ways – and change them – before it’s too late. With that in mind, let’s begin our journey – I’m going to be playing Virgil in this version, guiding you through these various concentric circles of the damned, forced to suffer for eternity in a dark pit of despair. Kind of like an ATS, really.

So as we begin our Recruiter Experience through the nine circles of recruiting hell, keep in mind that there’s a special place here reserved for you if you don’t change your ways. And we’ve all got a way to go to get out of the pit we’ve dug ourselves and our profession.

One: Limbo                                                

beetlejuice“Here suffer those who did not sin, yet did not have the required portal of our faith. Their punishment is the denial of Paradise.” — Virgil

Forget the crazy Calypso beat – according to Virgil, Limbo was the circle of hell reserved for those who had never been baptized or accepted Christ, but still lived more or less virtuous, morally upright lives. While they can’t go to heaven without accepting Jesus (or so Fox News told me), they at least get to spend eternity in a place that, while it’s not paradise, isn’t too bad, either.

For recruiters, this first circle of hell can be correlated to our professional existence in a couple of ways. The first is the candidate who is not malignant or ill-intentioned, but after countless hours of interviewing, salary negotiation, coaching and hand-holding, suddenly just disappears from the face of the earth.

You know the type – they’re maddening. They just disappear in a cloud of smoke, without any communication of any kind – no e-mails or voicemails returned, no response on social media, not even a text message, for crying out loud.

This is the definition of Limbo – you’re left with a final candidate who won’t call you back, and a hiring manager (and likely direct supervisor) clamoring for a candidate who has suddenly disappeared without a trace, never to be heard from again.

You have no explanation for what happened, but you know that your reputation is going to suffer for having lost control of the candidate or the situation, and since there’s no obvious rhyme or reason for the candidate’s mysterious disappearance, you’ve kind of got to own the blame, whether or not it’s warranted. This doesn’t just go for agency recruiters, either – even in-house, this has happened to me and many of my colleagues more times than we’d care to admit. It’s maddening, frustrating, and soul sucking. One minute you’ve got your new hire; the next, you’ve got to start from square one.

They’re gone. And while you inevitably hear from them some months, or some years, later when their resume magically ends up on your desk for another position you’re trying to fill with another company or business unit. Sure, if they’re reminded of their Original Sin, there’s a good chance that they have a clever little lie ready to explain why the hell they left you hanging. Others simply don’t bring it up, maybe because they don’t remember or are hoping you forget.

For them, recruiters are just another faceless part of a dehumanized process – and no matter how well you’ve treated them, you’re a recruiter, and therefore require no reciprocation. The sins of the father, as they say.

The second part of limbo for recruiters is the candidate who simply no shows. The ones where they’ve expressed interest (even excitement) in a position , filled in and filed all necessary paperwork, and maybe even taken the time to come into interview – only to just randomly disappear when it comes time to move from screening and selection to actually talking about an offer. Or they take the offer, and decide too late not to actually accept what comes with that decision. It’s infuriating.

I once had a candidate for a contract position simply take a lunch break after two weeks on the job, walked out of the office and never came back. I couldn’t even bill the guy since he decided to take his, uh, “long lunch” in the middle of a damn work week, leaving me without even so much as a timesheet to show for my efforts. Seriously, in what other world does this kind of shit happen?

I myself have a list I carry with me to every contract or permanent gig I’m lucky enough to land. It’s called my ‘Do Not Disturb’ list. This is a list of the candidates and clients who don’t deserve my time; with apologies to Roger Daltrey, I won’t be fooled again. I take no pity on placing these lost souls where they belong – in limbo, forever. At least as far as I’m concerned. If I place you and you disappear, then this is the place for you.

But if you’re guilty of another type of unprofessionalism, you’re going to have to go one circle further.

Two: Lust

Satan_saddam“When they arrive before the ruinous sweep,There shrieks are heard, there lamentations, moans, And blasphemies ‘gainst the good Power in heaven. I understood that to this torment sad, The carnal sinners are condemn’d, in whom, Reason by lust is sway’d.” Dante, The Divine Comedy, Canto V.

Lust is a tricky one for recruiting, and one that (and I’m sure I’ll be labelled a misogynist or sexist for this assertion) seems to fall primarily on the women working in our profession.

Sure, I know this is a dumb idea writing this since, as a male, I’ve only seen lust at work secondhand, but it seems to impact my female colleagues and coworkers in recruiting as an all-too-common, completely unnecessary, and out of control occupational hazard.

Although recruiting and HR are traditionally dominated, demographically speaking, by women, it seems like many are dismissed as second class citizens, sexualized playthings who got where they are by sleeping or seducing the right stakeholders, which, of course, is complete bullshit.

I’ve been privy to more offline conversations with female recruiters than I care to admit about this, and it seems like from inappropriate e-mails from “candidates” to solicitations for sex via LinkedIn (talk about shitty pick-up lines), this unwarranted harassment is ubiquitous for women on the front line of recruiting.

I’ve heard from my female coworkers here in the recruiting trenches of candidates, clients and coworkers subjecting them to despicable, unforgivable behavior – from candidates only accepting interviews so they could solicit the recruiter in person to one whose profile picture led a job seeker to solicit her for sex, believing she was placing a personal ad under the guise of a job description via social media – a mistake the candidate attributed to “being too hot to be a real recruiter.” Really.

This doesn’t happen to male recruiters, and shouldn’t impact our female counterparts, too. Unfortunately, too often it’s not just candidates responsible for this, but their fellow recruiters, too. Too often, recruiters come into the profession straight from school, and particularly in staffing, never lose that feckless frat boy mentality – one that’s used to sexualize, and marginalize, any woman, regardless of her professional accomplishments or achievements. Too many recruiters would rather catcall than cold call, and I, for one, am sick of it.

I think before they ever let someone call themselves a “recruiter,” before they ever get assigned a req or pick up a phone, everyone in our profession should have to take a class on ethics and professionalism not only in the workplace, but online, too. If you’re one of the Brototypes responsible for this endemic harassment, I’m calling you out. Grow up. LinkedIn isn’t a dating site, and you’re a loser for even trying this shit in the first place.

If this is how you treat women, no wonder you’re single. And know that you won’t be alone when you’re put in this special circle of hell for all eternity – hey, you wanted hot, you got it. Assholes.

Three: Gluttony

audrey ii“For the sin, Of glutt’ny, damned vice, beneath this rain, E’en as thou see’st, I with fatigue am worn;Nor I sole spirit in this woe: all these, Have by like crime incurr’d like punishment.”  Dante, The Divine Comedy, Canto VI

Gluttony is endemic in recruiting, and there are no bigger gluttons than our hiring managers or clients. Dealing with their seemingly insatiable appetites requires walking a fine line between just in time and never soon enough – it’s a double edged sword which inevitably cuts both ways.

No matter how many resumes you present, gluttons are never satisfied; like Audrey II in Little Shop of Horrors, they can’t stop crying out, “Feed Me!,” even after they’ve feasted on every available candidate on the market.

Hiring managers are quick to ask for other options, but rarely is there a need for more candidates when a recruiter is inevitably asked for one or two more possibilities. The sin of gluttony is pervasive, and it’s an overwhelming appetite that leads to destruction, at least if you’re on the recruiting front lines. Of course, if it wasn’t for this unquenchable thirst for candidates, this insatiable need for more flesh, none of us would eat at all – it is, in a sense, every recruiter’s lifeblood.

When unemployment is low, just finding a single White Whale requires a comprehensive knowledge of Boolean syntax, social engineering and interpersonal communications – not to mention a little luck. But after years stuck in a recession and feasting on the spoils of the War for Talent many clients have simply become spoiled, without realizing a Bull market means having to bear with less selection and more competition for candidates. No requisition or job is actually unfillable – it’s hiring managers being far too selective and far too picky that make them that way.

Managing these gluttons can’t be solved through a software program, database, CRM or “thought leadership” collateral like a white paper or ebook. Nope. In fact, there’s nothing recruiters can do about gluttony, much as we hate it, except try to feed the beast as best we can, a necessary evil that we can only manage to manage, but one that can’t be contained. At least if we’re doing our jobs.

Hiring managers and organizations always needing more candidates, even when they have enough, and never being satisfied, no matter how overstuffed a pipeline or slate might be, is simply part of being a sourcing or recruiting professional. If you can’t fight the good fight, then you’d better move on over to something where complacency counts, like benefits or compliance – and that, my friends, is a level of Hell that Dante couldn’t even begin to fathom.

It’s been like this for eternity, and that’s not going to change anytime soon.

evil nedFour: Greed

“For all the gold that is beneath the moon, Or has been, of these weary souls, Could never make a single one repose.”  Dante, The Divine Comedy, Canto VI

I don’t need to write a whole lot to illustrate the point that greed is one of the most egregiously endemic of the deadly sins perpetrated by the recruiting industry and the people who work in it. If, Dante is to be believed, greed lies at the heart of all evil, if it’s allowed to go completely uncontrolled, no recruiter stands a chance at getting a fair deal when everything’s up for grabs to the highest bidder.

Greed can be a career killer, too – overreach, overstep, game over.

Even candidates are guilty of egregious greed, particularly as it relates to compensation – one of the most stressful parts of any search. Market levels determine we screen candidates not only on their skillsets, but also their salary, requiring recruiters preclose prospects or cut them loose due to compensation. But where are these “market levels” coming from, exactly?

I’ve never really understood where the hell all this purportedly proprietary salary data comes from, other than surveys and third party studies, which everyone knows, tend to lead to results that are almost always at least a little statistically skewed. I think at the end of the day, these “market levels,” despite all the data available, really come down to paying what your direct competitors are paying – market rates more or less represent collusion through compensation for employers. It’s not about paying what people are worth – it’s about paying what people will accept to say yes to an offer.

I don’t mean to say that the compensation function has no real function, but I think if you really believe that some HR lady with a couple SHRM credits worth of benefits administration course work and some outdated spreadsheets knows more about job market and salary conditions than a recruiter, you better put down that cup of Kool-Aid. Recruiters are almost always more in touch with comp conditions than any salary survey or aggregate data, because their job consists of talking to real candidates, in real time, and that conversation, unfortunately, is almost entirely incumbent on compensation. If you can’t afford a candidate for a position, they’re not really a candidate.

The market isn’t determined by salary survey data, internal equity, compression or any of that HR stuff; it’s really a simple matter of supply and demand. Compensation tends to be a trailing indicator, and to have a tightly regimented system that’s built around tightly defined pay bands and even tighter performance based bonuses does a disservice to both the recruiter and the candidates, forcing them to look not for the talent they want, but rather, teh talent they can afford.

It sucks, but there are those candidates who are so full of hubris and lacking self-awareness that they value their skillset not on what they’re making, but what they think they deserve – a value that’s almost inevitably grossly inflated. Gordon Gekko clearly never recruited. But even decades after his famous pronouncement that “greed is good,” each subsequent generation has grown even more narcissistic and entitled than the one before.

I feel trapped between two competing worlds, belonging definitively to no clearly defined generational category, but rather, somewhere in the middle. For instance, I remember memorizing phone numbers, not just looking them up on Google or generating them through some automated profile aggregator.

I worked hard for my recruiting money, but for those just entering the profession, the boom times have created the illusion that money in this business is easy. They’ve not only lost touch with the meaning of the dollar, but also, the real meaning of this job. If you’re in this for the money, you’re due for some pretty deep disappointment. Similarly, if salary is your only driver for looking for a new job, you’re looking for all the wrong reasons.

Greed never leads to anything but disappointment, anyways. Be happy with what you’ve got, and never expect anything more than you deserve – and don’t ever lose sight of the fact that what you’re worth is in no way defined by how much you get paid. If you do, you’re just asking for a whole lot of misery. 

