Corporate Eye

...compare, compete, excel

Cynthia Giles

Cynthia Giles

From A to Z: Will Amazon Zap Zappos?

a-to-z-headline-2

Names say a lot.  “Amazon” is the name of a really big river and “Zappos” (even though it’s actually a derivation of zapatos, the Spanish word for shoes) has the flavor of a comic strip exclamation.  Zap-wow!

Or it could sound like “zippy”–which certainly captures the brand personality of scrappy little Zappos, the company that took a whimsical idea like buying shoes online and turned it into a retail charm offensive.  Zappos has become a marketing star by virtue of its quirky style and wide-open spigot of corporate communications.

For an example of the latter, just see this pages-long memo on the recent acquisition, which promises that the Zappos culture won’t change.  And if you need a refresher on the Zappos culture, just check out their famous Core Values, or visit Fun & A Little Weird!, “The Inside Zappos Blog.”

It’s hard to believe there won’t be some culture effects at Zappos when the river rolls in, but that remains to be seen.  In the meantime, let’s take a look at their respective approaches to recruiting.

Zappos:

zappos-jobs

And Amazon:

amazon-jobs

Let’s look again!

a-and-z-comparison

That may not need much commenting, but just in case . . .

Both use similar color schemes (the always-safe “blue plus bright”) and a grid layout.  But there the similarities end.  The Zappos page is full of energy and playfulness, the Amazon page is full of–well, it’s not full of anything.  In fact it’s rather empty, from a visual standpoint.  (I didn’t show the full screen proportion, but there is even more white space to the right.)  And from a content standpoint, there’s no information (really, none)–just labels.

Okay, there’s a paragraph of text.  But I would describe it as empty of content.  There are 71 words, and 8 of them are “day.”  The 71 words are divided into 8 sentences, all but one containing the word “day.”  Here’s an example:  “And your day to join a company that redefines itself every day.”  And here’s another:  “It’s your day to be a part of something great.”

This dogged repetition might have seemed rhythmic if chanted, but it really doesn’t work well as a passive block of text on a white page.  It actually reminds the reader of something robotic–and while that might connect up with Amazon’s great approach to automation, I don’t think that was the intent.

Back at Zappos, there’s not much text either (56 words in 2 long sentences, plus three exhortatory fragments).  But it’s definitely not robotic.  And it delivers a focused message:  Zappos is not an ordinary company and it’s fun to work here.

Whereas . . . the message I took away from the Amazon page was “No one cares about this message (or this page) very much.”

To be fair, the goal at Amazon may have been to create a pleasant, professional appearance and tone, with a clean look and feel–and there may be reason to think that would work effectively in terms of its target audience and employer brand.   But the Amazon tagline is actually very similar to Zappos (at Zappos it’s “Work Hard. Play Hard. All the time!” and at Amazon, it’s “Work hard. Have fun. Make history.”), so we have to ask:  Which site delivers that message more successfully?

And two final points:  The Zappos page has social media links, the Amazon page does not.  The Zappos page has a video, the Amazon page does not.  Inevitable impression?  Zappos is on top of the times, while Amazon is lingering a bit behind.

Let’s see what happens when the waters rise.


Wall Street Journal Notices New Recruiting Trends . . .


telescope_psf

It’s an “Aha!” moment at WSJ’s Career Journal, with a recent story titled Beyond Job Boards: Targeting the Source. To quote the lead:

For many Americans looking for work, the first stop is an online job board. Now job seekers are finding that prospective employers increasingly are looking elsewhere to find new hires-the companies’ own Web sites.

The story ambles on through the following points:

  • Companies are buffing up their Career pages, adding videos, employee profiles and social networking tools.
  • They are doing this to save money, reduce the number of applications, and improve the quality of applicants.
  • Job seekers should change their tactics to match, using multiple job search tools, networking with companies and other job seekers, and researching the companies they apply to.
  • Both company sites and job boards are seeing an increase in applicants of as much as 30%.
  • Companies are focusing more on building their employer brands.
  • Companies are turning to employee referrals and social media tools to increase and improve the applicant pool.

