Corporate Eye

...compare, compete, excel

Cynthia Giles

Cynthia Giles

Great Question. Difficult Answers.


snow-1

The question:  “Is your website SNOWED?”

The question comes from a post by Jeremiah Owyang–and the acronym stands for “Stakeholders’ Needs Overwhelm Web Experience Design.”  For an example of this condition, the post point to this case study:

Take for example the American Airlines website, which was so frustrating to users that designer Dustin Curtis decided to mock up an improvement and write this open letter. One of the designers from AA responded, saying there were over 200 stakeholders involved in the final output of the product, resulting in the jumbled mess of a corporate webpage.

The AA designer’s lengthy response offers a glimpse of conditions that prevail at many large companies, and definitely worth reading.  Though the web team understands the requirements of user experience design, their judgments are often over-ruled by pressure from various stakeholders who want prominent page space for this or that message or function.  And the letter points out that in large companies, a clean, complete redesign is generally considered impossible.  Changes must be made “organically, as the site evolves.”  (Which is hardly the best way to replace a bad site with a good one . . . )

Owyang’s suggested solution is “have an empowered Web Strategist” to balance the needs of the user community, the business stakeholders, and the technology conditions.  Which sounds like an excellent idea–but not easy to implement at most companies.

The SNOWED problem can be a bit different in terms of the Careers area.  For one thing, there may be just one dominant stakeholder (often HR) and there may be a separate web team, or even a separate domain for Careers, and that could provide more design freedom.  But on the other hand, the functional demands of content management (job posting, for example) and applicant tracking offer added complication.

The balancing act for Careers could be combining (a) the machinery needed to fill specific jobs with (b) the demands of employer branding and (c) the need to offer focused messaging on certain job types, career paths, benefits, etc.  The Careers team may need to create multiple paths to reach multiple audiences in a time-critical way-which can be quite a challenge.

Two approaches gaining increased attention are landing pages and micro-sites.  More on each topic in future posts, but in the meantime, here are two quick views from StandoutJobs:  Coming in for a Landing and Micro-site Strategy.

(Thanks to John Holm for the gorgeous snow scene.)


Some Really Good Advice That’s Hard to Get (Part 2)


advice-2

As promised in a previous post, here’s a roadmap to the four articles that comprise Dr. John Sullivan’s analysis of “127 suggested features or capabilities for the corporate careers website of the future.”  The links will take you in order to the articles archived on Sullivan’s own website.  (Links to the ere.net version are provided at the end of this post.)

Part 1:  Contains an analysis of the current state of most Career sites; a list of “16 Reasons Why the Web Is a Powerful Recruiting Sales Tool”; an index of the “18 Categories of Website Features or Capabilities” that will be discussed in the series; and discussions of the first three categories, which are:

  • Careers page easy to find on the lead-in page
  • Immediate “wows” to get their attention
  • Quick identification features

Each category has its own list, so Part 1 contains the first 23 of the 127 suggested features or capabilities.  (The category names in the individual parts sometimes are not the same as they were on the index list, but they are similar.)

Part 2:  Covers the next five categories, which are:

  • Initial classification of the visitor
  • Features that provide personalized information
  • Personalized features and expedited treatment
  • Features for attracting employed top performers
  • Features for attracting active job seekers

This group brings the features/capabilities total to 56.

Part 3: Covers the next four categories, which are:

  • Other information-gathering elements for all visitors
  • Careers page features that sell them on the firm
  • Jobs page features that sell visitors on this job
  • Features that make it easy to find jobs

This group brings the features/capabilities total to 92.

Part 4:   Wrapping up with the remaining six categories:

  • Features that bring the firm to life and make the firm appear genuine
  • Features that help assess job qualifications
  • Features that provide feedback to candidates and that answer their questions
  • Elements that help build the relationship over time
  • Geographically localized features
  • Other things to do related to the site, including metrics

The features and capabilities in the last category (Other things . . . ) are not numbered, so they are not included in the 127 total.

The links provided above are to the Sullivan site because the articles are more readable there and the titles are part numbered.  If you prefer to read them on ere.net (where the list numbering is continuous) here are the links in order:

Ere.net Part 1

Ere.net Part 2

Ere.net Part 3

Ere.net Part 4


(Thanks to “Solo, with others” for a lakeside view of the advice business.)

Some Really Good Advice That’s Hard to Get (Part 1)

 

advice service available

“A ‘wow’ careers site is a lot more than a simple front end to an ATS application,” writes Dr. John Sullivan. “It is a mechanism to communicate and service a population of people that may someday work for your organization. Too many companies take the design of their careers sites too lightly, asking more about what it can do for them versus what it can do for candidates.”

Sullivan is one of the most influential commentators in the HR arena, especially through his articles on ere.net–and in 2007 he wrote an excellent, almost encyclopedic analysis of what goes into a “wow” Career site.