Five: Anger

Megan20Exorcist“‘O banished out of Heaven, people despised!” Thus he began upon the horrid threshold; “whence is this arrogance within you couched?” Soon I was within, cast round my eye, And see on every hand an ample plain, Full of distress and torment terrible.” Dante, The Divine Comedy, Canto IX

Once again, we find ourselves torn between the two groups that cause the average recruiter the most amount of dismay and duress: candidates and hiring managers. But there’s another group we’d be remiss to overlook: HR generalists.

While recruiters love to hate HR, the fact is that we’re really not doing a good enough job of calling out HR – probably because although recruiting technically reports up through this department, we have the same level of mistrust, discomfort and fear towards HR pros as your average line employee. Which is to say, these people petrify us. In my experience, all I’ve ever seen is HR trying to avoid letting the secret slip that their jobs could be pretty easily outsourced, with most “business partners” doing anything but.

HR is quickly becoming obsolete, which is why they’re rightfully more concerned with self-preservation than pushing the envelope. Nowhere is that trend more readily apparent than in talent acquisition – the red headed stepchild of the human resources function.

Recruiting is constantly under pressure to do things more cheaper and more efficiently, and to do so with less resources than ever before. Recruiters are the budgetary equivalent of the canary in the coal mine – the last function to get hired in when times are good, and the first ones shown the door when hiring plans, inevitably, fail to go according to plan. Most HR generalists see recruiting as merely an undesirable rung on the HR ladder, somewhere beneath benefits or compliance and only slightly above administrative and office staff.

The reason for the growing chasm between HR and recruiting largely comes down to the fact that, unlike their generalist counterparts, recruiters actually create demonstrable value to the company’s bottom line, and from a business perspective, play a critical, measurable role as a major driver of P&L. If done properly, every recruiter should be able to easily prove the value they’re bringing to their employers.

Whereas HR’s job is to minimize risk, recruiting’s is to maximize ROI; HR actively seeks to preserve the status quo, while recruiters, by necessity, must challenge it.

Recruiters are able to find the unfindable, close the un-closeable, and perform other such small miracles every day with little recognition or at least acknowledgement from senior or departmental leadership. When we screw up is when HR takes notice – and they’re not afraid to throw recruiting under the bus if they need to. Hell, many do it when it’s completely unnecessary – we’re a convenient punching bag for a profession that’s forced to bear its own fair share of punches. Almost all of which are justified, by the way.

When it comes to hiring managers, it’s kind of hard to even know how to start. Most of our daily lives are dictated by these folks, who too often fail to see recruiters as partners and instead, treat us (and our candidates) as adversaries or at least obstacles to them actually doing their jobs. Spoiler alert: when you have the right talent and your headcount is completely full, any job becomes easier. You just have to commit to the recruiting process instead of indemnify it as the root of your problems – it can just as easily be the solution, too.

But hiring managers often do whatever they can to preempt a recruiter from doing their jobs, whether that’s having to pull so hard to extract any information from them it’s like you’re asking for a loan, or sending them dozens of unreturned emails and unanswered calls, only to hear nothing back but the sounds of silence. Hint: if you’re going to be a hiring manager, you’ve ultimately got to do some hiring. That means working with a recruiter, whether you like it or not. So might as well deal with it and start treating us as professionals instead of cowering every time you happen to see us rounding the corner.

Every recruiter has been handed a req by an overly optimistic hiring manager for a position that’s not only completely impossible to fill, more Make-A-Wish than market reality. You know the type: the hiring manager who insists you can find a great software developer who also happens to be a social media maven, who isn’t afraid to take down dictation or other light clerical work as needed, too, and be happy doing so for ten bucks an hour, non-negotiable. Got that? Oh, yeah – and they have to have a minimum 8 years experience, period.

The funny thing is, when a recruiter fails to deliver on even the most impossibly lofty or hard-to-find professional prerequisites, it’s always their fault, and never the hiring manager who put such ridiculous parameters in place in the first place.

And candidates, listen. Of course if you didn’t get the job, it’s clearly my fault as a recruiter. Please feel free to send me yet another e-mail explaining how I screwed up at accurately depicting your skill set, or failing to tweak your resume to present you in the best possible light. Obviously, it’s not your lack of qualifications, experience or cultural alignment that cost you the gig – it was me, and for that, I’m truly sorry.

I get that many of you look at a job search a little like window shopping – it never hurts to try something on, right, even if you know it’s not going to be a fit? Wrong. Stop applying for jobs for which you don’t have any relevant experience, skills or education. No recruiter on the earth can convince the powers that be to look at your potential if you don’t come even close to meeting the position’s prerequisites.

Don’t blame recruiters for your job searches coming up short, or the fact that you’re applying for jobs you’re in no way qualified for and never hear anything back, not even a “thanks but no thanks.” Just because you’re wasting your time doesn’t mean I have to return the favor. Candidates, your anger is not only misplaced – it’s also unnecessary. I want to close these reqs as badly as you do, and wish I could place every candidate I talked to. It would make my job easier, too. But if I submitted unqualified candidates, I wouldn’t be doing that job.

Before you shoot off another angry e-mail or send me another nasty InMail about how worthless I am, or about how I sabotaged your search, remember that you’re just burning a bridge that you’re probably going to need at some point in your career. Close the door on a recruiter, and you’re closing the door to a career’s worth of potential opportunities that you’ll never even know existed. That’s the price we pay for hubris, after all.

Six: Heresy

keyzer“When they draw near, or are, is wholly vain, Our intellect, and if none brings it to us, Not anything know we of your human state.” – DanteThe Divine Comedy, Canto X

In Dante’s extended allegorical poem, this particular circle of hell was reserved just for those who denied the divinity of Christ as their Lord and savior – complete with tortuous flames, bellowing brimstone and an eternity of excruciating pain. In other words, it’s a whole lot like being a Taleo user.

But just know, the people responsible for the shitty software making staffing and recruiting such a pain in the ass these days have a special place in hell with their name on it.

Whether it’s selling a job board package, a recruiting CRM solution or any unnecessary piece of overpriced enterprise SaaS HR Technology or recruiting tool that’s little than vaporware and vague vendor promises, most third party tech providers have done nothing to make recruiting – or recruiter’s lives – any easier, which is what you promised your software would do.

Instead, you just added some bullshit bells and whistles and basic bolt-on BS like “custom reporting” that, in fact, is nothing more than some spreadsheet any idiot could make in Excel, and while you might make money from the poor sucker who signs a contract for this stuff, in the end, you’re the one who’s going to pay for your chicanery and double crossing. You make our lives harder, the least we can do as recruiters is try to return the favor.

Look, we’re trained to pay attention to meaningless metrics like time-to-fill and source of hire, but largely ignore the fact that what’s keeping us from being the most effective recruiters possible has nothing to do with what our systems are currently measuring; rather, it’s the systems themselves that are generally to blame.

The features no one needs (think: “branded career apps” or “video interviewing capabilities”) often come at the expense of the ones that everyone would actually use – like a notes section for warning future recruiters coming across a candidate in an ATS what a pain in the ass a candidate is, or automatically capturing and consolidating all relevant communication so that this information is included directly in a candidate’s record. Forget that.

Instead, these vendors came in and added no real value, instead forcing a bunch of crap on recruiters that made everyone’s lives more difficult, things like requisition numbers, disposition codes and 40 minute application processes that don’t display properly on mobile devices (you have to buy another point solution to get that feature).

Even after you pay the usual usury to recruiting technology providers, they continue to ignore what current customers want in favor of developing new features and services that potential customers currently in the sales process say they want. Anyone will check any box in an RFP, but once that proposal is accepted, somehow the roadmap always seems to start going in a different direction. And you’re left with shitty software.

This is why as sophisticated as our sourcing and recruiting technology has become, so many of us are still reliant on old school practices like building Boolean strings and mining LinkedIn’s database without having to pay seven figures for the privilege of accessing recruiting information from a network that we recruiters are responsible for building in the first place. Am I the only one who feels a little bit screwed over by this? We’re the reason LinkedIn exists, but suddenly, our network is no longer ours – and, as it’s becoming increasingly apparent, neither is our data.

And let’s not even get started on LinkedIn Publisher – there’s a completely different circle of hell saved for those people whose crappy content continually clogs our streams. Hope you guys like the smell of sulphur.

Seven: Violence

“Fix thine eyes below; for draweth near, The river of blood, within which boiling is, Whoe’er by violence doth injure others. O blind cupidity, O wrath insane, That spurs us onward so in our short life, And in the eternal then so badly steeps us!” Dante, The Divine Comedy, Canto XII

So, you’re the kind of moron who thinks the office is some sort of playground to live out their stunted adolescent frustrations, and that being a bully somehow makes you a bad ass?

The kind of recruiter who talks a big game but is responsible for some epically stupid screwups (which, of course, they refuse to take any sort of blame for). You’re the type of recruiter who gives all of us a bad name and a black eye.

We’ve all dealt with some form of violence – or the threat of it – in recruiting. From requiring recruiters to scan special badges to gain access to the talent acquisition offices to rehearsing what to do if confronted by a jilted candidate as a standard component of professional training, it’s a constant specter hanging over all of our heads.

Over the course of my career, I’ve seen some extreme examples, from someone entering a recruiter’s office and threatening them because they didn’t get called for an interview as an internal candidate. Or two recruiters throwing punches at each other when one accused another of “stealing” one of his candidates. It’s silly, really – but stupid is as staffing does, generally.

The abuse isn’t always physical, of course; from the trolls on Facebook and Twitter whose inflated egos are responsible for delusions of grandeur, getting out their frustrations from the safety of their Mom’s basement while plotting revenge on all those people preventing them from getting a job (recruiter conspiracy theories are amazingly widespread, at least judging from some of the many related conversations popping up everywhere on Reddit recently).

These online bullies are capable of vicious abuse – and potentially, irrevocably damaging your online brand and professional reputation for no better reason than because they can. And because you just happen to be a recruiter at a company who didn’t end up making them an offer. I don’t mean to preach here, but there are some psychos out there, and I for one am sick of taking the brunt of the blame for the reality that in recruiting, there’s only one winner every search. One day, you’ll end up being that winner.

Unless, of course, you’d rather blame others and bully them in person or online instead of taking responsibility for your own shortcomings. Anyone who does that will always be a loser. And when there’s any kind of abuse going on, there are never any winners, anyways.

Eight: Fraud

lola“While speaking in this manner, with his scourge, A demon smote him, and said: “Get thee gone, Pander, there are no women here for coin.” And herewith, let our sight be satisfied.” Dante, The Divine Comedy, Canto XVII

This circle of hell, which Dante describes as a peanut gallery of rapists, thieves, liars and whores writhing in perpetual pain in a pool of reeking excrement, is probably my favorite circle in the Inferno.

There’s always something satisfying about seeing true villains truly get what’s coming to them, and the eighth circle of recruiting hell is saved for our industry’s seedy dark side and unsavory underbelly.Yes, I’m talking about those damned souls who, like Dante’s sinners, spend their days spinning around in shit.

You know: the “thought leaders” and “influencers” who are driving our industry off of a cliff with their nebulous theories, uninformed ‘best practices’ and annoyingly ubiquitous and overbearing social presence – er, “personal brand,” if you prefer. Give me a break.

Now, that’s not to say everyone creating content for our industry is necessarily to blame for the commoditization of what we do by consultants who never have and never will – the actual recruiters in this industry have a whole lot to say, but too often have their voices suppressed or censored by their company’s brand guidelines or employee communication policy. Plus, those who recruit are often too busy to blog, tweet or post about it.

But the “thought leaders” (who almost uniformly never demonstrate any modicum of actual thinking or actual leadership, actually) more than pick up the practitioner slack. They’ve made making money off of our employers into some sort of pathetic art form, seducing the buyer with specious statistics and asinine aphorisms and leaving recruiters having to learn from people with little more to teach than how to annoy your entire network with spammy e-mails or write posts belittling our profession without ever being an actual part of that profession.

