Showing posts with label hiring. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hiring. Show all posts
Monday, August 12, 2013
Career Fair Understandings
What better opportunity to meet a potential candidate face to face and to get a first impression, than at a career fair! True, first impressions are like movie auditions (an act to make yourself look better than you are to land that gig), but these are still a great way to meet great candidates and possible NEW hirees. That all being said; these events can become extremely tiring, and even inevitably hectic if you do not have the proper preparation at the helm. Lack of screening, tons of resumes, and the chaos of the day can take athe grandest of productive ideas and make it a complete cluster-bomb. If you want to take advantage of career fairs without acquiring a giant headache, here are some tips from Dr. Erica L. Fener, to keep your search focused and successful.
Make sure all YOUR paperwork is prepared in advance. Job seekers will be trying to get all of their documentation in order, and it is equally important that all of your ducks are in a row as well. Make sure the job fair organizers have created an accurate description of your company or group and that your booth’s location has been correctly listed. If possible, post the kinds of jobs you are seeking to fill in the career fair’s online forum before the event begins.
Make sure your staffers know what’s up. The people representing your company help ensure that specialists in your field, not people without the qualifications you are looking for, fill out your application. Make sure that whoever is staffing your booth knows exactly what you are looking for and can speak at length about your organization, the positions you are looking to fill, and what the hiring protocol is.
Make your hiring protocol crystal clear. Because the number of people attending job fairs can be quite large, it can be tempting to blur lines and allow for exceptions to your normal hiring procedures to accommodate the sheer volume of potential applicants. Employers, however, should adhere to their standard hiring practices at a career fair for everything, from the type of applicant you are looking for to how positions are pitched to prospective employees, from what application procedures and resumes will be accepted at the fair to when people can expect to hear back from you. Having a solid outline of how the day will go keeps you from missing a great opportunity or taking on dead weight.
Take a look at the college angle. If the career fair is happening at an academic institution, use that venue to your advantage. Prepare a list of appropriate majors and minors and other academic requirements for the positions you want to fill. Is your company willing to offer internships as well as regular jobs, and are some of the applicants too young? Have a stack of business cards on hand so that you can network today for future assets and employees. In addition, be sure that any of your current employees who are alumni of that particular school are present (if possible) to discuss the transition from college life at that institution into the outside workforce.
Make your booth look awesome. Exciting graphics and pictures of what your company is doing and fun, company-based giveaways, and demonstrations keep people’s attention and attract stronger applicants who may not otherwise have considered your group. Of course, make sure career fair etiquette is in effect — be presentable, on time, and ready to talk.
Personalize the experience. Obviously, not everyone who comes to your booth will be hired the same day as the career fair, or any time for that matter. However, you still should recognize the individual merit of each potential applicant. Spend some face time with each visitor, even if you believe the person is someone you would never hire. Potential applicants who get a good vibe from your company may surprise you on paper, or may become clients and customers in the future.
Remember courtesy counts. Some career fair participants are not as polite as they should be. Stand, rather than sit, at your booth. Shake hands with applicants even if you are afraid of germs and illness (hand sanitizer is usually omnipresent at career fairs). Although office concerns may weigh on your mind, put the phone away. You wouldn’t hire someone who was texting the entire time you were speaking; that’s a two-way street. While there may be pressure to eat quickly at career fairs, make sure that you eat at the appropriate time and in the appropriate place. Unless absolutely necessary, do not leave your booth unmanned. And while colloquialisms may make you seem more relatable to younger applicants, keep conversation polite and vulgarity to an absolute minimum.
Avoid the temptation of the hard sell. You may be very excited about your company, the career fair, and potential employees and job seekers. However, there is such a thing as overkill. Be informative without being domineering. Ask questions when in doubt (e.g., “What are your interests academically?” or “Have you ever considered going into this field?”). Being friendly is great. Being scary is not.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
The Most Classic Hiring Mistake
Before jumping to any conclusions on the statement about to be made, hear me out. The most common hiring mistake is to hire someone who has the right experience. Crazy, right?
(This is from the book How to Hire and Develop Your Next Top Performer, 2nd edition: The Qualities That Make Salespeople Great, @2012, McGraw-Hill Professional; reprinted with permission of the publisher. )
When you’re putting together a help-wanted ad, what’s the first thing you write?
“NEEDED, candidate with five-years experience.”
Experience always seems to out-weigh the opposite when hiring candidates. If one candidate has a seemingly less amount of experience under their belt, the more experienced candidate would likely beat them out for a position. It is expected that the more experienced candidate will surely hit the ground running and keep the flow of their work going almost ASAP.
But how many times have you come across someone who has five-years of experience that adds up to just one year’s bad experience repeated five times?
Don’t fall into the trap of relying too heavily on experience. It is an easy approach, but it can be very costly. Don't go and steal from your competitors, as they may in all actuality be given a favor in doing this. Let your competitors steal from each other. Instead of focusing on what someone has done, look, instead, to what they can do — to their potential.
