Corporate Eye

...compare, compete, excel

Careers

Interesting Insights from the 2009 Groundswell Awards


Groundswell

If you haven’t heard of the Groundswell Awards—not to worry.  It appears this is just the third year for the fairly small competition, sponsored by Forrester via the Groundswell weblog which apparently spins off the book named Groundswell (stick with me here) by Forrester analyst Josh Bernoff and consultant Charlene Li.  Everything I know about the awards I learned from reading the Forrester Groundswell Awards Rules, which says:

“Entries should represent excellent and effective use of social technologies to advance an organizational or corporate goal.”

Sounds good!  And there is a recruiting-related category in the awards, which we’ll get to in a minute.  But first, here’s what especially interested me about the Groundswells:  (a) the structure of categories, and (b) the proportionality of the submissions.

Submitters have to choose a category that best fits what they see as the strength of their submission.  The categories loosely parallel the ideas in the book, and they go like this:

Listening. Find out what customers are really saying in order to understand them better.

Talking. Spread messages about a company.

Energizing. Get a company’s best customers to evangelize its products.

Spreading. Get customers or users within a company to encourage others to adopt a product or service. (B2B only.)

Supporting. Help customers support each other to solve each other’s problems.

Embracing. Integrate customers into the way a business works, including using their help to design products and improve processes.

Managing. Empower employees and managers within an organization.

Social Impact. Improve society with non-commercial applications.

Even apart from the social media component, this list strikes me as a pretty good anatomy of all the things a corporate Careers site needs to do.  Just put “visitors/prospects/applicants/candidates” after each verb, and you would have a fine strategic outline.  That is—“Listening to visitors,” “Energizing prospects,” “Embracing candidates,” “Managing applicants,” and so on.  (Social Impact applies via messaging about corporate responsibility, green-ness, etc.)

Now for proportionality.  Groundswell helpfully offers mini-views of all the submissions, so we know how many submitters put themselves in each category.  Just guess which Business-to-Consumer category had the most entrants by far . . . .

That’s right.  TALKING.

In spite of all the wisdom out there about listening, most companies are still focused on pushing the message.  Business-to-Business was more evenly distributed—but showed even less interest in Listening than the B2Cs.  Here’s the Groundswell breakout:

Groundswell Submissions

Topic to consider:  Does your company’s Careers site have a listening component?  How hard would visitors have to look to find the listening component?

The Groundswell award for something to do with employees is (somewhat oddly) Managing, and for some reason, it’s bundled up with non-profits.  But in any case—this year’s winner is UPSjobs Problem Solved, “a ‘spreadable’ social media campaign to efficiently and more cost-effectively attract, engage, and recruit jobseekers.”

But I found one of the other entrants especially interesting:  The Employee First campaign at India’s HCL Technologies, where “all 55,000 employees of HCL Technologies are given intranet access allowing them to read the reviews of HCL’s CEO Vineet Nayar and the company’s top 20 managers.”

Stop by the HCL Careers site to read more about Employee First, and the “Five Fold Path to Individual Enlightenment.”  Very interesting.




Two Simple Rules for Better Job Descriptions


Decoder Ring

I recently had occasion to look at a job description for an IT contract position.  I could recognize a lot of the words, but the way they were put together gave me almost no clue what the company really needs someone to do.  So I called a friend who’s pretty far up the IT food chain and read it to him, just in case I was being dim.  Neither of our secret decoder rings was up to the task, however, so we could only speculate about what the job might really be—or who could do it well.

This description came from a big company and went through a reputable recruiting agency.  In this case, of course, part of the problem relates to the process itself, since in many cases outside recruiters cannot talk to the hiring manager in order to clarify the description and requirements.  So if the hiring manager—or whoever wrote the description—is not very good at describing jobs, an HR intermediary may not know the difference, and the mystery document will just get propagated out to the recruiter(s) and passed on to the prospects.

Internal processes can be just as problematic–and when a confusing or inadequate job description makes it onto the Careers site or the job boards, job-seekers are at a considerable disadvantage, since they have nothing else to go by.  In these days, when applications are many and keywords often rule, applicants have to figure out how to highlight their qualifications; and that’s tricky when the requirements are not clear.