Of course, there’s a whole contingent of recruiters hitting below the belt in the battle for making placements – and who aren’t afraid to do whatever it takes, including throwing a candidate or coworker under a bus, to make those hires happen and make sure they get paid their fee in full.

No amount of money could ever justify these strip mining tactics, the scorched Earth strategy that leads to nothing more than short term, Pyrrhic victories in the War for Talent. Long term recruiting results require always doing what’s right, not just doing what’s convenient.

This bullshit needs to stop, and soon. Because the more recruiters stab each other in the back, the more we’re relying on consultants and “thought leaders” to drive the conversation instead of our colleagues and coworkers. Since we can’t rely on each other, we’re forced to turn to “Influencers,” “ninjas” (with apologies to Johnny Campbell, who is, in fact, a stud sourcer) and blowhard bloggers whose entire existence is extolling the same recycled information and common sense approaches that every recruiter already instinctively knows – or could easily ask a counterpart, if only they weren’t perceived as the competition. They’re not – we’re all on the same team, after all.

Also ruining our profession are “reality shows” like Top Recruiter which do nothing more than misrepresent what we do and what recruiting is all about to the general public, or “career experts” who purport to telling our candidates what we want, despite having only found futility in their own encounters with recruiters.

This does a great disservice to candidates, and puts misinformation on the market that makes our jobs much harder – like this expectation that every candidate deserves some sort of response if they apply for a job, even if they’re completely unqualified. Or that formatting a resume can somehow overcome the missing experience or expertise the actual resume reflects. You see what I’m getting at – there’s a ton of bullshit out there, and none of it makes actually getting the right job, or finding the right candidate, any easier at all.

I wish other recruiters out there in the trenches would share their own insight, tips and tricks online instead of having the lion’s share of that content created by charlatans, frauds and anyone else whose profit model revolves around monetizing the job search without being accountable for the outcome of those searches. Nothing is guaranteed, of course, but the odds of failure and futility are pretty good when you’re learning about recruiting from someone whose knowledge of recruiting is limited to what other douchebag “thought leaders” are saying on social – and that’s almost always some sort of specious second hand conjecture and uneducated guessing, anyway.

The vast majority of people selling themselves as “experts” in this space are experts at nothing more than defrauding and misrepresenting themselves and selling common sense as a premium service at a premium price tag. These “consultants” are mostly charlatans and snake oil salesmen who sell themselves at the expense of their candidates or clients. Sadly, these fakes never get called out, because real recruiters are too busy doing their jobs than to point out these “recruiting experts” have no idea what the hell those jobs really entail. Practitioners practice, and that often comes at the expense of the insular world of online influencers.

The best people covering this industry, the pundits and practitioners adding value to the conversation instead of simply spurious advice and those recruiters who have actually practiced “best practices” instead of just preaching them, share at least one common, recurring approach to content creation and community building: they sell by not selling, and realize the best way to win is simply by being the smartest person in the room, adding value to their content instead of a soft sales pitch.

There aren’t a lot of these outliers who not only recruit, but also occasionally blog, tweet, post or present on recruiting related topics, but the handful out there (you know who you are, and if you want to know who I think are the most legit experts out there, shoot me a message) are helping turn the tide – and change the recruiting conversation by advancing the recruiting industry. Here’s hoping business as usual becomes anything but.

Nine: Treachery

rosemary“By many years the record lied to me. Art thou so early satiate with that wealth, For which thou didst not fear to take by fraud, The beautiful Lady, then work her woe? Such I became, as people who stand, Not comprehending what is answered them, As if bemocked, and know not how to answer.” Dante, The Divine Comedy, Canto XX

In Dante’s version, the most inner circle of hell – and final stop on Virgil’s Styxian tour – traitors, murderers and great heretics from history (think: Cain, Judas, Satan, Reid Hoffman) spend eternity up to their necks in freezing ice water, while demons slowly chew their heads, hands and feet.

In this circle, hell is literally frozen over, which is an appropriate allegory for the many people negatively impacting our industry but who aren’t directly part of it. I’m talking about the politicians and lobbyists pushing for stagnant wages and minimal worker protections or benefits; the bankers who insist on perpetually placing profits in front of people; the big brands who would sooner ship jobs overseas than invest in training and developing the underserved workforce in their own backyards.

I’m talking about the wonks at the EEOC whose red tape and bureaucracy make recruiting rife with the constant threat of lawsuits or audits, or the lawyers making money off of the confusing terms and complex, Draconian regulations behind such legislation as OFCCP, ACA or the FMLA. Compliance has become a new form of corporate tax, one that costs every company; even if it’s not overtly called a “tax” for financial reporting purposes.

We’ve talked a little about those good folks who apply for every job you’ve posted without bothering to even read the listed requirements, or the ones with memory that’s so selective candidates swear up and down they’ve never interviewed with a company, but after submitting them you find out they applied only a week or two earlier. Or the candidate who insists there’s no red flags to find during preemployment screening, but whose drug test results come back containing more prohibited substances than Snoop Dogg’s tour bus, or the one with that pesky felony conviction from a few years back who assumes you’ll never find out, so doesn’t bother mentioning it.

Or the customers – the employers and hiring managers – who flat out lie to recruiters, insisting they already own candidates in their database when, in fact, you directly sourced and submitted them – customers who have no compunction about screwing you out of your fee and refusing to reward your time and effort as a recruiter. The hiring manager who makes you devote weeks of your time to a search only to decide, months in, to go ahead and go with the internal candidate they had in mind from the beginning, but never told you about in an attempt to have you “see what else is out there.” Just because.

Or there are the candidates that send in a signed acceptance, but end up taking a counter offer and not having the balls to tell you about it before no-showing at onboarding. Or the ones who go over your head to the hiring manager because they haven’t heard back from you, mainly because said hiring manager hasn’t provided any modicum of feedback, and reaching out to the guilty party just might reflect poorly on their candidacy.

I could keep going with this list, but if you’re a recruiter who makes placements, you already know exactly what I’m talking about and who I mean – those everyday villains and usually suspect usual suspects who make our jobs as recruiters hell. It’s these devils who belong in the ninth circle – and iced out of our profession while suffering as their business gets torn apart by recruiters who actually know what they’re doing.

“As I have done, his body by a demon is taken from him, who thereafter rules it, Until his time has wholly been resolved.”

Surviving the nine circles of recruiting hell mean battling our demons – and only by defeating them can we ensure our collective survival – and viability – as a recruiting profession. Doing this is going to take playing by a completely different set of rules – and resolving to resolve the biggest problems plaguing our industry together.

Let’s hope it’s not too late to change our ways – and in doing so, change the course of our destiny, the reputation of our profession and redefine recruiting by rejecting sin and accepting the grace that comes with true salvation.

Now, can I get an amen?

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. Currently, he is a Senior Sourcing Recruiter at Microsoft via Search Wizards.

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.  Derek currently lives in the DC area.

 

Pithy The Fool: Deconstructing Recruiting Best Practice Buzzwords.

I-call-bullshit-jpegI’m just going to jump right into this one; no one wants content or complexity in their content, therefore, leads are just kind of a waste of space. Everyone wants sound bites, instead – 140 characters or less, preferably.

So if you hate reading, love infographics and think critical thinking or subtext kind of suck, you’re in luck. Forget nuanced blog posts or balanced argumentation or even BS business cases.

Here are 40 talent trending topics for all you non-readers (er, “thought leaders”) out there, explained in one line or less:

1. Employer Branding: If working there sucks, recruiting is a whole lot harder.

2. Big Data: People trust math more than they trust recruiters.

3. Diversity: Everyone should be welcome and included at work. Except, of course, for bigots.

4. Compliance: The threat of a lawsuit is the best path to preserving power and sticking to the status quo.

5. Engagement: If you want a candidate to take a next step, you’ve got to initiate the first one.

6. University Recruiting: Teach a man how to find a job, you’ll feed him (and his referrals) for a lifetime.

7. Compensation: People work for paychecks. Period. Company culture doesn’t pay the bills – no matter what.

8. Sourcing: Finding people on the internet is easy. Getting them to talk to you? That’s the hard part.

9. Gamification: All recruiting is a game. You win when you get a job. The rest is bullshit.

10. Outsourcing: No one’s taking your job. Only the shitty parts of it you complain about all day, anyway.

11. Content Marketing: The best way to sell is by having something interesting to say. Seriously.

12. Talent Communities: Please. Shut up and start calling them mailing lists, already.

13. Boolean: Everyone knows how to use Google. Stop being such a self-important douche canoe with your strings.

14. Thought Leadership: Following thoughtless people without thinking about it, first.

15. Retention: The best way to keep people around is by keeping them happy.

16. The Cloud: It’s not a selling point, it’s how the internet works, Gramps.

17. Wearable Tech: In 6 months, you’ll be glad you weren’t that guy.

18. Company Culture: We value all forms of diversity, as long as you think and act like we tell you to.

19. Work/Life Balance: Balance is impossible. The best you can do is cope.

20. Globalization: Getting shit done, like money, is language and location agnostic. So too are excuses.

21. Gen Y: The people who are just now having kids, buying houses and becoming as boring as you are.

22. Gen Z: Same shit, different demographic.

23: Candidate Experience: Looking for a job shouldn’t have to suck. Seriously.

24. Brand Ambassadors: Who actually does the work is always more interesting than the actual work.

25. HR Technology: This is what Steam Punk will look like in 10 years.

26: Performance Management: Yawn. Next.

27. Learning Management: You can’t learn unless HR requires it – and when that happens, you won’t want to.

28. Hiring Manager: The person who not only makes the recruiting decision, but has to live with it, too.

29. Interviewing: Confirmation bias, followed by 29 minutes of small talk. Silly, really.

30. Data Privacy: You know this no longer exists, right?

31. Video Interviewing: The camera always lies. Handshakes rarely do.

32. Job Boards: Where you’ll keep getting your candidates until you learn SEO. Until then, they’ll never die.

33. Corporate Social Responsibility: The ultimate oxymoron.

34. Employee Agreement: “At Will” means never having to say you’re sorry.

35. STEM: Revenge of the Nerds is a dish best served cold. That’s an old Klingon proverb, you know.

36. Gender Gap: Gender is fluid, so if it’s really a choice, why not choose to make more? Problem solved.

37. Professional Certification: Since you can’t prove you know how to do your job at your job, try taking a test.

38. Authenticity: A blanket disclaimer for blatant lying and subterfuge.

39. Best Practices: Attempting to create disruption by doing the same thing as everyone else. Futility, defined.

40. Recruiting: Anyone can sell something everyone actually needs.

Got any to add to the list? Join the conversation. Better yet, shut up about this stuff, already. Seriously.

Emerging Markets, Emerging Issues: Talent Mobility and Global Recruiting.

global recruitingIn the increasingly interconnected world of work, teams, employers and candidates continue to adopt the technologies, processes and procedures designed to transcend geographic borders or national boundaries, allowing organizations to overcome the limitations inherent to serving highly localized markets and become truly global, multinational entities.

This trend creates not only increased opportunities and competitiveness for developing nations, their economies and workforces, but also, for the multinationals whose long term growth has become incumbent on these emerging markets and their growing purchasing power and parity in the larger context of global business.

Private enterprise has been the lynchpin for growth in manifold markets; in fact, according to the International Trade Labor Organization’s Global Employment Trends Report, multinational corporations on average contribute 51% of private sector dollars and 32% of all salaried jobs in developing nations outside the OECD, generating an estimated aggregate of almost 4 trillion dollars a year (yes, that’s trillion with a “T”) for these often underserved, but rapidly growing, developing economies. The WTO, in fact, reports that if corporations were included in terms of overall annualized revenue, corporations would represent 51 of the top 100 largest national economies in the world.

