Corporate Eye

...compare, compete, excel

Careers

Speaking from Experience! Now, About Transformability…

In Hiring for Fast-growing Departments or Companies (an interesting article on ere.net), consultants Tony Kubica and Sara LaForest contend the two key issues for successful hiring in rapid-growth conditions are alignment and transformability.  In their words:

Alignment addresses the passion and skills the person brings to the organization, and their fit within the organization. Transformability is hiring the person not for the job as it exists today, but as it will exist tomorrow. Addressing the alignment issue without considering the transformability issue will likely result in hiring the wrong person.

I’ll guess that the concept of assessing alignment is already familiar.  More than just matching the skills to the job—it’s finding someone who’s a good fit for the culture and has an enthusiasm for the goals and challenges of the position.

Not that it’s always easy to achieve alignment in hiring (or to maintain it across the organization), but the concept is familiar HR terrain.  Transformability, on the other hand, may be terra incognita.  In evaluating this quality, you are basically asking “Can this candidate evolve with the job?”

Kubica and LaForest make the point that in hiring for a fast-growing entity, recruiters should be “looking for candidates who fit the future, not just the current, job requirements.”  But I would go a step further:

Today, some companies may be fast-growing, but many are fast-shrinking.  And most are engaged in some kind of change.  With the entire ground of business undergoing shifts, from small tremors to major quakes, transformability may be a vital key for hiring in the majority of organizations.

My own experience connects up here because I’ve worked as a contractor/freelancer/consultant for most of my career.  Flexibility and tolerance for ambiguity (!) are qualities I’ve cultivated, and they have always been viewed as an advantage by the organizations I’ve worked for.  But I’ve noticed that those same organizations, when hiring full-time employees, look for a tight fit with the specific job requirements—and often end up with a workforce that doesn’t respond to change very well.

In transformational projects, change management is always a huge challenge.  Not just on the practical level, but on the cultural level.  So maybe, since the times they are a-changin’ faster and faster, transformability (“the ability to be transformed”) ought to be in the forefront of consideration for all hiring at all companies.

But.  Based on what I’m seeing in the market right now, the trend may actually be in the opposite direction.  With budgets tight, only the most necessary positions are being filled, and there’s a view that every hire has to be a slam dunk.  That means extra emphasis on “fit,” and less consideration for the kinds of strategic qualities that could seem like a luxury.

Thought experiment:  What if every job had two descriptions?  A “now” version, and a “maybe” version.  Now the job is selling widgets, but maybe it will soon be marketing the art of widgetry.  The best candidate might be the one who can imagine making that transition.

Speaking from Experience! About Applications and . . .

something called “Transformability.”  Two separate topics, but I’ve had reason to think about both lately—so here are a few comments:

First.  I had to fill out a job application online.  Only sort of a “job” application, really, because I was responding to a project opening advertised on a fairly specialized niche board, and it was not a full-time employee position, but rather a part-time, virtual “opportunity.”  In short, the sort of thing that is usually handled by submitting a CV, samples, cover, etc.  However the entity involved is an educational institution, and they wanted an application, so by golly, I jumped into the process.

NOT a good experience!

There were two problems.  (A) The application was a complete misfit for the opportunity, asking questions that not only didn’t apply, but really couldn’t be answered by most people who would be responding.  But (B) even if I had been seeking the kind of position the application was designed for, the process of filling it out would have been very frustrating.  It went on for MANY pages/screens, with no indication of where I was in the process, or when (if ever) it might end.  When I started the application I had no hint of what would be involved—and once I began, the only connection to the application form was the Continue button.  The path  of no choice just led deeper into the maze, and since the MANY questions in the application had no groupings and no discernible order, it wasn’t even possible to make an educated guess about how far along I might be.

The questions on each page were in a complete vacuum (i.e., no context, no way of referencing previous questions)—and I began to notice that new questions were similar to ones I’d already encountered.  I wondered how question 36 differed from the very similar 23.  No way to compare.  So was the similarity a psychological test of consistency?  Why else ask twice in different ways?  Was it nuanced, or just careless?!

And there’s always a slim chance the whole thing was intended to discourage applicants, or test their tolerance for frustration.  But more likely, I’d guess that different stakeholders wanted to have their questions included on the application in their very own words, so the form became kind of a collage, with similar questions that might be redundant–or might merit completely different answers if the applicant had any context to go by.  Who knows?

Very likely, someone just took the paper application and made it clickable, so all the problems of the original became that much worse.  As for my experience–with no way to stop and save the work I’d already put in, I slogged on to the end, but was pretty cranky by the time I put N/A into the last blank.  One thing I was sure of:  the completed application did not provide very much that would be useful for evaluating me as a candidate.

I see that my rant has used up all of today’s post, so Transformability will have to be covered next time.  Meanwhile, some suggested takeaways:

  • See how upsetting a bad application form can be?
  • Web-based application forms need to be web-user-friendly.  Putting a paper application online is bad.
  • Different types of opportunities require different types of applications—or at least enough flexibility for the form to be used in different ways by different applicants.  One-size-fits-all is bad!