In the description that prompted this post, I found several common problems, such as:

  • Requirements that just say “Understanding of X”.  (The spectrum of interpretations that can be applied to “understanding” is broad indeed!  Define the word?  Know X when you see it?  Eat, sleep and breath X?)
  • Requirements that seem to be repeating other requirements in different words.    (Is there a subtle-but-important distinction?  Or just two different authors?  Perhaps a careless revision?)
  • Requirements that use names in a vague way, and/or acronyms.  (Is the requirement referring to ” X the product” or “X the methodology”?  Is that unfamiliar acronym a variant, a typo, an internal reference, or just something that hasn’t made it to Wikipedia yet?)

I could go on.  But the net result is that candidates for this position will not have a good idea of what’s involved in the job until/unless they get as far as an interview.  Therefore they won’t be able to make an informed decision about applying or not.  They won’t be able to tailor their resumes appropriately.  Et cetera.

And the manager(s) will spend unnecessary time looking for the “right” person, who might not even be found.  A lot of misfire hires result from failure to define and describe a job effectively.

People can learn to write better job descriptions, and they should.  But in the end, there are two really basic practices that will make a huge difference:

  • Use simple sentences.
  • Use simple words.

Just following those “simple” rules will eliminate ambiguity most of the time.  And don’t take my word for it.  Get some good advice from HRDailyAdvisor.  (Yes, they’re selling something, but the advice is good anyway.)


(Want your own “decoder ring”?  Get it from the Exploratorium.)

A Ten-minute Tour: Ideas and Info on Timely Topics


Stopwatch

Here’s the itinerary:

1.Start at Inflexion Point and read The Future of HR—Why “Do Nothing” Is an Option to see why Mark Stelzner thinks the “transformation” of HR is highly desirable, but probably unlikely.  (My paraphrase, in a nutshell:  Second Law of Thermodynamics.)

2. Click on Comments and scan the interesting discussion that follows.  Susan Burns wonders “whether or not HR is evolving in sync with the broader transformation taking place in business? With the societal and cultural shifts taking place locally, regionally, nationally and globally?”

3. Skim through Deloitte’s HR Transformation Survey, mentioned in the Inflexion Point post. One highlight:  Of the C-level executives surveyed, more than 90% think Compensations/Benefits is the HR task most likely to be outsourced, less than 40% point to Recruiting/Staffing.  Another highlight . . . more than 80% see cost savings as the key driver for HR transformation, while a mere 30% want to free up HR for a more strategic role.

4. Side trip:  Rosabeth Moss Kanter offers a list of Top Ten Ways to Find Joy at Work–and the advice is not actually what you might expect.  Favorite quote:  “exerting leadership is the surest route to joy (other than going fishing). The key is setting the agenda and starting the pieces moving towards a purpose-driven goal. If 90% of success in life is just showing up, Monster.com founder Jeff Taylor advises that when you show up, you might as well run the meeting.”

5. Wind up at Learning Putty for 7 Creative Ways to Introduce Social Media to Your Team.  I like them all, but “Give the Gift of Social Media” is my favorite.

    Okay—that’s two minutes for each stop.  Read fast!


    (Thanks to wwarby for the timely timepiece.)


    Down the Garden Path: Anatomy of an Unfortunate User Experience

    Obstacle Course

    I recently took a rather twisty trip through the website of a “membership organization, think tank and educational resource.”  I was trying to access a report,  and since I do that sort of thing a lot—for an assortment of different topics I write about– I’m pretty accustomed to the various strategies utilized to extract (a) information about me, and (b) money from me.  But some extra challenges made this attempt worth a post.

    The following comments are not about this particular organization, which is not only respectable but also provides value.  It’s just that their website offers an excellent example of the “unfortunate user experience.”