The trend of business globalization, already such a force in shaping our world and our lives, will only continue to rise over the years to come. This has significant repercussions not only for organizations, but their employees as well. While new revenue opportunities and the bottom line remain primary drivers of the rise of global business, it’s the employees themselves, the intellectual capital, that are perhaps the biggest determinant in the success or failure of these multinationals to establish a foothold – and find success – in growing this new breed of businesses without borders.

For those expatriated employees, however, the challenges of working on the frontlines of the global economy are often fraught with challenge. It’s not easy picking up and moving to a foreign country, and assimilating into these often unfamiliar markets, adjusting to a unique local culture while leading a homogenous corporate culture, can be among the most difficult assignments in any professional’s career. But if done properly, they can also be among the most rewarding, too.

There’s No Map for Global Recruiting.

Lost-wandering-quotesI speak from experience, having suffered through the frustrations of many international moves over the course of my career.

After graduating from Yale in the not so exotic locale of New Haven, CT, my career as a professional Phineas Fogg began in earnest; pursuing my passion for investment banking led to my transfers to Hong Kong, then Singapore and India – and no matter how many times I relocated for work, it never became less frustrating or less painful.

This wasn’t limited to developing nations or far flung locales, however – in fact, the last straw for me in terms of suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous relocation related headaches was actually when I arrived in London to begin my graduate studies at the London Business School.

I found that my flat had no heat, water or internet, despite assurances to the contrary, and that I had no means to find out how, exactly, I was supposed to go about getting these necessary amenities in an unfamiliar city where I was, for all intents and purposes, at least, alone. I was on my own, and that is never an ideal place to be without indoor plumbing or internet access. Trust me.

That’s when I was struck by the idea for MOVE Guides – the idea that global relocation is hard enough without compounding the problem through a complete lack of information, resources or the support that’s so necessary to feel at least a little at home, even when you’re a world away from it. While my experiences growing my career abroad were as challenging as they were rewarding, I knew that I also benefited from existing expat communities, corporate support and extant infrastructure that allowed me to hit the ground running every place in the world of work work happened to take me.

In my new career as a global mobility professional, however, I’ve realized just how lucky I was to receive this sort of support, and just how relatively little support many expatriate workers receive – or even have access to – in developing regions, and observed first hand just how difficult and detrimental this can be for these employees, their career related success and their quality of life.

One of the biggest factors influencing this growing gap between company geographies and organizational capability seems to be the fact that many organizations continue to recruit and relocate talent using the same policies and procedures as they do domestically, or between developed markets and offices. It’s imperative that employers realize that placing talent in emerging markets necessitates not only a different approach for talent acquisition and management, but, perhaps, a different type of employee altogether.

The New Geography of Global Recruiting.

geographyThe McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) – the same institution that actually coined the term “BRIC” to describe the fastest growing global economies – estimates that in the next 15 years, fully half of the global GDP will be generated by just 440 cities, all located in emerging markets, and that these new business hubs will largely dictate where companies decide to set up shop and invest resources in infrastructure and intellectual capital.

These boom markets are being driven not just by population increases in larger cities, like Bangalore or Lagos, that are already largely Westernized urban centers, but also newer, mid-sized urban centers most of us have never heard of – cities like Recife or Astana, for example.

These cities are not only unfamiliar to Western business culture, but also largely lacking in the basic infrastructure, access to goods or services or any semblance of the ‘comforts of home’ so many Western expats have grown accustomed to in more developed, mature international cities. Hong Kong and Guangdong might only be a few miles apart, geographically, but if you’re an expat worker, these two growing financial and trade centers are a world apart – and success requires workers with similarly divergent skills.

These new markets represent a new challenge for both global employers’ recruiting and retention strategies, not to mention the global mobility professionals tasked with facilitating the smooth transition of talent to these new global economic hubs. For expat employees, talent acquisition and management play an even bigger role in determining the relative success of an employee’s tenure, particularly if those employees are tasked with establishing a new international office.

Finding the right person to task with the responsibilities for growing an existing business into a new geography or market, obviously, represents one of the most critical hires an employer can make; the success of an organization’s global people strategy, therefore, is largely inexorably intertwined with a company’s expansion strategy as general. It takes more than the right place to grow a business globally – it takes the right people. So, how do businesses get it right?

Global Recruiting and Talent Mobility: A Guide for Getting Started.

victoria-moving-tips-listAlong with the old standbys almost always deployed in developed or mature markets, such as tools and support systems such as language and culture training, localized services and technological enablement, successfully placing the right talent in emerging markets is incumbent on effectively utilizing personality assessment and behavioral screening tools as part of the transitioning process, well as integrating these screening tools into the company’s unified talent management and talent mobility initiatives.

This will help prevent making the wrong mission critical hire, develop a success profile for future expat assignments and move effectively ensure that the disparate needs of employees in disparate markets can be effectively met and managed by the larger organization, while also building a blueprint for success in future growth or global expansions.

Even before looking abroad, it’s important to remember setting the stage for success begins with recruiting at home. We talk a lot about diversity, but here’s a case study in how important this concept can truly be for businesses. The cultural complexities of moving to a new market or country, often starting an office from scratch, can be staggering. That’s why the more diverse your existing workforce is, the better equipped (and better exposed) every employee will be, expat or otherwise, for dealing with the many nuances and cultural complexities inherent in partnering with others of different backgrounds, worldviews and social norms. Diversity is the secret weapon for global mobility success.

When it comes to assessing new and existing workers for international assignments, behavioral skills should weigh heavily as a hugely important component of the selection process. While recruiting and internal mobility related assessments typically measure mostly more traditional skills like leadership potential or technical ability as a basic benchmark, employers need to look at such often overlooked, but critically important skills such as adaptability, cultural sensitivity and emotional intelligence when deciding who’s the most likely to survive – and thrive – in a foreign business context.

These factors can significantly impact success in regions where challenges like differing value systems, business norms and social conventions are drastically different than what workers might already be accustomed to in their native culture – or your company culture, for that matter.

Of equal importance is the ability to work autonomously and to solve problems independently, particularly if the employee in question would be responsible for establishing and managing a new office. The ability to inspire trust within new employees, to guide them through uncertainty and grow a business while growing internal capabilities are all critical for these leadership roles in developing regions.

Many companies, however, find that the employees with the technical skillsets and functional expertise required for these roles aren’t necessarily well suited to survive – and thrive – in developing regions. Just because someone has the hard experience doesn’t guarantee they have the soft skills required for these assignments. This means it’s increasingly important for employers to identify, and rectify, this talent supply and demand mismatch as soon as possible – or face an uphill battle, and bigger issues, later.

Global Recruiting and Talent Mobility: Why Culture Is Key.

worldThe most important criteria to consider when making relocation decisions often can’t be found on resumes or in standard performance reviews; assessing the personality traits and personal nuances for potential expatriate workers can be much more difficult. This is why it’s so essential for employers to integrate personality assessment tools within their talent selection process.

With these pre-hire screening tools, HR professionals can not only have greater assurance of success of overseas placements, but peace of mind that they’ve got the right person for the right place at the right time, all the time.

Although there are already a multitude of tools on the market designed to measure an individual employee’s propensity to thrive abroad, a recent study by the National Foreign Trade Council and Cartus showed that only 30% of global companies had actually adopted those tools as part of their selection process. This leaves a significant need – and opportunity – for vendors to help enable and empower employers with the technologies and tools they’ll need today to meet the multinational business challenges of tomorrow.

This will help identify high potential employees early on, and these employees are the ones it makes sense to invest in as international leaders, with internal training and development specifically designed to prepare them for potential global placements down the line – it’s far easier to teach the required technical skills than interpersonal ones, which is why having this global lens as an element of performance management makes sense for developing the necessary skills to succeed abroad part of the recruiting and retention process at home, too.

Obviously, personality factors such as cultural sensitivity or ability to acclimate might largely depend on an employee’s upbringing, innate abilities or personal value system, companies can largely control for these characteristics as part of the screening process and more proactively identify employees with the propensity to develop these skills as part of a personal development plan.

Additionally, employers should place a growing premium on foreign language abilities as part of their overall recruiting process – an employee who can speak a host language not only has an obvious advantage, but is more likely to be imbued with the necessary personality traits as well. But employers can go a step further for increasing employee cultural sensitivity – a simple step is simply recruiting a more diverse workforce, and making it a company value instead of a compliance requirement.

The more languages, cultures and points of view exist in your current employee population, the more experienced your workers will be dealing with these differences – and no expatriate could ever overstate the critical importance of this experience while working abroad.

As an entrepreneur who has grown my global mobility business into a, well, global company, I’ve made sure that cultural diversity is one of the key components and integral characteristics of our recruitment process – and have seen the results pay off as we continue to expand and grow.

Our employees speak dozens of languages and represent over 20 countries, and we’re partnering with HR all over the world to make the world of work just a little smaller, and more accessible. Certainly less scary and overwhelming – because no one should ever wonder how to get the heat and water on in a new flat, like I did, or have to navigate the complexities of a foreign culture without having some resource to guide them along the way.

That’s why we’re here. Because while there’s no place like home, the least employers can do is to make employees feel welcome when they’re away from theirs.

271a8b0About the Author: Brynne Herbert is the founder and CEO of MOVE Guides, the cloud platform for talent mobility. Brynne founded MOVE Guides in 2011 during her MBA at London Business School, after living and working in the US, UK, Hong Kong, Singapore and India.

She recruited the management team, launched the business and raised seed funding from Europe’s top technology angels, all while successfully completing her MBA

. In 2013, MOVE Guides was awarded “Top Female Investment” in the UK by the UK Business Angels Association, and in 2014, MOVE Guides won “Relocation Company of the Year” in the global mobility industry EMMA awards.

Brynne is a former elite level gymnast for the United States and a former Division 1 gymnast at Yale, where she was a four-time Varsity Letter winner and a member of the Ivy League Championship winning team.

Follow Brynne on Twitter @BrynneSpeak or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Now Streaming Live : Sourcing with Meerkat

Sourcing with MeerkatMeerkat and Periscope are duking it out to win live video streaming Twitter dominance. But one developer has made the map feature outside of the Meerkat app so anyone can look at live streaming globally on a pretty clean site. Sourcing with Meerkat just got a lot easier.

MeerkatMap, developed by Arnaud Babol and released roughly three months ago grabbed my attention. The ability to see who is live streaming from any internet browser is a plus. To get the fastest sourcing results, I find it is best to view the map on Chrome to have my recruiting Chrome extensions handily ready. It took a few visits to get an idea of good times for larger volumes of traffic. A lot of the east coasters do not share until lunch and later while the west coasters love to share their mornings and work environments.

I was over the moon when I looked at the map one day. There was @jntesterdude on Meerkat at his desk coding in the Bay ArSourcing with Meerkat MeerkatMapea. (His feet seemed well pedicured btw). I was able to start my sourcing hunt by first moving to his Meerkat landing page and then over to his Twitter. From Twitter, I began using my other extension tools to find this person. Neither Prophet Or Connectifier were able to find information on him. However the “Find That Lead” extension was able to ping me an email address that he used to respond. He was not interested but proved that video streaming while not super-efficient is another area to consider finding those hard to find candidates. Give sourcing with Meerkat a try and tell us how it goes!

 

Amie ErnstAbout the Author Amie Ernst is Sr. Technical Sourcer at Amazon, currently working on the Kindle Digital team. Not new to the sourcing game, Amie has been a Sourcecon Grandmaster finalist five times. She could find a needle in a stack of needles. A native Ohioan, Amie has over ten years of experience in sourcing and recruiting management. Connect with her on Linkedin or Twitter.

Hey Third Party Recruiters! Tips for Winning the Hearts and Minds of HR

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

You hit the jackpot. You, the third party recruiter, have gotten a job order! And now comes the hard part – building a long term relationship and making it work.