Mark Dennis, vice president of sales and marketing at Veolia Environmental Services, put it succinctly: “I have finally come to the point where I could care less whether somebody has industry experience. I’ve had way too many instances of hiring people who have industry experience who just get in their own way because they are set in their ways. They believe they know it all. And they are not open, willing, or flexible enough to want to change, to look at the industry from our perspective. So training them can become an absolute nightmare.”
Experience, often can keep you where you are rather than helping you to advance and see new possibilities. Would've thought as much, right? Sounds as though someone needs to inform whomever posts positions on job boards to forgo the "experience" portion.
(This is from the book How to Hire and Develop Your Next Top Performer, 2nd edition: The Qualities That Make Salespeople Great, @2012, McGraw-Hill Professional; reprinted with permission of the publisher. )
When you’re putting together a help-wanted ad, what’s the first thing you write?
“NEEDED, candidate with five-years experience.”
Experience always seems to out-weigh the opposite when hiring candidates. If one candidate has a seemingly less amount of experience under their belt, the more experienced candidate would likely beat them out for a position. It is expected that the more experienced candidate will surely hit the ground running and keep the flow of their work going almost ASAP.
But how many times have you come across someone who has five-years of experience that adds up to just one year’s bad experience repeated five times?
Don’t fall into the trap of relying too heavily on experience. It is an easy approach, but it can be very costly. Don't go and steal from your competitors, as they may in all actuality be given a favor in doing this. Let your competitors steal from each other. Instead of focusing on what someone has done, look, instead, to what they can do — to their potential.
Mark Dennis, vice president of sales and marketing at Veolia Environmental Services, put it succinctly: “I have finally come to the point where I could care less whether somebody has industry experience. I’ve had way too many instances of hiring people who have industry experience who just get in their own way because they are set in their ways. They believe they know it all. And they are not open, willing, or flexible enough to want to change, to look at the industry from our perspective. So training them can become an absolute nightmare.”
Experience, often can keep you where you are rather than helping you to advance and see new possibilities. Would've thought as much, right? Sounds as though someone needs to inform whomever posts positions on job boards to forgo the "experience" portion.
Labels:
active candidates,
advertising agency,
brandon,
experience,
hiring,
manager,
positions,
trends
Friday, October 26, 2012
Everyone Loves a PASSIVE, But We Hire Mostly ACTIVES
Attend any recruiting conference, or read just about any recruiting blog, and you’ll find a steady drumbeat about passive candidates: Why they’re better; How to source them; What to say to convince them to work for you, and; What you need to do to attract them and then keep them.
Active candidates are OK. But current fashion is to go find the people who don’t want your job.
Now we find that some of America’s biggest companies — collectively hiring hundreds of thousands of workers annually — hire only active job seekers, while more than two-thirds of them fill three-quarters of their jobs with actives.
These no-so-surprising revelations are in a new survey from the recruiting consultancy CareerXroads.
“There is a tendency by recruiters and hiring managers to believe that passive candidates are better,” says Gerry Crispin. But, “They’re hiring a mix that’s mostly the active candidates who come to the career site or (apply) through job boards.”
Crispin, who with his partner Mark Mehler, is a founder and principal of CareerXroads, described the survey as “interesting,” though it can’t be considered as representative of hiring practices generally. It was conducted only among the consultancy’s clients — 34 participated, many of them leading employers in their industry hiring thousands of workers annually.
Besides just getting estimates of the passive vs. active hiring the companies do, the survey asked the recruiting leaders to offer their view — and their perception of what hiring managers believe — about the qualities of both types of candidates.
For instance, 24 percent of responding recruiting leaders believe active candidates are more likely than passives to “perform the job.” By the same percentage, they say they think hiring managers feel the same way. But at the other end of that scale, they say they believe 47.1 percent of hiring managers think actives don’t perform as well as passives. 38.2 percent of the leaders report believing that themselves.
Actives do better when it comes to the currency and relevancy of their skills and abilities. By a significant majority, recruiters say they believe (73.5 percent), and they think hiring managers also (79.2 percent) are neutral to strongly positive on the statement that as compared to passives, actives have relevant and current skills.
Even though no broad, industry conclusions can be drawn from the survey, Crispin said its purpose is provoke discussion. Both the perceptions part of the survey and another part about how recruiters are engaging passives and actives are grist for conversation about recruiting strategies and practices.
“There are elements here that I think are kind of interesting,” says Crispin. “Our perceptions may not have anything to do with the actual performance of the people we hire.”
The survey does serve as a reminder that “we have biases and we need to operate against them … There”s a huge gray area embedded in the passive-versus-active discussion. These are perceptions we have that recruiters need to consider. What’s valid here?”
He adds, “It’s knowledge, skills, and experience that predicts future performance, not the status of employment.”
article found on "ere.net"
Active candidates are OK. But current fashion is to go find the people who don’t want your job.
Now we find that some of America’s biggest companies — collectively hiring hundreds of thousands of workers annually — hire only active job seekers, while more than two-thirds of them fill three-quarters of their jobs with actives.