I happened to stumble across a portion of this material by luck, and after tracking down the other parts I assembled the whole into a document that is 22 pages long and contains not only a discussion filled with valuable insights, but also multiple lists that add up to “127 suggested features or capabilities for the corporate careers website of the future.” This is great material, and my goal is to make it more easily accessible.

But first, I have to explain why it wasn’t easy to access in the first place.  As far as I can tell, the material originated in a series of four articles that appeared over three weeks in December of 2007.  All four articles have the same title:  “Your Corporate Website Is Boring Applicants.”  None of them have sub-titles.  Only one of them has a link to the preceding installment.  The articles can be found on ere.net and also at Sullivan’s own website-but neither site compiles the articles or offers links between them.  So, practically speaking, the only way to find them all is to search either site using the word “boring”!  Plus–on ere.net, there are no numbers in the titles to indicate they are part of a series (or which part they are), while on Sullivan’s site, the numbering elements restart with every list instead of running continuously through the whole series.

The previous paragraph is almost a set of instructions for how not to make the most of a good thing.  First of all, December is a month when most people don’t spend a lot of time reading online.  And most won’t go back in January to see what they missed–so it’s arguably not the best time to publish “wow” material.  Second . . . the title doesn’t even hint at the content, either of the series or of the individual articles.

Third, even readers who did tune in to the series when it was appearing in December of 2007 did not have an easy way to go back and review previous parts, or to put the whole thing together for reference.  And that gap is even greater now that they have been archived.  Finally, this ought-to-be-evergreen content is effectively withering away because it’s not even a bit search-engine-friendly.

Not that the articles haven’t been read by some.  The statistics provided on Sullivan’s website show from 3,000 to 4,000 views for each.  But that doesn’t tell how many unique readers there were (I had to access each unit five or six times in the process of doing my own compilation), and of course “view” can mean anything from “spent three seconds on the page accidentally” to “devoured every word with relish.”  Plus, I think the material is much less useful if read in individual articles rather than as a continuous document.

The foregoing may offer an object lesson for best practice in content presentation.  Successful blogs and websites that are designed to draw traffic depend heavily on the type of “pillar content” that lures searchers and is likely to be tweeted, bookmarked, etc.  This material would certainly fit that model if it were properly packaged.  For example:  Lists make especially good pillar content-so just stitch these parts together, title it “127 Ideas for a Wow Careers Site,” and voila!   Or add a serious, search-friendly title and feature it as a report.  Or call it a white paper.

Those are just some approaches for turning random posts into high-value, persistent content.  And worth keeping in mind for any Careers blog or website . . .

Meantime, see my next post for a big-picture view of Sullivan’s material and a set of links for easy navigation.

(Thanks to Laughlin Elkind for the photo of his beach-y advice stand.)

Best Corporate Career Site? Another Look at Award-winning Yahoo


yahoo-careers

Back in April, when Yahoo was named the Best Corporate Careers Website in the ERE Recruiting Excellence Awards, I was on the trail of another story and merely swooped by the site for a look.  Nothing fabulous or fascinating jumped out, so I didn’t go back for an in-depth examination.  Until now.

ERE subsequently published more detail about why Yahoo won, complimenting the widespread use of technology, prominent display of awards, product integration, and a combined marketing approach designed to drive traffic to the career site.  All of which turns out to be true–and so well done that the result is not flashy, just very satisfying.  So I enjoyed taking a more leisurely tour of the site.

In fact, I had an excellent adventure, thanks to a front-page link called “Play in the Sandbox.”  Click on it, and transport into the magic realm of Yahoo! Research, where your inner geek is bound to find some fun.  For example:  access to a huge list of technical articles, including one I couldn’t resist downloading:  On trusting your socks to find each other addresses “design issues that may arise as a result of the deployment of networks of devices that will constitute the ‘Internet of Things’.”  (I’ll let you know how it turns out.)

yahoo-research

The sandbox feature is certain to have appeal for some of the very people Yahoo! most wants to find and hire.  So my takeaway impression is that the company has analyzed the interests of their target audiences and has come up with creative ways to engage them.  Which may be the most important step in creating a successful career site.

Full disclosure . . .  I’m a diehard Yahoo! fan.  I find their search engine superior to Google’s and I love the personalization capabilities that let me create an attractive and really useful online information center.  So I’ll highlight this comment from ERE:

As we all know, Yahoo has been undergoing turmoil in recent years, so it’s particularly amazing that despite the turmoil, coupled with the economic downturn, its HR team put together an amazing Web 2.0 rebuilding effort.  The result of this transformation?  A career site that went from being ranked as one of the worst sites (on the prestigious CareerXroads ranking) to one of the best sites, all in a short period. The redesign tripled the amount of content consumed by its visitors, which led to increased conversion rates.

Take an extra look at that last sentence.  I couldn’t find confirmation or more detail–but assuming that ERE has the facts, Yahoo got a great return on its redesign investment.