    Here’s what happened:

    • I went through the registration process in order to access a specific report.  I wasn’t surprised when it turned out (many screens later) that the report itself wasn’t accessible under the “free” membership level.
    • But I persisted, and it turned out that a briefing-style version of the report is in fact free.  Actually, there are several kinds of free content available on the site, some of it high-value.  But!  You don’t know this until you try accessing a variety of items, and occasionally stumble on something you can view without charge.
    • For some types of free content, including the briefing I was trying to see, you still have to put the item in a “cart” and go through a “check-out” process.  There’s no charge, but every time you “buy” a free content item, the system sends you an email confirming the “purchase.”  And of course you are offered frequent opportunities to “upgrade” your membership.
    • Finally (although I could go on for much longer), the briefing turned out to be in slide format.  Not a problem in itself, but the page is arranged so awkwardly (due to a humongous–yet pointless!–banner at the top) that you have to scroll far down even to see the slide.  And you have to do that for EVERY SLIDE, because the slideshow does not play automatically.  The slide display is a fixed size (quite large), which means you have to scroll down even further after viewing a slide in order to see the notes (which contain most of the information).

    Now here’s why all that is important—and relevant.  This website committed several offenses against the user, and the organization lost brand credibility in the process.  Notably:

    1. Expectations violation. At the beginning I thought of the organization as an information resource, but by the end of my visit, I thought of it mainly as marketing machine.  And a dysfunctional one, at that.  Did I mention that the “new member orientation” slideshow did not work?
    2. 2. Unnecessary inconvenience. And did I mention that every single thing you do on this site results in opening a new tab?  (At least in Firefox—didn’t test in IE.)  In trying to register and access just one report, I ended up with about a dozen tabs.  And that’s only a single example from a series of challenges encountered during the visit.  Each was relatively minor in itself, but they added up to a significant level of aggravation.
    3. Mixed messaging. By the end of my visit I had been exposed to many labels, logos, and taglines, but had no idea about the actual purpose of the organization.  Every page I visited delivered a different message—and returning to the home page provided no help.  It is so crammed with links (including literally dozens of sponsor badges) and things to buy or sign up for that I still cannot tell you what their essential value proposition(s) is/are.

    Your company’s Careers site is probably not in danger of seeming too much like a store.  But it may well be violating expectations in other ways, as well as causing unnecessary inconvenience and delivering mixed messages.   Those failings won’t deter people who need a job from searching the posted openings.  However, they will be a discouragement for quality candidates in search of career opportunities with a quality company.

    The site I’ve been critiquing actually had some very good information to offer, once I figured out how to work the system.  So I’ll visit again—but I won’t look forward to it.


    (The illustration is a plan view of the garden at Chateau de Choisy, a seventeenth-century French palace.)

    And Now for Something Completely Different: Happiness at Work


    Monty Python

    In honor of the fortieth anniversary of Monty Python’s Flying Circus, here’s a slightly quirky post.

    As a quick reminder for those who don’t remember, MPFC was a British television series (1969-1975) featuring comedy sketches so satirically wacky that many people, even today, can recite/re-enact some of the most popular segments.  E.g., “Dead Parrot,” “Spam,” or “Confuse-a-Cat.”  (Can’t resist a little Python nostalgia?  Find all the sketch scripts here.)

    What makes Monty Python relatively relevant to a column about Careers is that troupe-member John Cleese went on to found Video Arts, a company that makes/distributes training videos which “help you put across your learning messages in an entertaining and memorable way.”  They combine humor with business expertise, in a style that might be called charming . . . or campy . . . or both.  But see for yourself, with previews of several Recruiting/Interviewing videos.

    Cleese also appears at companies and conferences around the world, amusing and inspiring audiences with a message about creativity in business.  Which brings us to the second part of this topic:  What makes potential employees really want to work for your company?

    After monetary motives—ranging from really, really needing a job to really, really wanting a better compensation package—the main thing most people wonder is “will I be happy at Company X?”  (Or at least not unhappy.)  And one of the ways many prospects make that judgment is by a visit to the corporate Career site.

    Hence the popularity of employee interviews extolling the company culture, day-in-the-life videos, and so on.  But of course all that is staged, as everybody knows—not necessarily with a dishonest intent, just with a certain amount of inevitable manipulation.  So direct messaging may have only a limited effect on savvy prospects.