These no-so-surprising revelations are in a new survey from the recruiting consultancy CareerXroads.
“There is a tendency by recruiters and hiring managers to believe that passive candidates are better,” says Gerry Crispin. But, “They’re hiring a mix that’s mostly the active candidates who come to the career site or (apply) through job boards.”
Crispin, who with his partner Mark Mehler, is a founder and principal of CareerXroads, described the survey as “interesting,” though it can’t be considered as representative of hiring practices generally. It was conducted only among the consultancy’s clients — 34 participated, many of them leading employers in their industry hiring thousands of workers annually.
Besides just getting estimates of the passive vs. active hiring the companies do, the survey asked the recruiting leaders to offer their view — and their perception of what hiring managers believe — about the qualities of both types of candidates.
For instance, 24 percent of responding recruiting leaders believe active candidates are more likely than passives to “perform the job.” By the same percentage, they say they think hiring managers feel the same way. But at the other end of that scale, they say they believe 47.1 percent of hiring managers think actives don’t perform as well as passives. 38.2 percent of the leaders report believing that themselves.
Actives do better when it comes to the currency and relevancy of their skills and abilities. By a significant majority, recruiters say they believe (73.5 percent), and they think hiring managers also (79.2 percent) are neutral to strongly positive on the statement that as compared to passives, actives have relevant and current skills.
Even though no broad, industry conclusions can be drawn from the survey, Crispin said its purpose is provoke discussion. Both the perceptions part of the survey and another part about how recruiters are engaging passives and actives are grist for conversation about recruiting strategies and practices.
“There are elements here that I think are kind of interesting,” says Crispin. “Our perceptions may not have anything to do with the actual performance of the people we hire.”
The survey does serve as a reminder that “we have biases and we need to operate against them … There”s a huge gray area embedded in the passive-versus-active discussion. These are perceptions we have that recruiters need to consider. What’s valid here?”
He adds, “It’s knowledge, skills, and experience that predicts future performance, not the status of employment.”
article found on "ere.net"
Labels:
hiring,
passive candidates,
survey
Hire Candidates with These 5 Traits - OR ELSE!!!
Take a brief moment to read over this statement from this year's Global CEO Study from IBM. You’ll find it either unsettling or reassuring based on your recruiting practices.
For years, organizations have been embroiled in the so-called war for talent. The challenge has historically been a shortage of particular skills. But today, it’s virtually impossible for CEOs to find the future skills they will need — because they don’t yet exist. Bombarded by change, most organizations simply cannot envision the functional capabilities needed two or three years from now … CEOs are increasingly focused on finding employees with the ability to constantly reinvent themselves.
Soooo, how do you feel after that passage? If you are one of the many that hire on skills alone, I completely understand if you're getting that sweaty palm, almost queasy feeling. Many of the skills listed on the resumes of the last dozen people you hired could be passé by the presidential election.
But if you hire beyond skills and personality and hold out for certain character traits, then you have actually future-proofed your organization.
Straight from author, Jim Roddy; here are 5-Traits that you should look for next time when hiring employees to fit on your team.
- Ambition: Is driven by desire to realize personal potential and improve self, your organization, and society. Key Questions: What would you like to be doing in two or three years? What’s your career goal in 10 years? You’ll need to ask follow-up questions to validate the candidate’s initial response, which could be an Interviewing 101 answer. But after this conversation, you’ll have a decent gauge if the candidate plans to transcend your organization or just collect a paycheck.
- Ongoing Education: Engages in a lifelong process of introspection, searching, self-improvement, learning, and knowledge application. Key Questions: What books have had the greatest effect on your career? Part of emotional maturity is acquiring self insight; give me an example of something you recently learned about yourself. Nobody is prepared for that second question. The most common answer I hear is, “Ummm … hmmm … well …” You learn that some people just aren’t committed to bettering themselves. They’re living and working, but not really learning.
- Responsibility: Is decisive and self-reliant; a dutiful grown child, sibling, spouse, parent, and employee. Key Questions: Tell me about a recent split-second decision you made on the job; why you made that decision, and how things turned out? Give me an example of when you made a mistake and fell short of your outcome. The first question will uncover if the candidate embraces critical thinking or reacts with emotion. During the candidate’s response to the second question, you’ll learn if they take 100% responsibility for a situation, rationalize the problem, or deflect accountability. If they can’t think of a time they made a mistake, that’s a red flag that the candidate lacks …
- Humility: Is willing to admit personal faults, apologize, accept criticism, and give credit where credit is due. Key Questions: Give me an example of you changing your behavior for work reasons. How do you feel about the level of recognition you currently receive? You may be wondering how humility will help your company adapt for the future. If employees aren’t humble enough to embrace true transparency and quickly point out where they are failing, they won’t change course when necessary. The first question can uncover if the candidate is quick to admit, accept, and address shortcomings. The second question can elicit a variety of responses, ranging from “I do the work of five people and nobody appreciates it” to “I can’t take sole credit for that accomplishment — my teammates played a big role, too.” During a recent manager meeting at my company, an operations manager who was praised by the sales managers said, “Thanks, but you guys are the ones with the hard jobs. I really admire what you do and have learned from you.”
