Corporate Eye

...compare, compete, excel

Careers

Online Screening: Some Surprising Statistics


magnifying-glass-2

As social media plays an increasingly large role in job-hunting and recruitment, the “public persona” is bound to become more and more important.  Job seekers research the employer, so employers work to build a persuasive employer brand.  (Or at least they ought to!)

So should job-seekers build their own “brands” by crafting a search-friendly online identity?  It looks as if those who don’t may swiftly fall behind . . .

A recent CareerBuilder survey found that 45% of employers use social networking sites to screen applicants–and that’s double the number from last year’s result.  That in itself is surprising, but I was even more amazed at this figure:  35% of employers report finding content on social networking sites that caused them not to hire a candidate.   The top reason (53%) was “candidate posted provocative or inappropriate photographs or information,” followed closely by “candidate posted content about drinking or using drugs” (44%).  Criticizing former employers, co-workers or clients came in at 35%, with poor communication skills (29%), discriminatory comments (26%), lies about qualifications (24%) and sharing confidential information from past employers (20%) rounding out the mix.

On the other hand . . . only 18% of employers reported that online screening had a positive effect on their decision to hire a candidate.  In those cases, 50% of the time it was because a profile “provided a good feel for the candidate’s personality and fit with the organization,” while 19% of the time it was because other people posted good references about the candidate.  In between, were some interesting reasons in the 35% range:  “candidate was creative”; “candidate showed solid communication skills”; and “candidate was well-rounded.”

Unsurprising numbers:  The industries most likely to include online screening (via social networking sites and/or search engines) in their review process were Information Technology and Professional/Business Services.  The most frequently researched sites were Facebook (29%), LinkedIn (26%), and MySpace (21%), followed distantly by blogs and following candidates on Twitter.

Best for last:  14% of employers disregarded a candidate “because the candidate sent a message using an emoticon.”  The surprise here was not that employers found the smiley-face a turn-off, but that there were enough emoticon-includers to produce a statistical effect.   (Much as I love emoticons personally, they just can’t be used safely until you’re not only hired, but the boss of somebody.)

It will be interesting to see how these statistics change in months to come.  The CareerBuilder survey (which tapped 2,667 hiring managers and human resource professionals) found that an additional 11% of respondents plan to add social site screening to their candidate reviews.


(Thanks to Danard Vincente for the great “search” image.)


Can the Corporate Website Drive Process Improvement? Maybe . . .


neon-qm

A recent post on problems with the interview process left off with a question:  How are interviewing issues connected to the Corporate website?  Here are a couple of steps toward an answer:


Some of the best Career sites I’ve visited signal that they are serious about hiring–and that they have a supportive attitude toward candidates–by offering a thoughtful, well-developed description of the hiring process.  Ideally, that includes a preview of what to expect in the interview process, with tips for success.  Consider a couple of examples at Merck and CarMax.  Not only is the information valuable in both cases, but by their tone and approach the two treatments convey additional information about the respective (very different) companies.

Why don’t more companies do this?  In many cases, I’ll bet, it’s because communicating with website visitors at a detail level seems like a low-priority item that would take time no one has.  But also, I suspect, because the process isn’t well-defined, or possibly doesn’t even exist.  For example–in terms of interviews–there may not be a consistent approach, so different interviewers use whatever method occurs to them.

Personalizing the interview process is not a bad thing, but completely randomizing it probably is.  So one value of providing job-seekers with online information about interviewing might be internal.  That is, the process of crafting a message could/should lead to further thought about what really does go on in a company’s interview process, and whether improvement is needed.

I haven’t (yet) found any analysis or even evidence supporting the idea that website development can drive process improvement.  But I can report on my own experience, much of which has had to do with communicating business and technical information in documents, presentations, and online content.  More often than not, once the decision was made to “publish” a process or project to a broader audience, much (much) re-thinking happened.  The necessity of explaining something frequently reveals the need for clarification, adjustment, or even a return to the drawing board.

Worth the time and effort?  Well–if you believe the studies that say employment interviewing is often poorly done, and that bad interviewing results in costly hiring mistakes and/or new-hires who aren’t enthusiastic about the company–maybe so!

Bonus: It would be great if corporate Career sites actually stated the company’s expectations for its interviewers.  I haven’t found an example of that yet, but hope springs eternal!