Off the Wall! Three Irresistible Ideas


Oogst 1000

Serendipity has led me to several items that are just so interesting I have to share.  One actually has practical application, another is a cautionary tale—and the third is an inspiration.

Let’s start with the inspiration, since that’s connected with today’s eye-catching illustration.  Yes!  It’s a completely serious design for a “self-sufficient farm, restaurant, hotel and amusement park for 1,000 people per day.”  In the Oogst 1000 Wonderland:

  • Everything is linked by technology to create a self-sustainable system.
  • All food for the restaurant comes from the farm.
  • Visitors can learn about sustainable agriculture while they vacation.

The idea comes from Dutch design firm Tjep, and it’s part of a series that includes a house/farm that will provide one person with everything they need to live: greenhouse-grown food, solar and wind energy, and a completely self-contained oxygen atmosphere.

Relevance for the corporate website?  Surprise your visitors, at least occasionally.  Don’t just rely on “Careers page” stereotypes.  Add some imagination.

The second item is more practical, although application in the recruiting sector looks to be still in the future.  Mingle 360 has introduced a really fun and useful concept/product/service that let’s people use a gadget to exchange/capture information.  The “MingleStick” is just a little bigger than a typical memory stick, and as of now, it’s mainly for use at events, such as tradeshows and conventions.  Attendees use the MingleStick to click each other instead of exchanging business cards, and back home, they can see/store/organize their captured information in Mingle Manager.

There’s also social networking integration with Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn.  And exhibitors can use a desktop MingleStation receiver that ties lead retrieval into the total package.

Some of my favorite career experiences have been associated with the tradeshow industry—and as a veteran on both sides of the aisle, I just see Mingle as a great idea. The current business model seems geared toward very large events (1000+), but it appears there would be a natural potential for use in more specialized settings, such as job fairs and career events.  I’ve asked the company for additional information (including some ideas about cost-effectiveness) and will provide more Mingle info in a subsequent post.

The final idea is really only half-irresistible, but that was too long to explain in the post title.  Mine Magazine, a personalized/customized print/online delivery platform from Time, Inc., got decidedly mixed reviews in its early outings.  A few folks liked it much more than they expected to, while others really didn’t—and (as far as I know) there’s no telling yet whether the project will progress, morph, or die.  But there is something important to consider about the attempt itself.  That being:

Everyone recognizes that the whole process of information delivery is changing fast.  Some of the familiar methods taken for granted in the past (print newspapers, for example, and broadcast television) are going to change radically in the future, while  some of the newer formats we rely on today (like the website!) are already losing their effectiveness.  So every smart company is looking for ways to change ahead of the curve, rather than falling behind.

The conventional corporate website is beginning to take on a “vintage” look–and nowhere is that more apparent than in the Careers sector.  What’s the plan at your company for the evolution of web presence?

2010 is just around the corner . . .

Cut on the Bias? Race and (Un)employment . . .


Scissors 1

A recent article on the Workforce Management website points out that job openings in America have decreased by 36% since May of 2008.  There are a lot of obvious consequences related to this fact.  But the article goes on to consider a couple of the less obvious by-products.

The first is concerned with race:

The recession is replicating racial disparities documented in earlier downturns. In June [2009], the official unemployment rate hit 14.7 percent for blacks and 12.2 percent for Hispanics, compared with 8.7 percent for whites.  Racial disparities in the unemployment rates appear across all levels of educational attainment. When employers can generate large numbers of applicants from limited outreach or even a single source, the pool of candidates becomes increasingly homogeneous.

The second is about perception:

“The concept of passive candidates is fiction,” [says John Younger, CEO of recruiting firm Accolo]. “We’re all temporaries. In normal times, if a candidate has been out of work for six months, there might be an assumption that something is wrong with the candidate. Today, there are world-class experts in every function who are not working, but there is still a preference for employed candidates.”

I added the italics in both these quotes to emphasize what I think are important points.  While it might make sense to reduce the volume of applications when there are too few people to review them, the way that’s done can reflect personal and/or institutional biases toward (or away from) particular groups.  Bias can affect choices regardless of intention, and may remain invisible when busy people are just trying to function effectively under challenging circumstances.

Still another problem is surfaced in the Workflow Management article.  Accolo—which is a pretty big operation—aggressively pursues diversity among the applicants it presents to its clients.  However, according to the examples offered by Younger, that isn’t doing much good.  He reports using both broad-reach sites (Monster, Yahoo, Craigslist, etc.) and also niche boards (targeted toward minorities, older candidates, and women) in an attempt to achieve a more diverse candidate pool, yet the percentage of black and Hispanic applicants is still very low.

The article offers no speculation on this point, but I’d be very curious to understand why the groups that are disproportionately unemployed are also the groups that are disproportionately not applying for jobs.  There could be a skewing effect based on the types of jobs being offered in the Accolo examples—but there could also be other factors at work . . .   A higher level of discouragement among minorities?  A higher rate of migration from employment to self-employment?  Subtle disincentives from employers/recruiters?

Obviously, the article raises more questions than it answers.  But I’ll add one more query to the mix:  Are some companies changing their websites and/or their messaging to discourage applicants, and thereby reduce the quantity of candidates to be managed?  I have no idea, but it seems like something worth wondering about.