- Perseverance: Maintains focus and single-minded persistence in spite of obstacles. Exhibits endurance. Takes the long-term view. Key Questions: Many obstacles can prevent an organization from achieving its goals; tell me about a time when you met such an obstacle. Can you give me an example of a time when you had to solve a really complex problem that required multiple steps across weeks or months? Some of the best business advice I’ve received from a fellow company president is simple: “It’s a journey.” These questions will reveal if the candidate has the ability to endure journeys and minimize frustration along the way. At my company, we aim to hire juggernauts – people who are unstoppable because they provide steady, consistent force until an outcome is achieved.
Labels:
blogging,
employment,
hire me,
hiring,
hiring managers,
interview questions,
Jim Roddy,
orchard
Thursday, July 19, 2012
The Hiring Manager's Guide to Working WIth Recruiters
If you have dealt with recruiters or if you yourself is a recruiter, then you are well aware that recruiting is a team effort. It works the best when the parties that make up the team move quickly and effectively through the tedious process to get the job done. No doubt that this is much easier said than done, but why don't we take a look at the three primary members of this brilliant team:
On top of that, you risk wasting time and money — as well as creating bad blood with respect to the candidate — if the hiring process is mishandled. Fortunately, most recruiters I come in contact with understand the necessity of driving the process forward and making things happen as quickly and as smoothly as possible. On the other hand, most candidates are simply looking to explore a given opportunity. But because candidates exist outside of the company, they do not fall under the expectations of organizational processes or expectations. Oh boy. This leaves us with the hiring managers, who can be a real problem if you are looking to be a more successful recruiter. If you the recruiter want to be more effective, you will need the full and ongoing cooperation of your hiring managers. Those individuals, in conjunction with the interviewing team they appoint, will be the people who will most influence your ability to be successful in building great organizations.
Hiring Managers: Here’s How to Get the Most Out of Your Recruiting Partners
According to Ken Blanchard, co-author of The One Minute Manager, “None of us is as smart as all of us.” This is the essence of teamwork, and that is just what recruiting has become — an exercise in teamwork, with people working together to hire the best employees and build the best companies. With this in mind, and in order to be assured that we are operating in a smooth and effective manner, ask the following:
- The CANDIDATE
- The RECRUITER
- The HIRING MANAGER
On top of that, you risk wasting time and money — as well as creating bad blood with respect to the candidate — if the hiring process is mishandled. Fortunately, most recruiters I come in contact with understand the necessity of driving the process forward and making things happen as quickly and as smoothly as possible. On the other hand, most candidates are simply looking to explore a given opportunity. But because candidates exist outside of the company, they do not fall under the expectations of organizational processes or expectations. Oh boy. This leaves us with the hiring managers, who can be a real problem if you are looking to be a more successful recruiter. If you the recruiter want to be more effective, you will need the full and ongoing cooperation of your hiring managers. Those individuals, in conjunction with the interviewing team they appoint, will be the people who will most influence your ability to be successful in building great organizations.
Hiring Managers: Here’s How to Get the Most Out of Your Recruiting Partners
According to Ken Blanchard, co-author of The One Minute Manager, “None of us is as smart as all of us.” This is the essence of teamwork, and that is just what recruiting has become — an exercise in teamwork, with people working together to hire the best employees and build the best companies. With this in mind, and in order to be assured that we are operating in a smooth and effective manner, ask the following:
- Let me know when you have a position open as soon as it has been approved. The sooner you let me know that a position has been approved, the sooner I can meet with you, the sooner I can clearly understand what you are looking for in the candidates you want to hire, and the sooner I can begin my work in sourcing these candidates. Good candidates are not easy to find, so the more running room I have to develop an intelligent sourcing plan, the better off we’ll be.
- If I call or email you, please respond. I understand you are busy. So am I. What I’m probably most busy with is trying to do all that is required to fill your position. I know that running your organization is a top priority, but hiring is a major part of running a business, and I need you to be responsive to me when I reach out. That’s how a good and productive team works.
- Please respond to resumes quickly. Most candidates have a very short shelf life and little patience for organizations that do not respond quickly. Talent is tight and good people can go to a number of other employers in a flash. If I get a resume in front of you, please respond as quickly as possible so I can move the process on to the next step. I am not just concerned about whether your answer is “yes” or “no.” What makes my life very difficult is no response at all, and being stuck between a hiring manager who is not reactive and a candidate who is calling me looking for an answer to a simple question: “Does the manager want to see me or not?” Please do not put me in that position, because it makes all of us look foolish.
- Please see that your interviewing team is ready. The candidate interviewing experience is critical to the ongoing success of the organization. Remember that prospective employees of today can become the customers or partners of tomorrow. They can refer others to your jobs. Be sure your interviewing team is ready to do a world-class job in all candidate-facing activities. This means they should have reviewed and understood the position for which they are interviewing and read the candidate’s resume before the candidate arrives. The team should be prepared to discuss the candidate with you after the interview is completed.
