Corporate Eye

...compare, compete, excel

Careers

Talent Acquisition 2009: No Surprises


Big 2

Looking over Talent Acquisition Strategies 2009: Cutting through the Clutter and Proactively Managing Quality Candidates, a new report from the Aberdeen Group, there’s a definite sense of familiarity.  Almost every finding and every recommendation is related to strategies and tactics that have been covered here on Corporate Eye and widely discussed among recruiting professionals.  So the value of the report is not so much in big news as in validation of the conventional wisdom–and some ideas for strategic fine-tuning.

As mentioned in the introductory post for this series, the report covers a lot of territory.  So I will focus on highlighting the information that pertains to corporate websites, social media, and employer branding.  By way of introduction:

  • The report defines three “maturity classes”—Best in Class (20% of respondents), Industry Average (50%), and Laggards (30%)
  • Class placement is assessed on four measures—percentage of new hires that were top choice; year-over-year increase in candidate quality; year-over-year increase in retention; percentage of new hires meeting or exceeding requirements on first review
  • Differences between Best in Class and Laggards were fairly dramatic in some cases—with BiCs getting 90% of their first choice hires, Laggards only 27%, but . . .
  • Laggards were not as far off in employee success measured by first reviews, with the BiCs showing 90%, the Laggards 71%

So what do we learn about Best in Class practices?  Among other things:

  • BICs are much more likely than Laggards to have a well-defined candidate relationship management process in place
  • As a preferred response to economic stress, expanding the candidate pipeline proactively was the top choice for BiCs (39%) and scaling back on recruiting efforts was the bottom choice (14%)
  • BiCs are significantly more likely than Averages and Laggards to use a variety of pre-hire assessments

In terms of how to build/expand the pipeline of quality candidates, the top two BiC choices were:

  • Cultivating employee referrals (which entails the need to increase employee engagement)
  • Maintaining “an engaging and informative company career portal”

As for other aspect of technology–large percentages (70% to 90%) of all three maturity classes have adopted:

  • Applicant tracking systems
  • Hiring management systems
  • Background screening solutions, and
  • Online career portals (both external- and internal-facing)

The gap between BiCs and all others is also relatively small when it comes to the use of “Web 2.0 and social networking,” but in this case the percentages are all low rather than high.  Less than 30% of companies in each maturity class utilize these capabilities now, with another 30% “planning to use.”

Note that (a) this assessment leaves about 40% with neither implementation nor plan, and (b) BiCs are no further along than Laggards.  (Though of the BiCs that do use social networking tools, three-quarters say their recruiters are trained on use of the tools, while just under half of Laggard users have training in place.)

In a related Aberdeen report (HR Executive’s Guide to Web 2.0: Cracking the Code for Talent Management), a survey of more than 500 companies found that less than half were using Web 2.0 and social networking tools for talent acquisition, but noted a 105% rate of growth in use over the the previous year’s figures.  Respondents in that study identified the greatest value of Web 2.0 tools in recruitment as “[giving] the candidate a sense of the company’s culture.”

I hope anyone who gleans further insights from the Aberdeen report will share—and in the meantime, I’ll offer an additional line of thought in the next post.


(Thanks to gthomasbower for the visual mash-up of Number 2.)

Scare Tactics? Debating the “Perils” of Social Media Recruitment

Workforce

Workforce Management has come up with another surprising article.  (The first one was discussed here recently in Cut on the Bias.)  And this time, the fur is flying.

The article is Discriminatory Twist in Networking Sites Puts Recruiters in Peril.  If the title seems a bit melodramatic—it really doesn’t hold a candle to the contents.  Highlights:

  • “Sourcing from professional network sites such as LinkedIn carries a risk that the method could be challenged on discrimination grounds,” says Pamela Devata, a partner at Seyfarth Shaw in Chicago. “It represents a hiring pool that is not open to the general population.”
  • “Networking sites, including Twitter, exclude whole populations,” says Jessica Roe, managing partner at Bernick, Lifson, Greenstein, Greene & Liszt in Minneapolis.  “The social networks represent limited social groups and very small labor pools. It’s an enormous issue.”
  • Paul Mollica, partner at Meites, Mulder, Mollica & Glink in Chicago, has another warning for heavy users of networking sites:  “When the OFCCP [Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs] or plaintiffs’ attorneys come along with a discovery request and want to see the trail for recruiting, these employers are going to come up short,” he contends, because “the records are in a digital mist.”

And it’s not over when the sourcing is done.  In the selection phase, “using social networks to screen candidates generates additional legal risks,” according to the article.  Explains Mollica,“the risk is that visiting Facebook or MySpace pages or even Googling candidates may reveal information that no employer should have in a properly constructed application or interview.”

There are even more perils to be feared, such as the dangers of changing job descriptions and laying off people who were “hired into bad positions.”  But if you want to be thoroughly warned, read the whole article.

In the meantime, let’s take a look at the blowback.  Commenters are mixed in their responses—but one of them (solubrious1) offers this heartfelt response:  “Stop freaking out about pretend legal issues when the real issue is workforce design, the concept of ‘permanent’ work, and the decisions made by political and business leaders (many who also do not use Twitter and Facebook) to de-value Human Resources in the core mission and vision of their organization.”