But HR is a slave to process (because they have to be to cover everyone’s ass). How do you break down their walls and give them a chance to see that you’re a helper, not a hinderance to everyone’s ultimate goal of hiring great people?

Contrary to popular belief HR doesn’t always stand for “Human Roadblock;” many HR professionals will view you as a valued partner when the relationship is structured and nurtured appropriately. While that HR Director you have to deal with may appear to be a soulless bureaucrat with a burning desire to control every aspect of the candidate flow and hiring process, it doesn’t have to be that way.

In this webinar, Robin Schools shares the common derailers to successful partnerships between third party recruiters and HR with tips to “win over” these companies and build sustainable long term relationships.

Watch this webinar to learn…

  • Why the HR Lady May Not Like You
  • How to Win Her Over
  • How to Maintain a LTR and Reap the Benefits

Recruiting Animal: The True Story of the Man Behind The Brand.

dd26a42b-0664-4636-a814-dd8b09e824ccrecruiting animal 300x300“Welcome to my battle/For business recreation/I sweat and laugh and scream here
For the working population.” 

A Really Long Editor’s Note: When we were all discovering social media a lifetime (but not that long) ago, most of us in recruiting and staffing found ourselves suddenly submerged into a strange world with strange conventions (what the heck do all these ‘pound’ signs mean, anyway?), stranger platforms (remember BranchOut? Thought not.) and, perhaps most prominent and peculiar of all, a strange cast of characters – or “Influencers,” if you like – driving the online recruiting conversation.

The learning curve can be intimidating – not least because of the fact that sometimes, this industry can come across as insular (or even incestuous) if you’re on the outside online, looking in. But if you took the most important advice of all when starting social media and truly listened before you leaped, chances are that it didn’t take you very long at all to come across The Recruiting Animal. 

No matter if you’re just getting involved in the island of misfit recruiters that is social media, or have been at this, as many of us have, for more years now than we’d care to admit, the Recruiting Animal has remained a constant in a flurry of changes – which, frankly, is oddly reassuring. That clown avatar has become as much a mainstay of most of our social experiences as memes, hashtags or automated job feeds.

And in a place where everyone seems to be competing for share of voice, The Recruiting Animal has a megaphone that somehow remains just a little bit louder (and more resonant) than anyone else’s. Even when, quite literally, you can’t hear him scream – unless, of course, you tune into his weekly radio show, which was a mainstay of social programming long before podcasts and webinars had become commoditized to the point of annoying ubiquity, really.

But it’s still just as good, just as biting and just as controversial as it’s been in the over 7 years I’ve been listening in (the first time I listened, he actually interviewed the Job Board Doctor, the author of this here post, and his first question to him was about his hyphenated name, and whether or not he was, in fact, a divorced woman. It’s more or less gone downhill from there, in the best of ways). Hate him or love him, you can’t ignore him, which is just like the Recruiting Animal likes it.

And since I know he hates long posts, I thought I’d earn his animosity by adding a bunch of paragraphs in front of the only part he cares about – what he said during his recent Q&A with Jeff Dickey-Chasins, better known as the Job Board Doctor, on assignment for Recruiting Daily. I’ll turn it over to the good Doctor now that I’ve added enough fluff to make sure that Animal trolls his feature, as he is wont to do, and which is why I love him. – MC.

Tears of a Clown: Who Is The Recruiting Animal?

hqdefault (6)He’s either legendary or infamous, depending on your perspective, but I strongly prefer the former myself. In the sometimes colorless world of “recruiting thought leadership,” Animal is one personality with a clear perspective – and clearly defined “brand.”

And yes, he prefers to be called Animal – Michael just doesn’t seem to do justice to the voice behind that creepy clown avatar; the resident Pennywise of the recruiting Twitter stream at least chose an appropriate alter ego to capture his bold, brash and unapologetic style.

If you want to see what an early adopter looks like, look no further; while many in the recruiting world are still debating the merits of being on social in the first place, this staffing professional actually launched his blog back in 2004 and moved into internet radio in 2007, an astonishing tenure that’s helped cement his reputation – and legacy – as one of the voices out there actually worth listening to in the world of recruiting and staffing.

Not bad for a mild mannered Canadian who abstains from drinking, will only appear in public wearing one of those big furry Russian hats and tends to shun any spotlight he himself can’t control. The Recruiting Animal, no matter how long you’ve listened to him or how many times you’ve engaged with him on social, remains a mystery to most of us, a carefully constructed persona deflecting any attempts to look beyond the clown mask and at the real person driving some of the most interesting conversations in our industry.

Although Bill Vick interviewed him back in April 2009 (see the video above for that classic conversation, complete with Animal’s signature look, which hasn’t changed), I thought that enough time had passed to make it time for an update – plus, I personally wanted to find out more about the man, the myth, and the legend (in his own mind, anyway) that is, well, this guy.

Without further ado [or unnecessary editorial asides] here is my recent conversation with the Toronto based Recruiting Animal:

Walk Like An Animal, Talk Like An Animal: The Q&A.

recruitinganimal

Jeff Dickey-Chasins: If you had to sum up a good approach to recruiting in a single sentence, what would it be?

Recruiting Animal: Good recruiters are bold. 

JDC: How did you get started in recruiting?

RA: I was working at a company that went bankrupt, so I applied for a job I saw in the newspaper.  I can’t remember if I knew that I doing so through a recruiting firm. I wasn’t good for the job I applied for, but they asked me if I wanted to try working there so I said okay. Apparently, that’s not unusual.

JDC: Tell us one unusual, interesting, or oddball job you had before you became a recruiter.

RA: I drove taxi when got out of university. A few odd things happened but it was mainly just boring.  On my first or second night out, early in the evening I came upon two women in their twenties standing by the curb in front of a pub. They were embraced in a passionate kiss and the taller one hailed me over and got in the front seat beside me.

When we got to her apartment building she asked me if I wanted to come up. She seemed rough and wild and kind of drunk. I remember I could smell the booze on her breath so I said “No” and she said to me, “You don’t know what you’re missing.” And she was right. That’s why I didn’t go.

JDC: How did you get the idea for the radio show?

RA: My friend and I used to talk every morning before work on the phone. We would review the news and what we’d read on the blogs, and I used to think that it would be a good morning radio show.

And when Howard Stern was on in Toronto we used to listen to him and laugh about that. Later, we got into blogging and when I saw BlogTalkRadio appear, it looked like an opportunity to do something I’d already thought of so I signed up.

JDC: Where did the “Recruiting Animal” name come from?

RA: When I set up my blog I had to come up with a domain name. I had just read an article on brainstorming and I can’t remember what it said, but I do remember just going through the letters of the alphabet trying to think of words to use.

And that’s what I came up with.

JDC: If you had to live in any country besides Canada, what would it be – and why?

RA: The United States. Because it’s like Canada.

JDC: How did you decide on your Twitter avatar? And why?

RA: I knew Knucklehead from TV when I was a kid and I’d seen pictures of him online, and I used to think he was funny. That’s it.

JDC: What was the first show like?

RA: I wrote myself a little monologue which I thought was pretty funny. But when I do the introduction, I’m sitting in a silent room talking to myself.  I’d never done it before and while I was speaking I started thinking “What am I doing? This seems so odd.” and I froze.

It happens again from time to time but now I know that there are people out there listening and it’s not that dumb and it will be okay if I continue.

JDC: How did you meet Jerry Albright and how did he become your sidekick?

RA: I woke up in bed one morning with a horse’s head beside me and a note that read, “Jerry is your side-kick now.”

The Recruiting Animal Show is a participatory democracy and sidekick is not a formal job. It’s simply claimed by the person who, operationally, takes that role. Maureen Sharib used to be my sidekick. She just showed up every week and talked and she’s smart and a lot of fun so she fit in well. Then, she took the 1:00 time slot and had a sourcing show that followed mine.

Later, Jerry started coming on. He has a fantastic voice so he took the over the shout which was great because it was killing me. I don’t think Maureen was doing a show anymore so he eventually took that spot for the aftershow. I’d always wanted people to rate the show while it was going on but they wouldn’t do it. They’re quite uninhibited, however, once I sign off.

Here’s an example of what I mean. There’s been an ever-changing roster of regulars over the years. Right now, besides Jerry, Mike Cox and Alejandro Guzman are the callers who speak the most.

JDC: What’s your favorite food?

RA: That question always reminds me of the back of a Beatles album. “Likes steak, chips, and Dinah Washington.” I like potato chips, popcorn, watermelon and ice cream.

JDC: What’s the hardest thing about doing the show?

RA: I’ve always thought that behavioral interviews have a weakness. You’re supposed to ask someone to remember a time when she did this or that then settle back and listen to what she says. But will she be able to remember what you need to know on the spur of the moment? Most of my guests can’t remember examples of anything they do.

The solution is for me to have a few answers of my own ready and turn it into a multiple choice question. And I can do that if I know their field. But if I don’t, I can’t so neither of us has anything to say and the show dies. I often wonder how Charlie Rose does so many good interviews. Or maybe I just think he does because I haven’t seen him very often.

People sometimes say that the show is entertaining but they don’t learn anything and, well, I didn’t know we were that entertaining. And, as far as learning goes, I’ve started creating clips that I post at RecruitingBS.com. Maybe people can learn something there.

Another thing is pace. Some people aren’t lively speakers and I try to pep them up, but it’s hard to change on the spot especially when you’re thinking. That’s why I say there’s no thinking on the show.

Do your thinking before you come on.

Here’s something I learned on the show, by the way. When I spoke to [Greenhouse CEO] Daniel Chait about behavioural interviews he said of course it’s going to be hard to remember stuff if you’ve only done it the odd time.

But if you do it a lot you’ll be able to give ten examples right off the bat. And you’re after people who do whatever it is you’re looking for a lot. Here he is in a clip from the show.

JDC: What’s good about the show?

RA: A lot of business shows and webinars are boring. I wanted to create a show that was outspoken and fun. And I think we have fun. At least, sometimes. And I don’t like it when you have to listen to a speech and you don’t like what the speaker says but you don’t have any opportunity to say so. I want everyone to have a chance to speak and if you call into the Recruiting Animal Show with something to say, you usually get a chance to talk.

People often complain that I cut speakers off when they’re saying something good and maybe it’s true,

but I think I cut them off when they get boring.

JDC: Do you have anything to say about the state of social media in general?

RA: Alexandra Levit came on the show to promote one of her books, which is called Blind Spots. Part of it was about playing it safe on social media so you don’t get penalized in your career for saying things managers don’t like. So, I went through popular news items and asked her if it would be safe to write about this or this or that and she had to give an opinion on each example.

You can listen to it here. I didn’t agree at all with Alex. I thought that she was way too conservative and I still think so but the other day Jim Durbin sent me an article about a trial going on in my own hometown that put the fear of God into me. This guy is on trial for harassing three women on Twitter.

The police admit that he didn’t threaten them or harass them sexually. He just pursued them from one conversation to another and criticized them and that made them feel unsafe. And, now, he might go to jail.

I like to argue, and that scared me. I know it’s hard to believe but some people don’t like me.

At least that’s what I’m told. And I don’t want anyone calling the cops on me because I argued with them on Twitter. Also, just this past week I got involved in some conversations about social issues.

My sense was that if you disagree with the people you are talking to some of them are going to be eager to demonize you in print. I don’t mind if someone says I’m dumb or rude but I don’t want someone to search my name on Yahoo and see “Recruiting Animal is a warmonger” or “Recruiting Animal doesn’t like cats”. That’s not me and now I feel I might have to watch my step to protect myself from slander.

JDC: Why did you write The Psychology of Job Hunting?

RA: I was thinking about the keys to a business that requires communication with strangers and I felt that I could reduce it to a few easy-to-learn ideas.