If all this sounds familiar . . .

In part, I’m surprised that WSJ (or at least this columnist) is so late in noting “trends” that have been widely discussed for many months.   And in part, I’m surprised at the simple view provided by the story, which mentions an assortment of phenomena without exploring their situational context.  The account relies mainly on general observations (for example:  “‘Part of it is letting people know who we are as a company,'” says Melissa Rutledge, an employment-branding manager at Intuit.”) and anecdotal references to a few companies that are leaders in the online recruiting space (Sodexo, Adobe, Intuit, Zappos).

In fairness, the story is obviously intended as an overview, not an in-depth study, and it does offer a convenient summary of the Recruiting 2.0 landscape.  Nothing mentioned is actually wrong or misleading (except perhaps describing Zappos as a “shoe retailer”).  But the article raised two questions in my mind.

1.       If this is “old news” . . . what’s the new news?

2.       Where is the intersection between company interests and job-seeker interests?

I’ll come back to the first question in a follow-up post.  As for the second, here’s what I mean:  Job-seekers want jobs and companies need employees.  Yet the process of getting them together seems to be more of a frustration-fest than a journey toward mutual satisfaction.  There’s actually a whole industry devoted to making employment connections, yet no one on either side is happy!  Job-seekers mistrust companies and complain about recruiting processes, while companies mistrust the recruiting process and complain about the large number and low quality of applicants.

I’m not sure if it was always this way, but if not, I wonder how it got this way.

So my closing thought is:  Could “social networking” become more than just another process tool?  Perhaps an increased emphasis on communication will produce greater understanding and cooperation between seekers and hirers–which could only be a good thing.  (And maybe that will be the shape of Recruiting 3.0?)


(Hello and) Good-bye to KSAs


stack-of-papers

I admit that I hadn’t even heard of KSAs until today.  I’ve never worked for the Federal government, or even known anyone who worked for the Federal government, so I had no idea that most agencies require applicants to write extended essay answers (sometimes many of them) explaining specific aspects of their Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities.  These documents go by the nickname KSA, and apparently are widely dreaded by job-seekers.

For background:  KSAs are written not only by people trying to break into government employment, but also by government employees trying to advance or reroute their careers.  They are submitted in addition to resumes.  Each response is expected to be one-half to one page, and there may be a five or ten of them (or more) for a given job.

Here are some examples of generic KSA topics that might be required for many positions:   Ability to communicate in writing; Ability to manage a program; Ability to analyze problems and develop solutions; Ability to use and maintain tools and equipment.

Then there are more specific and/or complex topics, such as:  Ability to make critical judgments about biomedical research projects; Skill in applying engineering concepts and theories to the solution of engineering problems; Skill to function effectively in a stressful environment; Knowledge of anti-terrorist tactics . . .

And where did I find these examples?  Why, at one of the dozens of sites that sell pre-written KSAs and/or “custom” KSA writing services.  (I won’t provide links–just search on KSA and you’ll get pages of them.)

I stumbled into the wonderland of KSAs by reading Hiring reform: KSAs to be phased out within a year, a news story on FederalTimes.com.  At first I was overwhelmed by the mere idea of all those papers–having taught freshman composition at one point in my life, this just seems like a nightmare.  How does the HR staff find time to read them?  Do they read them?

Many of those staffers are reportedly thrilled at the news that KSAs will go away.  But on the other hand, according to the FedTimes story:  “Some HR officials feel that if someone can’t be bothered to put time and effort into answering KSA questions, they may not be that interested in the job after all. ‘If you can’t address these KSAs, how thorough are you going to be on the job?’ asked one HR director at a small agency, who asked not to be identified. ‘If we do away with KSAs, we’ll be moving away from information we need to properly evaluate people.  I’m not sure this is going to work.'”

So do they NOT KNOW about the apparently thriving KSA marketplace?  That seems unbelievable, since I found out in less than five minutes.  Or is buying good answers interpreted as “addressing these KSAs,” thereby indicating the applicant would be “thorough” on the job?  Or in reality do most people write their own KSAs and this is not really a problem?