- Inform me as to what you see as the next step in the process. Please get back to me with your thoughts, ideas, or questions right after the interview has taken place. Be advised that I can, in most cases, keep the candidate warm for a reasonable time, but I can’t say or do anything without hearing from you. Once again, make us all look good by being responsive and moving quickly as this is in everyone’s best interests.
- Be sure to only ask questions that relate to the position. We live in a highly litigious society, and as your partner in the hiring process, it is my job to see that we never have a legal problem as a result of inappropriate questions being asked. Please remember that all questions asked should pertain only to the candidate’s experience as it relates to their ability to perform the duties of the position for which they are interviewing.
- Remember to sell the company. Whether or not the candidate joins our organization is far more in your hands than in mine. But if you want to have the candidate join our company, you will have to sell it to the candidate. If the candidate is interviewing elsewhere, that is exactly what the competition will be doing. Be sure to let the candidate know why they should be seeing us as their next place of employment, and what some of the advantages are at our company. Remember, we always want the choice about whether to move forward or not to be our choice, not the candidate’s.
- Please help me to close the candidate if I make that request. Landing a candidate is not always an easy thing to accomplish. As the marketplace tightens and top talent becomes harder to find, candidates will very often have multiple offers. I will do whatever I can to pre-close the candidate, get them prepped for an offer, and everything else necessary to make things happen. However, at times I will need a bit of help to make things happen and close the deal. If I call you to set up a meeting or phone call to lay out a capture strategy (see my article entitled How to Develop a Capture Strategy), please work with me on this. Together, as a team, we have a far better chance of successfully landing the candidate.
- Leave the offers to me. Extending offers is a big part of my job, and I know exactly how to do it. Extending an offer is asking for the sale, and it has to be done at the right time, in the right way, and under the right circumstances. Please let me handle it as I see fit. (By the way, if you are the one who determines compensation, let’s talk, because low-balling the candidate is a catastrophe of major proportions!).
Labels:
candidates,
company,
corporate recruiting,
darth vader,
hiring,
hr professionals,
jobs,
manager,
positions,
process
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
When Applicants Hear Nothing, They Talk and You Get Hurt
You’ve written a compelling job ad that hits all the hot points. You’ve distributed it widely. You’ve even managed to get it high up on search results pages. Despite all that, the number of applications is disappointing. So what went wrong??
According to Careerbuilder, this could very well be a technical issue. Bad links, computer or Internet difficulties, and cumbersome applications are the top reasons cited by interested candidates for not responding to a job posting.
“Sometimes it’s those little things you overlook,” says Dr. Sanja Licina, senior director of talent intelligence and consulting at CareerBuilder. When an interested job seeker clicks on an ad, and then has to click through from there to another location, an ATS for example, things can break down, she says.
That experience can leave a sour taste with potential candidates, some of whom will then go on to complain about the experience. CareerBuilder’s ongoing Applicant Experience survey found that 78 percent of candidates said they’d be sure to tell family and friends about a bad experience with a potential employer. Seventeen percent said they’d post about it on a social media site.
While technical glitches may not push most candidates beyond a little grumbling (though it might be very bad mojo for something like that to happen to a technical firm), the “black hole” application process causes 44 percent of those who hear nothing to have a worse opinion of the non-responsive employer.
Licina said many employers explain why they’re not responding, saying “We do get a lot of applications,” and thus it’s “really hard” to respond.
Any number of surveys and articles confirm that large numbers of employers never acknowledge an applicant — not even to say contact has been made. CareerBuilder, whose Applicant Experience audit now has some 5 million surveys involving 5,000 employers, reports that somewhere around half the applicants say they never heard anything after submitting an application.
Even when they do, radio silence often follows. Among the 57 companies vying for top honors in the still-new Candidate Experience awards, a mere 44 percent followed up their acknowledgments with details about the next steps in the process.
Recruiters, too, are faulted by the surveyed job seekers; 15 percent of them have a worse opinion of the employer after hearing from a recruiter. Says CareerBuilder:
The consequences of a negative candidate experience go beyond the potential loss of quality talent and injury to the employment reputation. The widely held belief is that there is a direct economic impact from treating applicants poorly. A separate CareerBuilder study from a few months ago found nearly a third of respondents saying they are less likely to purchase a product from a company that didn’t respond to their job application.
Now, in conjunction with a university research group, Licina said CareerBuilder is attempting to put a dollar figure on the negative experience. “It’s difficult to attribute (the impact) to the candidate experience,” she explained, which is why the study development will take time. But, she says, with companies beginning to accept that there are economic consequences, determining the actual cost is growing more urgent.
Incidentally, it’s not money that first attracts a job seeker to a job posting. It’s the company’s location, report 45 percent of the candidates in CareerBuilder’s experience surveys. After that it’s industry and company reputation. Salary is sixth.