Companies, Candidates, and . . . Cookies


black-hole-2

In a New York Times piece titled Be Nice to Job Seekers. (They’re Shoppers, Too.), consultant Jon Picoult shares this anecdote:

I recently heard a story about a manager from Nabisco who was attending a human-resources industry conference. When he declared that his company responded to every résumé it received – solicited and unsolicited – he was met with incredulous stares from his peers.

“Why respond to every résumé when that’s clearly not necessary?” someone asked.

The Nabisco manager smiled and replied, “Because – everyone eats cookies.”

Picoult makes so many good points in the column that I hope everyone will take the time to read it.  In the meantime, I’ll recap some highlights:

  • Most job candidates (not just the unqualified) are treated poorly by most companies (not just the inept).  Calls are seldom returned, messages rarely answered, statuses never communicated, et cetera.
  • After receiving this type of treatment, even those who are hired will have a negative feeling about the company-and no amount of jolly onboarding will completely mend that.  As for those whose applications were never even acknowledged, or who actually interviewed and then never heard another word . . . they are bound to have a poor impression of the employer brand.  And that impression will transfer to the company and its products or services.
  • The typical explanation for discourteous treatment of candidates is that HR staff just doesn’t have time to do better.  But Picoult observes that “with most job applications now submitted or recorded electronically, companies can and should be more communicative using automated means.”

This last point contains a key insight concerning the corporate Careers site:  Creating a state-of-the-art website designed to impress job candidates is pointless if a company then fails to reinforce its positive message with courteous, timely treatment.  It’s also pointless to invest in automated application processes, but never bother to establish procedures for managing applicant communications.

A 2008 Gallup survey showed that 70% of job seekers had a frustrating experience while applying for a job, and half of that group said their experiences made them reconsider working for the company.  Today, as Picoult points out, the high volume of job applicants created by current unemployment levels is making that situation even worse.  (But on the flip side, a lot of managers and executives are now job-hunting, so they get to experience this treatment from the candidate side.)

A step worth taking:  Check to see if your Career site makes promises about candidate communications.

  • If so, find out whether those promises are being kept.
  • If not–reconsider.  Is there a company policy about candidate communications?  There ought to be.  And it ought to be articulated on the Career site.


Thanks to NASA’s new Spitzer Space Telescope and NASA/JPL-Caltech/T. Pyle (SSC) for the conceptual image of “a growing black hole, called a quasar, at the center of a faraway galaxy.”  (Some job candidates believe the objects falling into a black hole are, in fact, resumes . . . )


Recruiting on the FTSE Websites: Still a Gap?


ftse

Talent management company Taleo summarized the results of a 2006 study in the white paper Careers Site Recruiting in the FTSE 100 Companies:  A Missed Opportunity.  The key finding:  “While almost all FTSE 100 companies (94%) have a careers section on their corporate website, only half (51%) allow candidates to apply online through a structured application form that can support a fully automated end to end recruitment process.”


Most of the other companies (43%) reviewed at that time accepted CVs via email, but six did not even have a careers section on their corporate site.  So how much has changed in the past three years?

I reviewed a number of current FTSE sites recently, and noticed several that still seem behind the curve in online recruiting–but it’s hard to assess, because many of the FTSE 100 companies are made up of smaller entities, and those may have a range of different approaches and capabilities in online recruiting.  Here’s an example scenario:

Associated British Foods (ABF) has more than two dozen components (from AB Agri to Westmill Foods), and the ABF corporate site does not provide an overview of careers or links to the individual company career sites.  On the ABF Our Companies page, I followed the link for Twinings-which took me to a map page.  Selecting the US I went to a consumer site, where there is nothing about jobs.  All the other map links lead to consumer sites, and as far as I can tell from the ones I can either read or roughly translate, still no jobs.  So I did a separate search and found a dedicated UK jobs site for Twinings, which I think can be reached from the map only if you select the UK.  The Twinings jobs site does accept CVs by email but does not have an application form.  There is no job search, but all the jobs listed are in the UK, so I’m still not sure how or if it would be possible to seek a job with Twinings in, say, China.

At two other ABF companies (British Sugar and ACH) it was easier to reach the jobs page, but in both companies, the application process is limited to emailing a resume.  GTG did not appear to have a jobs section at all.

That’s not a complete review–but in terms of a quick look, it seems likely that ABF (taking its constituent companies together) may still be in the “missed opportunity” zone as defined by Taleo.  On the other hand, BAE Systems, which is also composed of multiple businesses with worldwide locations, has a well-equipped Careers area on the corporate website and does have an online application system.  The only confusion is that some business components (e.g., Detica) seem to have their own websites with separate Careers sections.

I’ll be drilling down further on this topic over the next few weeks, to provide additional views.  Since Taleo did not specify which companies had which gaps, there can’t be an apples-to-apples update.  But it should be possible to spot some current best practices, as well as some remaining problem areas.

(Thanks to Jenny Downing for the bear’s-eye view of one day in the life of the FTSE 100.)