    Which leaves indirect messaging.  The “look and feel” of the corporate Career site communicates at a deep level the way a company views life and work.  Site visitors pick up that communication without necessarily even realizing it.  They just go away with an impression that may be stronger than anything they actually read (or heard) in the direct messaging.

    Yet as a rule, no one in the organization is tasked with asking some fundamental questions that would ensure effective delivery of the good-place-to-work message.  Several of the needed considerations have been discussed in previous posts, but here’s a convenient recap and checklist:

    • Do clear organization and intuitive navigation create a pleasant visitor experience?
    • Are the colors and images not just “inoffensive” but actually interesting and memorable?
    • Are there touches of humor and imagination?
    • Does the site offer evidence (not just glib assurances) to demonstrate the company’s social engagement, sensitivity to work-life balance, commitment to diversity?
    • Will visitors leave with something that persists—a communication link, helpful tips, useful insights, next steps?

    If prospects don’t feel valued during their website visit, they are unlikely to assume the company will suddenly start to value them as candidates or as employees.  First impressions!

    Or as the Monty Python boys say:  “A nod’s as good as a wink to a blind bat, eh?”

    Talent Acquisition 2009: On the Other Hand . . .


    Big 3

    This is the third post considering Aberdeen’s recent report, Talent Acquisition Strategies 2009: Cutting through the Clutter and Proactively Managing Quality Candidates,  and the goal is to drill down on a couple of aspects.  Starting off, here’s an essential assumption of the report, based on the drivers defined by respondents:

    More companies are competing for the same skills or competencies, but are doing so from a pool of quality candidates that has not grown in proportion to the overall pool of available labor.

    That really is an interesting proposition.  I interpret it to mean that (as a simple example) if there were 100 candidates for Job X in 2005, 20 were really top drawer, and if there are 500 candidates for Job X today, fewer than 100 of them would be excellent.  And whereas 10 companies were competing for the top 20 folks in 2005, 20 companies (let’s say) might be going after the fewer-than-100 great catches in 2009.

    The seriousness of this problem would depend on the actual shrinkage of the high-quality pool, and the actual increase of the competing-companies quotient.  Let’s say it’s half and twice:  50 of 500 candidates are highly desirable, and 20 companies are competing for them.

    This brings up a big question:  Why are there fewer excellent candidates?  The obvious answer would be that the best folks are holding onto their jobs and the candidate pool is filling up with the least successful employees.  And that would make the hunt for passive candidates even more urgent.

    But there might also be additional explanations for the presumed decline in candidate quality.  One might be that expectations are rising—so an excellent 2005 candidate would be considered merely adequate today.  That might flow from tighter budgets and increasing scrutiny of new-hire performance, creating pressure to maximize the value of every hire.

    Another explanation might be that (incredibly enough) high-value workers are leaving the corporate playing field for entrepreneurial opportunities and even non-profits.  Reverse immigration could also be a factor, along with a retirement differential effect, in which the better-off boomers leave the workforce while the less successful have to remain.

    So what does all this argue in terms of online recruitment?  For one thing, this may be a good time for companies to reassess their expectations to make sure “good” candidates are not overlooked while everyone searches for the elusive “best” candidates.  And for another—companies need to be increasingly creative in their recruiting if they want to entice the reluctant and attract the excellent.

    The Aberdeen report seems to emphasize a by-the-numbers approach, in which the Best in Class are all doing all the same “right” things.  But sometimes coloring outside the lines is a good way to break away from the pack.

    One last contrarian thought.  Aberdeen’s report focuses on strategy, tactics, and tools.  All good.  But there’s something else worth considering.   In How to Harness Instinct and Intuition to Make Better Business and Career Decisions, CIO notes that “When CIOs discuss the worst candidates they’ve ever hired for jobs, as they often do in CIO.com’s  Hiring Manager Interviews series, their hiring mistakes almost always come down to this: I didn’t trust my gut. The CIO knows deep down that the candidate isn’t right for the position or the IT organization, ignores his instincts and hires the individual anyway.”

    Check out the CIO story for some interesting ideas about why the gut-check is an indispensable aspect of successful decision-making.


    (Thanks to pastaboysleeps for the BIG Number 3.)