And by the way–I read several official government documents explaining the importance of KSAs and offering advice on how to write KSAs.  But nowhere did I find a basic statement such as:  “You must write the KSA yourself.”  So maybe that’s not even a rule?  But then–what’s the point?  It’s one thing to have someone else reorganize and reformat the facts on your resume for better effect, but it’s really different to have someone else write your writing sample.

That must be the most question marks ever stuffed into one post, but I really am flummoxed over this!  Even if KSAs do go away (which will leave some “writers” scrambling for a new product line, I suppose), the whole business seems to indicate a serious disconnect somewhere.  Or am I wrong?

Anyway . . . from the corporate side–this topic started me thinking about the whole matter of “candidate packaging.”  Is what you “see” what you “get”?  But that’s another topic.

(Thanks to Bryan Partington for the handsome stack of papers.)


Tick Tock: Recruiting Hourly Workers

clock-1

I was aware that I didn’t know much about the subject of hourly hiring, but it turns out I knew even less than I thought.  There are a lot of moving parts to the process, including several (such as drug testing, background checks, and physical exams) that aren’t as likely to apply in salaried hiring.  And whereas salaried employees are typically inclined to keep their jobs as long as possible, turnover is a huge issue in the hourly world–so the hiring process tends to be constant rather than cyclic or intermittent.

Other differences I hadn’t thought about:  Walk-ins are an important source of hourly applicants.  Location is often especially important to hourly workers, who are likely to work within five miles of where they live.  And time-to-hire is a key factor for many hourly applicants, who may need to find work quickly.

I also had some misconceptions.  Although it’s true that hourly workers have traditionally tended to be young and either under-educated or still in the process of getting educated, today’s hourly workforce is divided roughly into thirds in terms of age (a little over one-third for the under-25 set, a little under one-third for the over-45s, and the rest in between).  And as for education and experience . . . in today’s economy, teenage dropouts may be standing next to down-sized professionals at the application kiosk.

I gathered my new view of hourly hiring by visiting the websites of several specialized recruiting consultants and niche job boards.  The Job Magnet, a site specifically catering to hourly job seekers, has an overview of candidate sourcing (PDF) in their Employer area.  (And while you’re there, check out the nice way they have matched up the look of their seeker-facing home page and their employer-facing home page.  Each shows five photos of audience representatives across the top, and the difference in depiction of the two groups–job-seekers and employers–is quite instructive in itself!)

Kronos, which provides HR solutions specifically tailored for the hourly workforce, offers a case study and a webinar on the ROI of selection.  (Look in the right-hand navigation pane.)  And HRLogix, which specializes in “strategic talent acquisition strategy” for the gaming and hospitality industries (major employers of hourly workers) provides a nice graphic overview of the whole hiring and onboarding process.

Niche board Snag-a-Job offers helpful information in its Employers section.  There are a variety of short, targeted articles in the Hiring Library, and a good round-up of information and tips in the monthly Recruiting Edge newsletter..

But by far the most interesting and useful resource I found is “How to Find and Recruit the Best Hourly Employees (PDF),” a Workforce Institute white paper by Mel Kleinman of Humetrics.  Among the eye-openers included in this paper is a 2008 survey of hiring managers which found that only 9% regarded the corporate website as one of their best recruiting tools.  And a mere 14% listed the Internet as a top tool.

What’s the problem?  Find out in the next post.

(Thanks to Chris Metcalf for the cleverly framed clock.)

Get the Popcorn: A Festival of Recruiting Videos

movie-theater

Visit these flick sites for a summer triple-feature:

1.       In case you weren’t one of the 225 (give or take) folks who got to attend the “first ever” Social Recruiting Summit, pretend you were there by watching videos of several sessions.   Choices include:  “LinkedIn Networking with Shally Steckerl,” “Online Employer Reputation and Social Recruiting with Shannon Seery Gude,” and “Ubiquity and Authenticity in Social Media with Laurie Ruettimann.”