You have to know 3 things:

  1. It’s okay to bug people.
  2. There’s no big danger if you screw up.
  3. You don’t have to submit to punishment if you goof up.

The last one means you don’t have to feel guilty because if you feel a need to surrender to people who don’t like you, you’re going to be too scared to move forward.

It’s the same on my show. People complain that it’s too critical. But it’s good to let your ideas get criticized. That’s how you learn the truth. You can’t handle it, though, if you’re afraid of making a mistake. A lot of success books talk around this subject but they don’t explain this too clearly so I tried to do that but it didn’t go over too well so I’m going to try again.

Jeff Dickey-ChasinsAbout the Author: Jeff Dickey-Chasins, better known as The Job Board Doctor, is a veteran of the job board, publishing, and e-learning industries. Jeff was the original marketing director for Dice.com, growing it from $7 million to $65+ million in three years.

He has worked with 450+ job boards and HR-related sites over the past 20 years, in almost every sector, including finance, technology, education, health care, sales and marketing, energy, and specific geographic regions.

He has published research, e-books, and blog posts on almost every aspect of the industry. He also speaks at industry conferences on key topics in the online recruiting industry.

Follow Jeff on Twitter @JobBoardDoctor or connect with him on LinkedIn.

Serving Those Who Served: The Veteran Recruiting Imperative.

Hire_A_Vet (1)I’m not sure why I’m still writing about the importance of hiring veterans. It’s one of those topics that’s more conventional common sense than cutting best practice, but even after all of these years, for whatever reason, it’s still a message that employers need to hear, and one that I champion whenever and wherever possible.

Over my talent tour of duty, I’ve watched from the front lines as an entire cottage industry of consultants and career coaches have sprung up to offer some product or service designed to monetize veteran hiring.

This is sad, considering companies largely seem to be more interested in investing in simple software solutions instead of addressing systemic issues and creating integrated, long term veteran recruiting and retention initiatives designed not to just check another OFCCP box, but instead, to build competitive business advantage.

The latter option, of course, is far more difficult, but nothing worthwhile ever came easy – as any veteran out there will likely tell you.

So, I want to ask a simple question. To quote the tired Nike cliche (which were, in turn, serial killer Gary Gilmore’s last words before facing the firing squad), when it comes to veteran hiring, why can’t we shut up and “Just Do It!?” Feel free to flavor that sentence with any expletives you see fit – and all of them are, when you think about the fact that some people still seem to need convincing that hiring veterans isn’t just the right thing to do morally, but it’s the right thing for your business’ bottom line, too.

Recruiting: Time for An About Face.

where-do-veterans-workMost recruiting is highly transactional, more or less functioning to put butts in seats just in time, every time. Veteran hiring, conversely, requires a much deeper commitment than, say, sticking a posting on a job board or even engaging a third party agency.

If you’re going to hire military personnel the right way, know that if there’s one thing they value, its integrity, honor and sense of duty – and these same values instilled in them during their service to their country are the very same ones that make military hires such valuable assets for any employer or organization.

Think about it: on the one hand, every recruiting or HR practitioner out there seems resigned to having to shut up and put up with the ridiculous demands and asinine expectations of Gen Y workers, who, apparently, feel entitled to things like 40 hour weeks, a rocket-fueled career trajectory and continuous coddling by colleagues and managers alike. Sure, they’re tech savvy and connected – but they’re also major pains in the butt, as a rule.

Contrast this with veterans, who organizations seem somewhat less gung ho about hiring. These guys not only survived boot camp, weapons training and an extended deployment where there was no such thing as work-life balance other than coming back from work alive, but learned the soft skills that are so hard to teach: dedication to mission, putting others before yourself, and, of course, the discipline to do what’s required – even when it’s not desired – without questioning orders, talking back or asking ‘why.’

Sounds like a way more saleable skill set than most Millennials are bringing to the workforce, doesn’t it? Of course, that’s not saying that hiring veterans isn’t without its challenges – it requires adjustments on both sides to make the transition from military to civilian life successful.

Things like having the ability to push back, to work with others without direct orders or a rigidly defined organizational hierarchy, and the same instincts that make veterans such desireable workers also require a commitment to coaching and an increased ability to build an inclusive, cohesive company culture where they’ll feel welcomed and appreciated.

These are not easy challenges to solve, but optimizing how you recruit, hire, onboard and retain veterans is as low risk and high reward as any talent acquisition strategy out there – and invariably, the ROI these veterans provide prove again and again that they’ll inevitably produce results, not excuses, when it comes to making work work. Veteran workers, in fact, have among the highest individual worker productivity rates of any sector of the workforce – and are often far cheaper than similarly experienced hires with exclusively private sector experience, as an added bonus.

Veteran Recruiting Boot Camp.

veteran recruitingThere’s enough out there about veteran hiring outlining its various obstacles, lessons learned, myths and misconceptions.

You know the ones: the overreliance on military jargon, the dramatic difference in military vs. civilian culture, the difficulty in ascertaining fit, and all those other excuses employers come up with to hide from the fact that the thing preventing them from successfully hiring veterans, in fact, lies largely in their own ignorance.

If you haven’t served, it’s almost impossible to properly serve those who have.

But we all owe it to our veterans to at least learn what they want, what we as recruiting and HR professionals can offer, and how we can start working together instead of seeing each respective side as some kind of mysterious “other.” We’re really not all that different, when you get right down to it – no matter what it might look like on the outside looking in.

Hey, put yourself in a veterans’ boots – they appreciate you stereotyping them as “typical military” about as much as you like it when someone thinks you’re just a “typical HR” person. We both know that these convenient cliches are anything but accurate – so keep an open mind, and an open door, for veteran recruiting and hiring.

So how do you get to know veterans if you’ve never so much as seen the inside of a barracks or don’t know an SOS signal from the SoS they give you in your MREs? Here’s a novel idea: try, you know, talking to them.

Make a goal of talking to one veteran candidate or current employee every month. Don’t recruit, don’t look into employee relations or do anything with any HR specific agenda – just sit down and talk to them, face to face. Chances are, they’ll be more than happy to speak freely about their point of view and perspective – and will be open to understanding the recruiters’ side of the equation, too. A little face time goes a long way into winning hearts, minds and new hires – and this small first step can reap huge dividends down the line.

If you haven’t yet hired any veterans, then make it a point to find one in your community – and trust me, they’re everywhere, online and off – and reach out to ask a simple, poignant and powerful question: “How can I help you?” Just like any specialty set of candidates, it might take a few tries before you’ll find a veteran who believes you honestly want to help them out of altruism and not some sort of ulterior motive.

Fact is, everyone who joins the military has worked with a recruiter at some point in their career, and made a huge life decision based on that individual’s input and insights. They’ve done this before – they just might be reticent to do it again, particularly if you come across as, well, another recruiter out there looking for a quick buck and a quicker hire.

But even if it takes some time, you’ll inevitably find one who’s open and willing to helping you help them. If you can’t, you haven’t tried hard enough – so shut up, stop making excuses and keep trying. If you think this constitutes hard, then I promise there are a bunch of people in Parris Island or Pendleton willing to prove you wrong.

That’s Some ‘Thank You’ For Your Service.

download (8)According to the US Department of Veteran Affairs, there were an estimated 21.5 million veterans in 2014, 10% of whom were women and 38% of whom were diversity candidates. They live in every town in every state, are every age, color and creed, and have found their way from the military into virtually every organization, at every level, in the American workforce.

But increasingly, military hiring has gotten harder – and unfortunately, an estimated 722,000 veterans are unemployed, but actively looking for a job. 35% of those unemployed were between the ages of 22-44, a disproportionately dismal unemployment rate when compared to the national average.

Veterans from wars prior to Iraq and Afghanistan, conversely, enjoyed an overall unemployment level that was actually lower than the national average by a full percentage point – and obviously, those 60% of veterans over the age of 65 somewhat skew any workforce utilization statistics or demographic studies. This isn’t a recruiting problem. It’s not an HR problem. It’s a societal problem.

And we’ve all got to do our part.

One of the cool things about social media is that veterans are out there – they’re everywhere, and they’re waiting to be heard. You don’t have to be a sourcing whiz to find “one” (or a battalion full, for that matter) on really any network. Although if you’re actually a sourcing whiz, chances are you actually are a veteran. Thank you.

Beginner’s tip: set up a Saved Search in your basic LinkedIn account – mine looks for any new profile that uses some variation of the phrase “transitioning military.” When I get a new alert, I send them out a note, and have built a network whom I try to touch base with at least once a month simply to check in and see how I can help. It’s easy, it can be more or less automated, and they’ll appreciate that small act more than you can ever imagine.

Can’t do that? Try checking out the  Veteran Mentor Network. This LinkedIn group proves that there’s really some power in social media after all, effectively matching volunteer employment and career professionals with eligible transitioning military for mentorships (and moral support). It’s easy, it’s free and it doesn’t require more than you’re already doing during the course of your average recruiting day. In other words, it’s really, literally the least you can do.

When you do it, however, you’ll quickly figure out how rewarding working with veterans really is, and might feel compelled enough to go the extra mile in helping to solve this endemic issue. You might even take those essential next steps and move towards implementing a full veteran recruiting program within your talent organization. Once you realize what veterans have to offer, trust me, you’ll be ready to make an offer to most anyone with military experience. It’s something you’ve got to experience, but once you do, you’ll implicitly know where I’m coming from.

On a veteran hiring panel I led at a recent #RecruitDC event, I was lucky enough to share the stage with three of the most passionate, dedicated and knowledgeable veteran hiring advocates in the recruiting industry– Mike Bruni, Brendan Wright and Chrissa Dockendorf.

Click here for a full rundown of the tips we shared during our presentation: Recruiters Be All You Can Be.

Thing is, you can all be a lot. And as we’re increasingly tasked with building talent pipelines for tomorrow, let’s take the time today to add a few veterans into the mix. It’s not only that we owe it to them after everything they’ve already done for us – it’s that they also have so much yet to do for our organizations and every employer lucky enough to welcome them home by hiring them.

There’s no better way to say thank you if you’re a recruiter, when you think about it. And for once, I really hope you do. Trust me, I’m not the only one. Now, at ease – we’ve all got a whole lot of work ahead of us.

Editor’s Note: Thanks to the support of Recruiting Daily, Kathleen Smith’s writing fee will be donated to the Easter Seals Dixon Center for Military and Veteran’s ServicesWe’d like to encourage our readers to join us in making a gift in gratitude of our veterans and in recognition of our commitment as recruiters to getting veterans back to work. MC.

KathleenAbout the Author: As Chief Marketing Officer for ClearedJobs.Net, a veteran owned company, Kathleen Smith spearheads the community-building, and communications outreach initiatives catering to the organization’s many audiences including security cleared job seekers, military personnel, and cleared facilities employers in the defense and intelligence community.

Kathleen has built key relationships with government contracting and recruiting industry leaders as well as agency insiders over the last 10 years in the community.

Building upon her 20+ years of extensive marketing experience and insight, Kathleen brings a passion to creating unique and interesting ways to communicate with niche communities to build brand visibility, heighten awareness and establish viable, authentic relationships with ClearedJobs.Net’s friends, supporters and followers.

Kathleen is a frequent presenter and blogger on the many uses of social media for marketing and recruiting building upon her years of experience navigating different kinds of social media to obtain program success. She was recently elected President of RecruitDC.

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

 

 

Border Wars: Tech Recruiting and Immigration Reform.

H1b-Visa-Jobs-USA-300x240I’ve spent the equivalent of the last four full presidential terms stuck in the tech recruiting trenches. For the manifold changes manifesting themselves in the talent acquisition and technology sectors in the decade and a half since Gore v Bush (back when technology was so archaic, it couldn’t even properly tabulate election results), one constant, consistent fact hasn’t changed.