According to Careerbuilder, this could very well be a technical issue. Bad links, computer or Internet difficulties, and cumbersome applications are the top reasons cited by interested candidates for not responding to a job posting.
“Sometimes it’s those little things you overlook,” says Dr. Sanja Licina, senior director of talent intelligence and consulting at CareerBuilder. When an interested job seeker clicks on an ad, and then has to click through from there to another location, an ATS for example, things can break down, she says.
That experience can leave a sour taste with potential candidates, some of whom will then go on to complain about the experience. CareerBuilder’s ongoing Applicant Experience survey found that 78 percent of candidates said they’d be sure to tell family and friends about a bad experience with a potential employer. Seventeen percent said they’d post about it on a social media site.
While technical glitches may not push most candidates beyond a little grumbling (though it might be very bad mojo for something like that to happen to a technical firm), the “black hole” application process causes 44 percent of those who hear nothing to have a worse opinion of the non-responsive employer.
Licina said many employers explain why they’re not responding, saying “We do get a lot of applications,” and thus it’s “really hard” to respond.
Any number of surveys and articles confirm that large numbers of employers never acknowledge an applicant — not even to say contact has been made. CareerBuilder, whose Applicant Experience audit now has some 5 million surveys involving 5,000 employers, reports that somewhere around half the applicants say they never heard anything after submitting an application.
Even when they do, radio silence often follows. Among the 57 companies vying for top honors in the still-new Candidate Experience awards, a mere 44 percent followed up their acknowledgments with details about the next steps in the process.
Recruiters, too, are faulted by the surveyed job seekers; 15 percent of them have a worse opinion of the employer after hearing from a recruiter. Says CareerBuilder:
“How your employment brand is presented to job seekers from the moment a job is posted can have a lasting effect not only on your ability to acquire talent, but your business overall,” Licina says. “First and foremost, it’s important to acknowledge candidates and keep them informed.”When asked to assess the recruiters who contacted them, one-in-five job seekers (21 percent) reported that the recruiter was not enthusiastic about his/her company being an employer of choice. Seventeen percent didn’t believe the recruiter was knowledgeable and 15 percent didn’t think the recruiter was professional.
The consequences of a negative candidate experience go beyond the potential loss of quality talent and injury to the employment reputation. The widely held belief is that there is a direct economic impact from treating applicants poorly. A separate CareerBuilder study from a few months ago found nearly a third of respondents saying they are less likely to purchase a product from a company that didn’t respond to their job application.
Now, in conjunction with a university research group, Licina said CareerBuilder is attempting to put a dollar figure on the negative experience. “It’s difficult to attribute (the impact) to the candidate experience,” she explained, which is why the study development will take time. But, she says, with companies beginning to accept that there are economic consequences, determining the actual cost is growing more urgent.
Incidentally, it’s not money that first attracts a job seeker to a job posting. It’s the company’s location, report 45 percent of the candidates in CareerBuilder’s experience surveys. After that it’s industry and company reputation. Salary is sixth.
Labels:
.jobs,
ads,
advertising,
careerbuilder,
hiring,
koala,
technical issue
Monday, July 16, 2012
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Hiring Pyramid According to Adler
How many of us are familiar with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs? If you are like me, then you are possibly oblivious to the acknowledgment that Maslow even had needs. Here's a quick refresher for us all:
Abraham Maslow was a mid-20th century psychologist who studied the behavior of high-performing individuals. In a 1943 paper, he suggested that people make fundamental and predictable decisions based on different behavioral needs. These needs range from primitive; e.g., requiring water or food to being completely fulfilled. He separated these states into five distinct levels and referred to them collectively as a hierarchy of needs. According to Maslow, a person couldn’t move to a higher level unless the needs of the lower level were satisfied first.
With that being implemented into our minds; the purpose of this article is to bring to light that both compaines and people have quite the similiar underlying needs. Bottom line; hiring top people is inefficient, ineffective, and problematic.
In the pyramid above, we see see a candidate's motivation for work; which is most likely one of three core needs: ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, or ACHIEVEMENT. The problem is that while companies all want to hire those with the need to achieve, they only consider those who first have an economic need to apply, and second, those among this group who the screeners believe also fit some idealistic and unspoken personality and first-impression standard.
A person who is unemployed, or holding a job far below the person’s earning ability, seeks a new job primarily for monetary reasons, with the actual work less important. This is the economic need in action. The second motivating need is team-driven. Many people leave companies due to lack of a supportive manager or an inability to develop personal relationships with co-workers. They also accept jobs for these very same reasons. The third job-seeking driver is career growth: the need to achieve, grow, and become better. The Achievers leave when this is missing.So what's to come of this down the line? Just food for thought; go ahead and chew on that for a moment and think.
Knowing what underlying need is driving your candidate to look for another job is essential if you want to find and hire the right people for the right reasons. For example, a passive candidate who is not looking might be enticed to explore a situation if it offered significant upside potential and achievement. There is a lot of recruiting involved in this type of hire, with the emphasis largely on short-term impact and long-term career growth. On the other hand, if the candidate is driven by a short-term economic need, the person will likely be less discriminating and take a position primarily for the salary and benefits. The problem is that once these lower order economic needs are filled, dissatisfaction with the work itself will quickly follow.