Meanwhile, one of Workforce Management’s featured blogs (Fistful of Talent) takes aim at the “Discriminatory Twist” article and lets loose with a full-scale rant:  Hey Employment Law “Experts”, You’re Killing My Profession . . .

Worth reading, including the comments.  Choice quote:  “Oh, I forgot.  You only care about promoting your little section of the world, which is risk management from a legal perspective.  In the meantime, you scare, intimidate and generally freeze the average HR person from adopting tools that can help them do their jobs better . . . “

What’s the relevance of all this for the corporate Careers site?  I suspect that similar concerns come up in the context of using social media and blogs as part of employer branding and online recruiting.  The problem is (for all concerned) that Genie has left the bottle, and won’t be going back in.

So the inevitable outcome is “a period of adjustment.”  Those are never fun.

A Cautionary Note


whoa

While doing research for the series on social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn), I came across this must-read article by attorney Lester Rosen, president of Employment Screening Resources.  The title alone makes it worth a stop:  The Rush to Source Candidates from Internet and Social Networking Sites – Let’s Slow Down and Think About This for a Minute. Rosen writes about some potential legal issues that may be associated with social media recruiting–and though there’s not a lot of detail, he points out some topics worth considering.

Beyond the legalities, however, there are several practical aspects of social media recruiting that may deserve more time for thought.

  • First . . . a social media strategy only communicates and amplifies what you have to offer. If the corporate site is lame, luring people there will not net positive results. If job descriptions are uninformative and application processes are overcomplicated, promoting jobs and attracting applicants will not pay off (or at least not well enough). So if social media is not part of a comprehensive strategy, it probably won’t be worth its investment.
  • Second, if a broad-spectrum approach to social media recruiting doesn’t fit your company’s needs, there’s no reason to pursue it. Looking mainly for highly experienced specialists? Forget about Facebook. Seeking highly creative, innovative personnel? They’ve moved on to more exotic arenas (boutique boards, niche sites, affinity groups, etc.) Most companies have a mix of needs, but the key consideration here is to identify targets and objectives before jumping into an aggressive social media strategy.
  • Third–it’s been said often, and by experts, that social media presence is more than just putting Follow Me and Find Us badges on the website. It doesn’t work without a well-tuned approach and knowledgeable management. And it doesn’t work fast! So a half-hearted effort will likely cost money without producing results.
  • A fourth thing to consider: Executive branding expert Meg Guiseppi says baby boomer executives are afraid of LinkedIn and social media. If one of those scaredy-cats is just the man or woman your company needs, they may not be visible online at LinkedIn or anywhere else. Takeaway?  It will take old-fashioned, offline fundamentals to track them down.

And finally–just in time for this post–Recruiting Trends is offering a free webcast titled Sourcing Backlash: Integrating Traditional Approaches with Leading Edge Technologies.  The agenda includes pros and cons of emerging technologies; phone techniques that complement social media; low-tech/low-cost tactics for increasing passive candidate flow; and much more!


(Thanks to hansol for sharing the original “Whoa” sign.)


Phenomenal Facebook, Part 2: Corporate Recruiting


EY Facebook Wall

Global powerhouse Ernst & Young was the first major employer to implement a full-scale Facebook recruiting strategy.  That was at the beginning of 2007—and by September of 2008 (according to a story posted on Attracting Talent) their FB Careers page had 18,000 “fans.”  A year later (according to our own Facebook basics story), that number had almost doubled.

And today?  48,029 People Like the EY Careers page.

That’s a lot of folks.  In fact, about one-third the total number of people already employed by EY.  Among the Facebook fans are former EY interns and employees, as well as people who want to know more about opportunities at Ernst & Young.

As explained in the EY FAQ:

Facebook allows us to share the EY experience with people who are interested in the firm, and creates a way for interns and employees to stay in touch with one another. The group provides a forum for people to share their questions, experiences, and comments regarding the Firm, and we can let you know when we’re coming to your campus for “Meet the Firms” nights, career fairs, on-campus interviews and other events.

Visitors to the EY Careers page will find an Updates tab (with news and useful information), as well as tabs dedicated to the specific interests of students and experienced professionals.  On the Wall tab, people post (usually) relevant questions about EY opportunities and (sometimes) get answers.

EY Facebook Students


EY Facebook Experienced


EY Facebook Wall


There are no job postings—the Facebook version of EY careers is focused on showing off the employer brand, and on creating engagement.  And it’s engagement approach is so successful that I actually wanted to look around, even though I’m about as far away from an interest in accounting as it’s possible to get.

Ernst & Young is hands-down the poster child of corporate recruiting on Facebook.  So are there any other good examples out there?  Judge for yourself by visiting:

Microsoft Careers

Taco Bell Careers

Science Careers

Accenture Careers (US)

MTV Networks Careers

State Farm Careers

Hyatt Hotels and Resorts Careers

 

Up next in the Phenomenal Facebook series: Enabling Facebook recruiting.