Double Bonus: I had a good time reading the uninhibited opinions of HR consultant Wendell Williams on interview questions.  You might too.


(Thanks to Xurble for today’s question mark.)


What’s Up with Those Interviews?


lipstick-qm-3

A friend of mine, who recently became one of many professionals let go by a very large, very bankrupt company, has been telling me about her experiences as a job seeker.  On the up side, she’s been getting interviews.  On the down side . . . each one seems to be more unfortunate than the last.

In one case, the interviewer was the COO, and reportedly so puffed up with his own accomplishments that my friend felt like an audience rather than a candidate.  At the other end of the spectrum was the second event in a planned series of seven rounds!  Candidates are expected to meet with three different HR representatives, “the team,” and two managers, after which whoever is still sane and still wants the job will be grilled by the Big Kahuna.

In Lap Two of this marathon, my friend coped with an hour of detailed questions that began almost before she could sit down and never departed from the formulaic: “Please describe a situation in which you ________” [two minutes].  “Please give an example of your experience with _________” [two minutes] . . . . “Thank you, goodbye.”

In both these cases, she left hoping she wouldn’t be called back.  But of course–since she really wants to find a job–it’s sort of a double-bind situation.  If an hour or two spent with representatives of a company are like torture, do you really want to become an employee?  Yet, like just about everyone who finds themselves wandering around the interview funhouse, my friend feels a sense of failure when an interview doesn’t go well.

From the seeker side, the solution/challenge is to see oneself, rather than the company, as the “shopper.”  And that thought should spark some interest on the company side.  In a recent column for ere.net, consultant Stephen Balzac makes a convincing case that (my paraphrase) companies who think they can take advantage of high unemployment by being rude to job applicants may be in for an unpleasant surprise when times turn around and the best hires have gone elsewhere.  Along the way, Balzac cites examples that might cheer up my friend–such as the interviewer who spent an entire meeting reading email, and when the candidate tried to get his/her attention, responded shortly: “We multi-task here.”

I think we can all agree that comment indicates a misunderstanding of what “multi-task” actually means.  But in terms of the message this behavior delivers to job-seekers, you can take your choice:

  • “I’ve already decided I don’t like you, and I’m just going through an exercise here.”
  • “The job we’re discussing is not important enough for me to give full attention to finding the right person.”
  • “Everyone at this company is so overworked that we have to be doing at least two things at all times.”
  • “Our workplace culture does not value courtesy.”
  • “I can afford to behave unprofessionally because no one cares what I do anyway.”
  • “I’m so disorganized that I can’t manage my job, and yet the company has picked ME to judge YOU!”

Stipulating that interviewing practices may need some improvement at many companies . . . how does that connect with the corporate website?  Glad you asked.  See the next installment!


(Thanks to Margaret Anne Clark for the starting point of today’s question mark.)


Summer Reading


beach-book-1

Suppose you wanted to take some books to the beach and catch up on the latest ideas and the best practices in corporate website design, employer branding, and online recruiting . . .

Okay, use your imagination!  You might want to do that, and if so, here are some candidates for your bookbag:

The latest edition of a great annual showcase, American Corporate Identity 2008, presents examples from companies that are noteworthy in a variety of categories, from logos to websites to print to packaging.  You can also see examples and browse other volumes online at American Graphic Design & Advertising.

Though I haven’t read Brand for Talent:  Eight Essentials to Make Your Talent as Famous as Your Brand, I respect the authors (brand experts Mark Schumann and Libby Sartain), and I like their rationale for using the much-abused term “talent”:

While the employer brand must resonate with people on the inside of a business, the talent brand must attract segments of workers to join, stay, and engage.

FYI:  There’s a Kindle edition for those lucky folk who can take a thousand books to the beach in one bag.

A book I have read (and love) talks about branding in a much more general sense.  The Hero and the Outlaw: Building Extraordinary Brands Through the Power of Archetypes, by Margaret Mark and Carol S. Pearson, takes a story-based approach to the topic of brand creation and offers fascinating advice that can be applied to any aspect of the enterprise.   At the very least, it will make you think about the topic in a new way.

On the cutting edge, I like the looks of Get Connected:  The Social Networking Toolkit for Business, by Starr Hall and Chadd Rosenberg.  It’s not even published yet (forthcoming September 1, according to Amazon) and I’ve never heard of the authors.  But the table of contents covers all the right material and the approach looks both organized and interesting.