Recruiting the right people is really, really hard.

Recruiting the right people, with the right coding, engineering or developing skills, well, that’s one challenge that seems as pervasive and persistent as it’s ever been – and one that, no matter how experienced I get at it, seems largely to defy experience in lieu, largely, of luck.

It doesn’t matter if you’re hiring for a Java shop, a LAMP stack, or that holiest of holies, a Ruby on Rails platform, if you’re talking to a candidate that’s even halfway interested in talking to you, you can bet the house on the fact that they’re also talking to every single one of your competitors (and likely, all of your colleagues, too).

Once a tech candidate leaves the proverbial recruiting door open, no matter how little ajar it actually is, there’s going to be a crapload of competitors out there chomping at your heels, waiting for you to screw up – that is, assuming you found the candidate first, that is. It’s just this weird natural phenomenon – you actually direct source any tech candidate, boom, suddenly your company has company – and chances are that company can match or beat any offer you throw out there.

A little ambulance chasing is required when there are hardly ever any sirens to respond to, anyway – and the fact that the pool of available, qualified and recruitable tech talent seems to grow smaller, and more selective, each and every year points to a problem that’s bigger than the normally niched nuances that generally dominate the recruiting conversation.

This is bigger than agency vs. corporate, public sector or private enterprise, software or services companies (or software as a service companies, too). It’s a problem whose immediate impact is already being felt throughout talent acquisition, but whose imminent impact on the overall workforce is only beginning.

And if we don’t figure out a solution soon, it just might be the end of business as we know it. Quite literally.

The Conversation About Immigration.

hib_visa_cap_fill-up_datesI know that even saying this term, for some reason, carries some sort of subconscious stigma, but immigration has rightly become one of the hottest of hot button issues confronting the world today, both in terms of policy and politics – issues at the heart of human capital management and talent acquisition, considering these are the framework for the compliance and regulations so important in shaping the way HR and recruiting works.

Here in the US, the immigration issue is incredibly polarizing, with one side of the spectrum advocating for logical, long-term reforms within parameters that are actually substantive and not selectively enforced, much like our Schengen counterparts across the pond.

On the other side of the debate, of course, there are the whack jobs who think the answer to immigration involves turning the Mexican border into some new iteration of the Berlin Wall meets the Great Wall of China – with enough heavy armament amassed at the 38th Parallel to play Checkpoint Charlie and pick off the few who actually manage to make it over alive. Now, I’m not here to debate which of these points of view is correct, but I’m compelled to point out that the answer, like everything else in life, lies somewhere squarely in the middle of these extremes.

Not so recruiting, where the problems with immigration reform aren’t necessarily aligned with the greater immigration public policy and public conversation painting the larger picture debate around this issue. Instead, in talent acquisition, immigration reform requires all of us to work to figure out a way for qualified, highly educated immigrants who want to live and work in the US a chance to put their unique expertise and experience to work at our workplaces.

These skilled workers, governed by an arcane lottery system of visa allocation known as the H1Bsimply can’t be allowed to leave and create a brain drain that our organizations are ill prepared to handle, and one that’s largely going unaddressed by a STEM deficient education and vocational training system ostensibly designed to prepare future workers with the skills requisite for the future of work. But since that’s not really being done, a more drastic, pragmatic and imminently implementable solution must be put into place, immediately.

Of course, that’s easier said than done. And, before we go about finding a fix for this issue, let’s take a step back and try to understand how the hell, exactly, we ended up here in the first place.

Just A Bill: Where HR Laws Come From.

H1B-Visa-2016-Lottery-PredictionsWell, here’s your first hint into how H1Bs got so screwed up: each and every year, no less august a body than the United States Congress gets together and determines by proclamation, how many H1B visas they intend to make available to employers over the course of the coming year (aka: “the cap”) for what they term “highly skilled workers.” Which, let’s face it, is not exactly Congress’ wheelhouse, really.

Not only that, “highly skilled workers” sounds like some sort of field they made my grandparents from Ireland and Germany fill out when they were at Ellis Island, somewhat more demoralizing and dehumanizing than being deloused, quarantined or given an Anglicized last name.

Give me your tired, your poor, your highly skilled workers, yearning to be free! Or something like that.

Good news for my grandparents – they got in while the getting was good, because getting in these days means beating some pretty daunting odds and miles of red tape, mountains of paperwork and all the crap that comes with dealing with what’s more or less HR documentation.

This year, Congress allotted 65,000 visas for the general cap, with an additional allotment of 20,000 visas made available explicitly for “highly skilled workers” with graduate degrees in STEM-related disciplines.

Which, in laymen’s terms, is a drop in a bucket that’s all but run dry – a total of 85,000 visas available for all employers across all industries for such disparate (and desperately needed) disciplines as software, electrical and mechanical engineers, data scientists or computational analysts, anyone in the hard sciences or similarly specialized scientific disciplines.

At a glance, 85,000, at first, might seem like a fairly reasonable number. If you share this viewpoint, I’m going to bet everything I have on the fact that you haven’t ever had to do any actual hands on tech recruiting in your entire career, because if you had, you’d know how busted this cap really is. For those of us who hire tech talent in order to pay our bills, and work our asses off to do it, it’s a punch in the gut – in fact, the 11th consecutive annual punch in the gut, to be precise.

That’s right: Congress or the White House have failed to raise the H1B cap since 2004. And while you might have the best opportunity money and company culture can provide, but it doesn’t make a bit of difference as long as the status quo continues to erode our collective competitive advantage in the global economy – and within our global recruiting organizations, too.

Look back even more than those dozen years, and the creation of our byzantine system can be traced more or less directly to a single piece of draconian legislation: The Immigration Reform Act of 1990. This bill effectively created a system with 5 different, distinct visa classifications, with 5 different visa types allocated for, you guessed it, highly skilled workers. 

Under Bush 41 (or HW, if you like), FY 1990, the first after the bill became the law of the land, the total visa allotment as mandated by the Immigration Act was…65,000 visas. These would, of course, later flex a bit to reality, adding another 20,000 for candidates with advanced degrees, but other than that, there’s been really no progress made since that simpler world before search engines, social networks or smart phones.

Of course, at the time, the Internet was still in its infancy, and in these nascent years, this was likely a sufficient number given the overall workforce need at the time. Hell if I know, though – I was 15, and didn’t care about any job in the workforce except pushing around carts for a few bucks an hour at the local supermarket.

Fast forward a few years, and you have the internet bubble – Pets.com, Lycos and Netscape – just before it burst. Those were fun times, and for once, legislation kept up with actual workforce demand: in 1998, as part of the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act, the cap was finally upped to 115,000 for FY 1999 and 2000. Good sign for the economy, good move by Congress, and we could all go back to focusing on what really mattered on Capitol Hill, namely who our President had and hadn’t slept with.

This trend of visa cap expansion, though, actually continued into the first few years of his predecessor’s administration, with the amount of available visas rising in 2001, 2002 and 2003, respectively, with an astonishing 195,000 visas for highly skilled workers available by the last of these years – and additional exemptions, such as those for research students, put the overall total of available visas well north of 200,000.

While this might sound crazy to all you Millennials out there, this still wasn’t enough to satiate the tech sector’s rampant hiring needs – back in the late 90s and early 2000s, the economy was booming, and employers couldn’t hire people fast enough to keep pace with demand – and the already limited pool of resources available for continued expansion was already starting to dry up even when the cap was at its historic high.

Given these trends, it would probably have been a safe assumption to make that, given the pervasive shortage of new workers and growing demand for that limited talent pool, any skills gap would ultimately be remedied and easily resolved simply through importing foreign workers by raising the number of visas available to them.

The Golden Age Of Staffing.

AA-SpecialIssue14-sidebarFigure-RGBWith this growing pool of highly skilled foreign workers and insatiable demand for their services by a growing glut of high growth companies, staffing agencies quickly struck perhaps the biggest lode of anyone out there prospecting in the new candidate gold rush created by increased visa caps.

Job orders kept flowing in, primarily because most tech companies hadn’t yet developed a dedicated talent acquisition function in house yet, and the only way to get these jobs filled was by farming them out to the cube farms where cold calling, cold blooded contingency sharks sat dialing for dollars all day.

Back then, it was post, pray and payday in the agency world.

Recruiting, when it did exist in-house, was generally handled by some castaway HR professional without the skills to do something strategic like benefits administration and were consigned to more or less moonlighting as “personnel” or some similarly silly moniker. Even in this boom, however, agencies were going bust just trying to keep up with demand from their clients, and the increased demand those clients suddenly all had for the same few candidates – who, inevitably, were largely foreign workers.

Demand follows supply, staffing follows placement fees, and you couldn’t fill a tech job without a little help from the cottage industry of companies that suddenly sprang up offering access to ample amounts of eligible workers. To US staffing agencies, making deals was as easy as doing a standard “Third Party” arrangement in which they partnered up with another firm to more or less hire one of their bench of employees on H1Bs, whose visas that other agency also held and effectively controlled.

For a few extra bucks in the bill rate, this meant that these H1B farms could help you fill the hardest and most lucrative requisitions, without actually having to sponsor the H1B employee themselves (acting, in effect, as a PEO).

On the surface, this arrangement was some sort of godsend to staffing, because most agencies or employers were unlikely to directly sponsor a candidate’s visa, avoiding the money and risk involved in this arrangement. To try to directly sponsor foreign workers would have been a dicey proposition in the first place, considering that H1B regulations mandate any employee working on one must remain continuously employed by the same company in order to remain legally allowed to work in the US; agencies, conversely, couldn’t guarantee continual employment.

Catch 22, until 3rd party firms caught on and built a billable “bench” ready to be called off to high paying projects and interim engagements as needed; as long as the agency kept them on the payroll, even between these price gouging gigs, then the worker retained eligibility, at least in the eyes of the immigration police.

During this time, staffing agencies were raking in record profits, even while many of their customers went belly up at the same time (I’m looking at YOU, Pets.com). When you add in the aggregate costs of having an agency riding recruitment shotgun, then you realize the cost of talent acquisition had, like the P/E of publicly traded tech companies, spiraled out of control by the height of the bubble.

Even with the prohibitive price point, there were pitfalls confronting anyone doing an agency deal in those days – particularly when you had to peel back the many layers related to whom, exactly, actually owned that greatest asset of all, the H1B of record. Turns out that in most cases, the agency clients were working with were the front for 2-3 tiers of shell games and shell companies that sat between the recruiting money train and a successfully closed requisition.

And everyone was getting paid, but the cost to agencies was that it created a perilous, precarious situation wherein their efficacy was predicated primarily on their ability to control their own candidates, customers and close their own deals (and to do so on their own terms).

When you add in so many layers of intermediaries and remove your agency from the actual decision makers and power brokers in the process (meaning whoever was the ultimate arbiter of a hiring decision and associated placement fee), you’re wading into a whole pile of deep shit.

As an aside, you’ve got to wonder whether there’s a correlation between price point and market value. Just think how many of those Internet 1.0 companies would have survived – and thrived – after their IPOs if only they would have kept their hiring costs (and associated overhead) in check and didn’t build those into the margins they were forced to pass along to their customers.

I bet there’d probably be a Pets.com delivery box waiting at a Post Office near you, frankly.

China Syndrome: Postcards From The New Shanghai.

Of course, where there’s money to be made off of human migration, the usual slimy suspects are ubiquitous – only instead of trafficking in the traditional sense, back in the day, you could just set up a staffing shingle and have pretty much the perfect front for exploitation and corruption.