Leveraging LinkedIn


chainlink

Twitter, Facebook, and . . . can’t leave out LinkedIn.  LinkedIn is the social media platform that really was designed for business, and it has some powerful capabilities, especially in terms of locating passive candidates and recruiting executives.  But nowadays there’s a lot more to consider in constructing a social media strategy, so it’s important to see how these three players fit together.

Recruiting’s Smart Experiment with Social Media offers a flyover of the whole social media landscape, with lots of examples and links.  Excellent starting point.

Now drill down–way down–with Computerworld’s Facebook vs LinkedIn smackdown.  It’s a bit ancient, having come out last year, so there may be features/capabilities not noted.  But the article explores six real-life business scenarios (such as “research a company you’re interviewing with” or “find a contract resource”), explains how each platform could be used as a tool in that scenario, and declares a winner.

I’ve already done several posts about using LinkedIn for recruiting, and it’s quite easy to find opinions and advice on this topic, so I won’t go over old ground.  But here are a couple of news items:

12 Ways to Use LinkedIn Today offers a dozen smart tips for making the most of any LinkedIn presence.  Remember–LinkedIn is a two-way street, which means that recruiters and companies have to be just as sharp and savvy as job seekers!

SAP just announced a special LinkedIn app for its channel partners.  Not entirely clear how good the value proposition is, since pricing has not been announced–but companies desperate to find those elusive SAP all-stars may find it worthwhile.  And more to the point, this looks like a harbinger of more LinkedIn link-ups to come.

Last stop on today’s tour . . . visit the buffed-up LinkedIn Talent Advantage site for some webcasts and case studies that actually do offer good information about LinkedIn as a recruiting tool.  More tips and news at their blog.


(Thanks to Sharon Mollerus for the chainlink glamor shot.)


Does It Matter Who Gets to the Future First?

you-are-here

To put the title question another way–if the tools and skills (and website) you have now are getting the job done, do you need to be panting after the “next new thing”?

Back in 2003, Dale Dougherty of O’Reilly Media coined the term “Web 2.0” to distinguish the interactive, social-media-driven Internet we have all become familiar with from the static, document-driven Internet now known as “Web 1.0.”  And soon after, “Web 3.0” began to be described as an evolution that would be:

  • Artificially intelligent (that is, able to “think” meaningfully, rather than just shuffle facts)
  • Semantic (with data organized so well that machines don’t need much human intervention to figure things out)
  • Virtual (looking more like a “real” world rather than the familiar text-and-graphics version we see now)
  • Ubiquitous (with lots of integrated devices, platforms and media that operate together seamlessly)

But subsequent developments have complicated that early projection of a smarter, sleeker web.  For one thing, it appears that most people don’t particularly care about entering a visually virtualized world online.  Once the new wears off, the experience is just not worth the cost of development and the overhead placed on desktop processing.  For another thing, there’s now so much useless and redundant data choking the web that organizing it has evolved into an entirely different kind of problem.  And beyond that–we’re already awash in ubiquity.  Think iPhone.  Think wifi.  Think Twitter . . .

Does anyone really want more??

So Web 3.0 has become more of a marketing label than a technology vision, used to hype concepts like cloud computing, products like bing and twine, and an array of start-ups, expos, conferences, etc.   Meanwhile, the cognoscenti have moved on to other ways of talking about the future of computing and the role of the Internet.  (You can get a feel for this sort of speculation at sites like Tetherless World and The Singularity Institute.)

In more practical terms, however . . . what’s really crucial for the near future is a shift from working with key “words” to key “relationships.”  And that brings us back to recruiting and the next new thing.

As a recent commenter (on the KSAs post) pointed out here, the whole process of online recruiting today is disproportionately driven by keywords.  Here’s a true (and truly absurd) example:  When my resume–which includes experience in data warehousing–was public, I regularly received job offers for warehouse jobs.  The forklift kind, not the business intelligence kind.  And I’m sure that if recruiters were looking on LinkedIn for dock workers, I’d probably still be getting notified of such “opportunities.”

So the answer to today’s title question is:  You bet.

Whoever first gets hold of a tool that will find and read resumes in context for meaningful relationships will get to the best employees fastest and make the best hires in their industry.  That tool–at least in my fantasy–will:

  • Scour the web for passive candidates and sift through gazillions of applicant submissions in a twinkling
  • Create “candidate portfolios” that include profiles of their social media presence; summaries of past positions and employers in terms of relevance; evaluations of writing and organization in the resume/cover letter; plus much more
  • Bring to your desktop the cream of the prospect crop, with all the tools your need for personalized candidate communications, and
  • Provide a big-picture presentation of the entire candidate pool (with source breakout), as well as a statistical analysis of all the candidates and their rankings, flagging outliers (candidates with potential value that might not be recognized on the basis of standard parameters) and recommending improvements for future searches

Vendors: Write in if you have this tool.

(Thanks to chokola for the evocative photo.  FYI, the particular “here” in the photo is Williamsburg, NY.)