Gallup’s Q12 research and Google’s Oxygen study on employee engagement and performance supports this viewpoint. Job satisfaction is driven by doing impactful work, a chance to work with strong teams, and a chance to progress and grow. Dissatisfaction is largely due to lack of a supportive manager, doing less-meaningful work, or doing work far below a person’s capability, and lack of collaboration with others. The best people accept jobs based on expectations of the former and leave them because of the reality of the latter. Much of the problems associated with underperformance, dissatisfaction, and retention occur when the hiring decision is made. Surprisingly, few companies consider this directly, resorting to fixing the problem after the fact.
The hiring trap starts by using the traditional skills- and experience-based job description for advertising purposes. These don’t appeal to anyone who is driven primarily by an achievment need. A job that emphasizes skills and experience sends a message to candidates that the company has plenty of people to choose from, and the candidates need us more than we need them. This certainly won’t attract many passive candidates to apply. These types of postings only attract someone with an economic need to apply, or someone in a sub-par job situation. The likelihood of attracting an achiever under these conditions is problematic, especially when the demand for talent is greater than the supply. (Here’s an interesting video I did with LinkedIn on how to address this supply vs. demand situation.)
As far as the hiring trap is concerned, things are about to go from bad to worse. For most companies, the bulk of their hiring starts by selecting a subset of people from a pool of candidates who initially applied for something other than a need to further their career growth. These people are then filtered on their level of skills and experience, hoping to weed out the weakest, with the goal of selecting the most qualified, often through a strenuous technical screen that’s rarely fully job-related. Then the finalists undergo some superficial team and cultural fit assessment. Those who “perform” the best are then deemed worthy.
Consider this same process from the Maslow hierarchy perspective: companies first target those with an economic need for the job who also meet their “team” and “fit” criteria. These are the so-called “soft” skills. These same companies quickly reject people if they appear, act, or seem different than the norm, or those who make weak first impressions. On the flipside, when candidates who fit the instant “team” and cultural fit screen, managers, and recruiters alike go Lady Gaga, and go out their way to sell these candidates on the merits of the job.
What about the true achievers? Under the type of scenario described above, it’s unlikely the company is going to find many great people who also have an economic need to apply, who also make great first impressions, and who are also high-achievers.
Despite the obvious, this is the expectation. People who are driven to change jobs in order to accelerate their career growth, are stopped long before they get to the front door. Since many of the people who aspire for this type of achievement are passive candidates, they won’t follow the standard interview and apply and prepare regimen. Sometimes they’re a little different in personality and style, sometimes appear less interested, maybe too over-confident, or somewhat inflexible. The real issue is they won’t take lateral transfers and until they see the job as a real career move they won’t get too excited. Job descriptions that emphasize skills and experience, prevent and preclude these people from ever applying, and even if they do apply, they’re deemed too light.
Labels:
.career,
Adler,
candidates,
hiring,
Maslow,
potential candidates
Monday, August 22, 2011
Employees in ads
Employees are not always found in just recruitment ads but they also help define a personal face to your company in general marketing and branding. At the same time they also help foster the understanding that your company takes an interest in the employees and empowers them. Most people are going to have exposure to your company before they even start looking for a job. What message are they receiving right now?
Images via http://adsoftheworld.com/
Labels:
ads,
branding,
empowerment,
hiring,
marketing,
recruitment advertising
Video Resumes
The use of video resumes continues to grow and the quality of those using them is greatly improving. Does your company allow potential employees to show off their qualities, abilities and interests this way?
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
iPads for Kaplan Thaler Employees
Rewarding employees can help strengthen loyalty within companies. The rewards might not have to be quite like The Kaplan Thaler Group which rewarded every employee with an iPad but even offering shares to employees or simply taking a cue from FedEx with their increase in salaries and benefits over the course of time help strengthen a company, both in terms of current employees and potential recruits.
When you do a search for your company's name + employees, what kind of results turn up?
Kaplan Thaler: http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2010/12/kaplan-thaler-gives-every-employee-an-ipad.html
FedEx: http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/16/news/economy/thebuzz/
When you do a search for your company's name + employees, what kind of results turn up?
Kaplan Thaler: http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2010/12/kaplan-thaler-gives-every-employee-an-ipad.html
FedEx: http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/16/news/economy/thebuzz/
Labels:
benefits,
corporate,
employees,
employment,
fedex,
hiring,
image,
kaplan thaler group,
loyalty,
recruitment,
salaries,
shared
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Domino's in Japan hiring; $31,000/hour for December Part Time Job

OK, so the job only lasts 1 hour but still, this is creating quite a stir in Japan.
This is in celebration of the 25th anniversary of Domino's being in Japan and a 50th worldwide anniversary. Anyone over 18 with experience or no experience can enter.