Of course, this hasn’t changed – but back when H1Bs, and thus, skilled workers’ rights to work in the US, were controlled almost exclusively by third party agencies, these firms became notorious for paying their employees wages and working conditions that would have made Kunte Kinte blush.Screen-Shot-2015-02-23-at-3.48.29-PM

Most employers wouldn’t blink at paying out $50 per hour to a company for one of their billable employees, but few realized that employee only got about 50k a year – tops – back in their own pocket once everyone had taken their cut. The conundrum for employers, of course, even if this practice was discovered was inevitably: what the hell are we supposed to do? Neither them nor the agency they were actually working with had any sort of strings (or leverage) to pull to control the situation, and so even attempting to address this issues was deemed an exercise in futility.

Don’t bother – it’s that simple. So when the proverbial Fifth Party decides to arbitrarily yank your candidate from a project you’ve placed them in only a few weeks into the engagement, what can you do? Nothing, except know you’re SOL, and that you knew that was coming.

Easy money always has strings attached, and in this case, why wouldn’t the other agency pull workers from your gig to one where they were willing to pay that worker even incrementally more? Loyalty or relationships? C’mon, man. This was about making money and keeping that stream of revenue flowing out of your pockets and into the corporate coffers of their offshore overlords.

And the employee, what were they going to do? Their visa and work authorization status were the sole purview of some shyster who brought them here like a white collar coyote, and part of the implicit deal with the Devil the workers made for that precious visa was that same shady staffing firm now controlled not only your fate, but that of your entire family. You want your kids in school here, your spouse to stay in the country? Better put up and shut up – or get shipped out.

Tough shit.

Then, one Tuesday morning in September, 2001, the game suddenly changed. The Twin Towers fell, and the tech bubble fell with it – the market that created the earliest incarnation of technology IPOs went bust, and our country wasn’t the only thing irrevocably changed. So too were our country’s companies. No longer, in these lean years, were employers willing to pay, say, $110 an hour for a telecom provisioner (which, by the way, WTF was that job?) and started looking for cheaper alternatives.

By now, you had a significant swatch of domestic tech talent used to being paid insane amounts of money and even more insane amounts of stock options not exactly lining up to take a hefty pay cut, particularly after burning up so much of their paper value when their portfolios went bottoms up. For what it’s worth, the only people that were safe, secure and making it rain in the tech market meltdown were the legendary “group of secretaries” from AOL, who by chance circumstances and well timed equity pay outs, were now the elite of the Washington, DC tech scene, cruising the Beltway in their Maseratis with BS license plates which said stuff like, “Thx TED.” We hated them, of course.

The rest of us poor saps in the tech sector, however, were forced to resort to belt tightening, which meant employers now expected staffing agencies to do the same sort of work, but at much lower margins and fee structures considering the plethora of cheap labor still flooding the market and the sudden shortage of demand created by the macroeconomic tailspin of the post 9-11 world.

While siphoning off the supply of said labor seemed like a good stopgap for at least normalizing the market at the time, it was an incredibly myopic decision which, as we will see, created a much more serious set of issues over the coming years – issues that we’re only now fully beginning, as employers and recruiters, to fully realize.

How To Hijack An H1B.

graph-LCaWell, if you’re an agency whose only asset is a bunch of employees whose visas you control, but who have little to no interaction with traditional clients or candidates (and even less face time or influence), you’ve got to look for a new cash cow, which, inevitably, were those staffing agencies who not only needed their services, but who also had a direct conduit to the corporate coffers of their clients.

This left conditions optimal for what became a strategic, opportunistic compliance coup d’etat – and these firms began hoarding H1Bs by the dozens, the labor market equivalent of Doomsday Preppers.

Which isn’t an aphorism that’s too far off – because while we were clearly mired in a recession lasting half a decade or more during the bust years in between boom markets, employers quickly realized that sponsorships and the associated fees for H1Bs just weren’t worth the associated cost, and that homegrown talent could more cheaply offset the knowledge gap than much more expensive imported skilled workers.

With these visas suddenly ceasing to be a commodity on the market, suddenly, employers were in control over H1B allocations again instead of agencies; the assumption was companies who had the need and resources to sponsor usually would (and could), and the quota of available visas would last 3-6 months, by any reasonable estimate or predictive analytics on hiring trends. Laissez faire seemed fair.

But then, a funny thing happened. The economy turned the corner, and so too did the tech industry – and we entered a second boom, very much booming on both coasts – and for these high growth, high tech companies, labor again became a major pain point and obstacle to continued growth and long term business drivers or objectives.

However, having already been fooled once during the Y2K years, employers had wisened up this time, and decided to avoid getting gouged this time by directly employing immigrant workers and sponsoring their visas instead of outsourcing this to some faceless agency. So, the employers suddenly had all the H1B holders, but still needed staffing companies to help them keep up with the frenetic pace demanded by their frenetic hiring plans.

And just like that, the scene was set for an old school showdown.

No Work For You.

h1b-visas-by-companyBy 2008, this divide between H1B workers and prospective employers (and, by extension, recruiters) got very, very real. The entire allotment of visas, that formerly sufficient mandated cap, was exhausted within the FIRST DAY of accepting them. That’s right – that year, those visas went faster than T. Swift tickets, and if you didn’t get them within the first 24 hours, well, you were pretty much SOL. Totally unfair, right?

To combat this problem, a lottery system was subsequently instituted, designed to determine – in all fairness – who would be awarded one of these few coveted visas. The Golden Ticket in the age of globalization. Win the lottery, and you get to stay here on your H1B – and your employer gets to keep you on the payroll. Lose the lottery, and short-term, both you and your employer are screwed.

See, since many employers were hiring candidates on OPT (Optional Practical Training) provisions, this meant that many workers only had 12 months of work authorization, which gave employers the choice of jettisoning employees entirely or reassigning them to foreign offices where they could legally work. This was a costly, time consuming and emotionally fraught pain in the ass, to be very PC about it.

FY 2009 brought little relief, and while it took a few months for the quota to be reached in FY 2010 and FY 2011 – when the recession was at its depths – the last 3 years have seen the H1B cap exhausted in a matter of mere days. And while a few third party companies have, like the heads of the hydra, popped back up, they’re markedly less prevalent than they were a decade ago. Perhaps that’s because we’re all smarter now, a little wiser for the wear and less likely to respond to blast e-mails about how an agency “has consultants available for immediate openings” or can match “any list of open requirements.”

Whatever the reason these firms are no longer at the foreground of the bigger picture about work authorization and immigration, there remains a definite issue (and imbalance) between supply and demand. We have jobs that need to be filled (or at least, many companies claim this to be the case), and not enough people with the right skills to do so.

The bottom line is that most companies are willing to shell out and incur the associated risks of sponsoring skilled workers, and have developed the in house talent acquisition and talent management expertise to properly support these kinds of recruiting and retention efforts – as well as the financial wherewithal to do so.

The problem is that the way our system is designed, you can’t always get what you want, and if you try sometimes, you might find, you won’t get what you need, either – assuming that involves some sort of sponsorship.

The Problem With the SySTEM.

h1bWe could beat that dead horse of all the reasons why US students aren’t seeking STEM degrees ad nauseam, but that discussion, truthfully, is highly subjective and fraught with theoreticals.

What we need is real talk, and a real solution.

It’s not like our colleges and universities aren’t eager to have more U.S. students pursuing these fields of study, since ostensibly STEM disciplines not only would boost enrollments and endowments, but also research grants, federal and state funds and all that other stuff that offsets the overhead of liberal and fine arts that eat up the majority of postsecondary resources at many institutions, given the disproportionate amount of students who major in these fields.

We can all agree that, no matter what the reason might be, the overwhelming majority of U.S. students are not pursuing STEM related degrees; international students, statistically speaking, are not only doing so in vast numbers, but presumably, are among those hoping to win admission to these disciplines beyond the narrow confines of academia. It’s easier for a foreign national to win a spot in a PhD program at MIT or Harvard than it is for them to simply obtain an H1B. Which is silly, really.

A US News & World Report study shows that even if they graduate with a STEM degree, only 1 in 4 students globally ultimately pursue a job in a STEM related professional field; this number is actually skewed a little high, since it also includes the “soft sciences” in addition to the hardcore quant stuff. You know, degrees in stuff like psych schlubs like me get because we’re trying to simultaneously change the world while figuring out what the hell is wrong with us. Which makes this statistic a little less than representative, frankly.

What is more telling, though, is the amount of international students currently enrolled in U.S. based STEM programs, the overwhelming majority of whom are pursuing post-secondary or terminal degrees. In 2014, this equated, according to one report, of fully 60% of all students in programs offering graduate degrees in STEM related fields of study. Furthermore, graduate Computer Science programs at the same set of schools sampled were consistently comprised of above 90% – that’s NINETY PERCENT – international students.

Here in America, it seems, you can do anything you want, except for learn how to code at a graduate level or get an advanced degree in engineering.

Not that it’s a bad thing for the host of international students who, after matriculating from these programs, return to their home countries with new opportunities, insights and connections to help bring themselves, their families and their home economies further along the path to success, prosperity and economic parity. If we have one great export these days, turns out, it’s STEM graduate students – in fact, about 300,000 of them are enrolled in U.S. based STEM programs at any one time.

If only 1/4 of that talent pool graduate every year and decide to apply for a visa, that would equate to 75 out of the 85,000 total visas available to all workers, EACH YEAR. That doesn’t even factor in people brought in through third party or direct employers for experienced or highly skilled positions – nope, that’s just the Stanford, MIT, Carnegie Mellon and other elite STEM graduates coming from schools with high immigrant populations that employers like Google, Microsoft and every Silicon Valley start-up fight tooth and nail for – only stock options for these students are meaningless without a sponsorship in hand.

At least they can go back to Bangalore or Bangladesh with some sort of tschoke from that career fair before they rolled the visa dice and both they and their potential employers came up snake eyes – and that’s not even mentioning the recruiters caught in the middle of this crazy compliance and candidate conundrum.

Visa Quotas: The Definition of Insanity.

233000-H1B-Visa-2016-applicationsI want to take a minute and reiterate that despite the overwhelming need for “highly skilled workers,” a need that would easily and expediently be met simply by raising the overall allotment of available visas, we have made ZERO changes to the H1B cap since 2004.

And I get it, we’ve been too busy pursuing more worthwhile foreign policy issues like fighting the global war on terror, figuring out how we can build a wall to stop the “rapist” Mexicans from stealing our jobs, booze and women, and that sort of stuff to deal with real problems, but maybe, just maybe, it’s time for a change.

In fact, it’s not only overdue – it’s essential we do so, and do it now. We can continue digging our own long term graves, or come up with a substantive, sensical solution to an absolutely imperative challenge.

Long term, U.S. students aren’t enrolled in STEM programs, and therefore, can’t be counted on to fill these roles outside of academia – unless, of course, you’re hiring a psych major or something. So, we need to find ways to accommodate those who not only want to be here, work in technology, and have the extraordinary ability to contribute to our overall workforce and global economic competitiveness in extraordinarily positive ways.

The influx of foreign students to U.S. graduate programs is a boon for American tech companies – which is to say, the biggest brands and most well established, innovative players in the entire global ecosystem. There’s a reason why this is an attractive destination – it’s where the jobs theoretically are, after all – but while there are certainly enough of those to go around, there aren’t enough visas to support even the shot that a STEM graduate might have at living out that dream – and their potential – without winning a lottery, first.

This is a serious issue, and requires some serious introspection to make sure that we not only stay firmly in the forefront of the technology that inspires and connects today’s world, but that we can remain in the drivers’ seat for the foreseeable future.

That is a roadmap whose destination we can reach only if we bust the caps currently imposed on “highly skilled workers” and realize that if we don’t change our policies, we’re likely to lose our edge. Because where top talent goes, inevitably, jobs surely follow. Better to keep them both here than, well, anywhere else that requires sponsorship. Seriously.

Part 1 of a 2 part series. In the next chapter, we’ll take a look at long term solutions to overcome the long term tech talent shortage currently confronting today’s workforce – and workers.

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.