(Thanks to DrBacchus for the excellent image of scissors “at work.”)

From the Inbox: Tips for Great Tweets, plus a Serious Subject


at-sign

Two items found in my email recently are definitely worth passing along.

First:  Using Twitter for Employment Branding? 15 Things Recruiters Can Tweet About . . . is a concise, creative checklist of ways to make Twitter make sense as a recruiting tool.  Tweeting career advice, sharing interview examples, announcing offers and new hires, posting event photos-real-life ideas and information that will make your Twitterstream actually interesting!

The post is so perfect that I won’t try to summarize here.  Instead I’ll just suggest you print it out, laminate it, and keep it in plain sight at all times.  Even if you don’t tweet, these suggestions can be utilized in a variety of other ways to enrich HR communications.

While you’re at it, check out some other smart advice from the same author (Jessica Lee, a Senior Employment Manager for APCO Worldwide), such as Social Media Won’t Do a Thing for Your Employment Brand if Your Brand Simply Sucks. Partly I just like the title, but the post is also a good reminder that realism is often the first casualty of social-media enthusiasm.

At the opposite end of the spectrum is an item from the Workforce Management website:  Employers Grapple with Rise in Workplace Suicides.  According to this important article, “there was a 28 percent increase in the number of suicides committed in the workplace last year–251–compared with the prior year, according to a census by the U.S. Department of Labor released in August.”

Note that 251 is the number of suicides actually committed in the workplace.   That doesn’t include the much greater number of employees who take their lives elsewhere.  The piece goes on to explore some reasons behind this trend, and provides some advice, along with links to related discussions.  Again, I won’t summarize–but I urge you to read the article.

What does workplace suicide have to do with recruiting in general, and with the corporate website in particular?  Here’s one connection:

Positive corporate values, a supportive workplace culture, respect for life/work balance, and a constructive approach to diversity are intangible benefits that improve the employee experience and should be highlighted on the website, just like tangible benefits such as health insurance and 401Ks.  In addition, the availability of Employee Assistance Programs and mental health coverage are valuable assets that enhance the employer brand.

Most people don’t join a company expecting to experience a life crisis–but they would like to know that if or when they do, they can expect help and not harm from their employer.  When a prospect evaluates a company, that’s one of the assurances he or she seeks, even if not consciously.


Boost Website Appeal with Tourism Lessons

 

la_turbie_1894_poster

According to SmartBlog on Workforce, this presentation was a hit at the recent annual conference of SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management):

10 Ways To Jazz Your Recruiting and Employee Self-Service Web Sites: Learn from Top Tourism Sites

Description: “Attract and retain top talent through your recruiting Web site and employee portal using the design concepts from the world’s top tourism sites. These sites offer rich, interactive and personalized experiences-the same keys that will boost the effectiveness of your online HR presence. Mr. Rotella will share strategic elements to enhance your Web site.”  Presenter: Joe Rotella, chief technical officer, Delphia Consulting

As of now it appears you will have to time-travel back to the June meeting in order to get the presentation in toto, and I didn’t find further information in the SmartBlog post (or on Rotella’s site) concerning the proposed parallel between recruiting sites and tourism sites.  But my fantasy of what that means is pretty simple:  Tourism sites are designed to make people want to visit [wherever].  A recruiting site should be designed to make people want to work at [wherever].

Simple, maybe.  Important?  Definitely.

The Smartblog summary included a few highlights from the presentation, selected by poster Mary Ellen Slayter.  Here are three of her descriptions–and these points would definitely help in making the corporate Career site more like “invitation to the perfect cruise” and less like “here’s some stuff about jobs at our company.”

  • Get rid of your FAQ. “It’s the junk drawer” of the Web, Rotella said. You should be incorporating that information into your regular content.
  • Know what type of content appeals to your users. And be particularly cautious about using glitzy flash applications. People usually skip them, he said. “Why do you want to pay me to build you one?”
  • Avoid using generic addresses for submitting questions or resumes. “People want to talk to people, not ‘hr@’.”

Some thoughts:

Two thumbs up for the point about email addresses!!  This is one the lowest-hanging items in the fruit basket (i.e., a cheap and easy improvement), yet an amazing number of companies overlook the opportunity.

Two more thumbs up regarding Flash.  Seriously–meaningless motion just looks like filler nowadays.  The new has worn off, and in these serious times, most visitors do not want to spend minutes watching a company romance flick (or even a company action/adventure flick).  The bigger point here:  Think about what your actual target audience would actually want to see and do on your site.  Here again, an amazing number of companies just don’t take that seemingly obvious step.

But about the FAQ . . . I can’t entirely agree.  “Don’t use it as a junk drawer” is spot-on advice.  It shouldn’t be a miscellany or an afterthought!  But that doesn’t mean the FAQ can’t serve a useful function.  FIRST, be sure that every item of needed information is included appropriately in the part of the site where it fits.  THEN, organize and summarize important information and links in an FAQ-type format that will be genuinely helpful to visitors.

Bottom line:  The problem is not the FAQ per se.  The problem is using it in a lazy way!