This is a great promotion but what about their already loyal employees?
The problem with promotions like this is that they jilt they already loyal supporters of your brand. What could be done to reward these supporters? Holding a seperate drawing for all active employees to win some sort of bonus? Thoughts and ideas on this?
More details via ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/meta/search/imageDetail?format=plain&source=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2Fimages%2FUS%2Fap_japan_dominos_101104
More details via AdFreak: http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2010/11/dominos-is-hiring-offering-31000-an-hour.html
Labels:
domino's,
hiring,
japan,
promotion,
recruitment
Monday, October 25, 2010
R/GA Explores the personal lives of employees
The recent video that has been posted covers the DJs within the company.
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=742661952697
A previous video post tackled those that had tattoos.
Dipping into the lives of your current employees allows you to define an image of your comapny that potential candidates can identify with. The highlights may not speak to all of your employees but it opens the door for a discussion and sets the tone of your company for employees. While your company may not be quite as informal as to highlight DJing and Tattoos, there is always something within the lives of your employees that candidates can connect with and you can utilize to establish a founding bond between your company and potential hires.
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=742661952697
A previous video post tackled those that had tattoos.
Dipping into the lives of your current employees allows you to define an image of your comapny that potential candidates can identify with. The highlights may not speak to all of your employees but it opens the door for a discussion and sets the tone of your company for employees. While your company may not be quite as informal as to highlight DJing and Tattoos, there is always something within the lives of your employees that candidates can connect with and you can utilize to establish a founding bond between your company and potential hires.
Labels:
culture,
employees,
employers,
hiring,
recruitment
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Monday, August 2, 2010
INTERNET - Ze Frank Hiring for New "Stealth Social Gaming Startup"
Popular internet personality Ze Frank is now hiring for a new start up venture. He has already raised $500,000 for the startup.
Hunting for:
Full or Part Time Front End Developer/Interaction Designer (4+ years experience)
Part Time Graphic Designer/Illustrator/Interaction Designer (4+ years experience)
Only considering candidates living in Los Angeles or willing to move.
Check out the postings here:
http://www.zefrank.com/jobz/
Interested in more info? Check out these articles:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/29489/Ze_Frank_Receives_500000_For_Social_Gaming.php http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/15/ze-frank-games-500000/
http://www.geek.com/articles/games/ze-frank-raises-500k-for-games-startup-20100716/
Hunting for:
Full or Part Time Front End Developer/Interaction Designer (4+ years experience)
Part Time Graphic Designer/Illustrator/Interaction Designer (4+ years experience)
Only considering candidates living in Los Angeles or willing to move.
Check out the postings here:
http://www.zefrank.com/jobz/
Interested in more info? Check out these articles:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/29489/Ze_Frank_Receives_500000_For_Social_Gaming.php http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/15/ze-frank-games-500000/
http://www.geek.com/articles/games/ze-frank-raises-500k-for-games-startup-20100716/
Labels:
front end developer,
graphic designer,
hiring,
new jobs,
ze frank
Friday, July 30, 2010
ERE.net - ERE Coverage of amending the .Jobs charter
Does your company own a .jobs domain? This concerns you.
I wanted to pass along some links to articles tackling the amending of the .Jobs charter.
A short description of what started this:
via John Zappe in his coverage on ERE.net
http://www.ere.net/2010/04/07/shrm-to-decide-on-allowing-non-company-names-for-jobs/
http://www.ere.net/2010/04/08/why-shrm-must-reject-the-jobs-amendment/
http://www.ere.net/2010/07/19/hundreds-of-comments-flood-in-as-jobs-comments-close/
NEWEST POST:
http://www.ere.net/2010/07/29/jobs-expansion-is-on-internet-boards-august-agenda/
I wanted to pass along some links to articles tackling the amending of the .Jobs charter.
A short description of what started this:
In 2005 Employ Media was granted the right to sell .jobs addresses to employers who use their corporate name in the address. Thus, CompanyName.jobs is allowed, whereas Atlanta.jobs is not. In addition, the company could only use the address for its own jobs and had to subscribe to a code of ethics.
However, last fall Employ Media and its partner DirectEmployers Association launched the first of what was to be thousands of job boards using generic names, including Atlanta.jobs. The project was only halted after ICANN sent letters to Employ Media and to the Society for Human Resource Management, which sponsored the .jobs domain plan in 2005 and still oversees it.
via John Zappe in his coverage on ERE.net
http://www.ere.net/2010/04/07/shrm-to-decide-on-allowing-non-company-names-for-jobs/
http://www.ere.net/2010/04/08/why-shrm-must-reject-the-jobs-amendment/
http://www.ere.net/2010/07/19/hundreds-of-comments-flood-in-as-jobs-comments-close/
NEWEST POST:
http://www.ere.net/2010/07/29/jobs-expansion-is-on-internet-boards-august-agenda/
Labels:
.jobs,
hiring,
HR,
Job board,
job posting,
recruitment
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



