Barely off the press is The Green Workplace: Sustainable Strategies that Benefit Employees, the Environment, and the Bottom Line, by Leigh Stringer. Chris Hood, Program Manager for the HP Workplace, says “This is one of the most useful books I have ever read,” and Alicia R. Martin, Sustainability Manager for Sprint, calls it “A must-read for any company, regardless of its place on the green spectrum.”  So I’m cautiously optimistic.

And–you can download a free excerpt at The Green Workplace blog.

If you’d rather close your eyes and tune into the MP3 player, download an interview with Talent Synchronicity’s mastermind, Susan Burns.  Or you could watch this video interview with Susan on your netbook.

Let me know if you love/hate any of these items, and/or if you have other suggestions for summer reading!


(Thanks to Giulio Nepi for capturing the great feel of reading at the beach.)


Twitterama

twitterama1

My Spidey-sense tells me it’s time for another post on Twitter, so I’ve gathered up some of the best articles, ideas, and resources that flitted across my browser during the past few months, and here they are, with brief notes:

1.   I recently sent a Twitter “survival kit” to some small business friends who are struggling a bit with their tweeting efforts.  Here’s what I included:

2.  The Ultimate Guide for Everything Twitter starts at a basic level, but goes much further–and offers great graphic examples.

3.  For those further along (or just curious), here’s an assortment of good Twitter discussions:

4.  See what happened at TWTRConSF, and find out what’s coming up at TWTRConDC (in October).

5.  To get the most out of Twitter, it’s a big help to have the right tools.  Here’s an overview of general purpose tools, plus a link to one tool designed especially for businesses that use Twitter:

6.  About Twitter for recruiting:

Of course, the burning question continues to burn.  Will Twitter become a permanent feature of online life, dwindle away as the novelty wears off, be replaced by something completely new/different, change dramatically, or . . . ?  Remains to be seen, but in the meantime, it makes sense to engage with Twitter–but do it smartly.


A Virtuality Update


second-life

In 2007, there was a lot of publicity around recruiting in virtual environments, especially Second Life.  Since then “real life” employment events have been held in Second Life, but the concept hasn’t exactly taken off.  So the recent announcement of an Amazon Job Fair in Second Life was newsworthy.

The Amazon fair was held on July 14, but I haven’t found any updates on how it went.  However–you can see some pictures of what it would/did look like.  And check out some advice for virtual attendees.

Working Worlds will be having a Second Life Career Fair in the autumn, mainly for European companies.  And according to SecondLife Update, there are some other recruiting events scheduled.

But all in all, there seem to be some significant barriers to the development of recruiting in a complex virtual space like Second Life.  For one thing, the number of Second Lifers is shrinking, and they are the folks more likely to attend an event or connect with a recruiter on SL.  For those not already into Second Life, there’s a significant learning curve involved with attending an event, especially with the less tech-savvy.  And the general idea/ambiance of Second Life is not appealing to everyone.

On the other hand, Sgt. STAR–the “virtual recruiter” at GoArmy–is user friendly and might have real appeal, especially for the Army’s younger target audience.  Also, it’s a good fit for their “new Army” message.  The whole idea of a virtual recruiter works well in a situation like this, where visitors may not want to interact with a real person, but will appreciate the illusion of a personalized connection.

There’s a very nice example of a businesslike virtual guide (a “real” person, not an animation) on the website at Shaker Communications, a company that offers an array of virtual options for recruiting advertising.  Meet her on the “Who We Are” page.

Shaker also creates virtual job fairs, and with some success apparently.  A recent event they produced with CTJobs “drew over 1,800 job seekers from across the state, with 14 local companies exhibiting and recruiting for hiring opportunities.”  And their exclusive event for Allstate attracted a similar number of attendees.  According to Allstate, “the virtual environment made it easy for candidates to submit their resumes for opportunities that matched their qualifications, have a live chat with our Allstate recruiters, or set up a phone interview.”

None of these instances seems to indicate a virtual recruiting boom on the horizon–but it’s still true that the possibilities seem interesting, especially for certain types of employers and certain target audiences.  So the space is at least worth watching.


(Thanks to Pathfinder Linden for the snapshot of a panel discussion hosted on June 23, 2006 in Second Life by the Berkman Center at Harvard University.)