2.       In case you don’t have time to troll various sites in search of corporate recruiting videos, find a short (but handy) roundup of YouTube links at About.com’s “Job Searching” channel.  You can also do your own YouTube search–but let me save you some time:  Any search string with “recruiting” in it will bring back lots of opportunities to join the armed services and/or play college sports.   Go with “career opportunities” and “corporate recruitment.”

3.       In case you want to rummage around for treasures in a big basket of job-related videos, stop by the Video Job Shop.   And for a real treat (it’s honestly hypnotic) check out some of the one-minute career overviews stored in the VJS Library.  No matter what you ever wanted to be, you can watch a video about it:  Choreographer, Bindery Worker, Glassblower, Psychiatrist, Railroad Yardmaster, Paleontologist, Able Seaman, Fine Artist, Coroner, Nuclear Engineer, Drywall Installer, CEO . . .

There haven’t been any Hollywood blockbusters (yet) about corporate recruiting, but if you want to include a  big screen business classic in your festival–Forbes came up with a list of The Ten Greatest Business Movies:  Citizen Kane, Wall Street, The Insider, Network, and six more.   Business Pundit’s more adventurous list offers up fifty choices, including charmers (Baby Boom, In Good Company, Working Girl); thrillers (The Game, Antitrust, Disclosure); satires (The Hudsucker Proxy, The Coca-Cola Kid, Barbarians at the Gate); documentaries (The Corporation, Salesman); serious stuff (Glengarry Glenn Ross, The Boiler Room); and some surprises (All About Eve, Once Upon a Time in the West).

Missing from both lists are two of the all-time best biz-flicks:  the intelligent corporate soap opera Executive Suite (1954), and the sly, smart farce The Wheeler Dealers (1963).  If you haven’t seen them, now’s the time.

Summer’s just getting started!


(Thanks to Mo Kaiwen for a great shot of the modern movie palace.)


Paper Resumes? OMG!


typewriter

First, read or listen to NPR Morning Edition’s story entitled Job Seekers Find New Rules of Recruitment. The gist:  Recruiters and hiring managers don’t have much patience with job-seekers lacking LinkedIn profiles, snappy digital resumes, and an established social media presence.  “If someone sends us a paper resume folded in thirds, stuffed in an envelope,” opines one CEO, “it’s hard to take it seriously.”  And even for job-seekers who communicate via email, the report notes, there are potential faux pas–such as email sent via AOL and husband-and-wife addresses.

Next . . . read the “lively” (not to say vitriolic) discussion of this story.  Among the commenters are populists who think Recruiting 2.0 is elitist; sympathists who are concerned for the plight of elderly (i.e, thirty-something) job seekers; cynics who think it’s all about HR laziness; and conspiracy theorists who accuse the NPR reporter of shilling for LinkedIn.  Also a few people making thoughtful points.

Takeaways?  (a) There are a lot of passionate opinions on this topic.  (b) Recruiting 2.0 probably is elitist–but that’s the reality of the current job market.  (c) Rising unemployment statistics will shine a harsh light on hiring practices.

For another take on this topic, consider Lou Adler’s article Recruiting Top Talent 2010 – Are You a Traditionalist or a Web 2.0 Free Radical? Traditionalists, according to Adler’s model, may be using niche sites, Facebook, Twitter, and all the other 2.0 trappings–but they are still operating on “the flawed premise that top people will respond to negative, boring, and exclusionary ads if you post them in enough places.”

Free radicals, on the other hand, are “talent-driven,” and their strategy is “nurturing prospects for future opportunities.”  The article offers a ten-point test/action plan for assessing/strategizing this shift.  For example:  “3.  Go req-less, using big-target talent hubs,” and “8. Convert your recruiters from screeners and sales reps into career advisors.”

Food for thought:  What will happen if or when all major employers are nurturing talent with social networks and wooing prospects with precisely targeted micro-sites?  Will that be Recruiting Paradise–or merely passé?