Corporate Eye

...compare, compete, excel

Careers

Get the Popcorn: A Festival of Recruiting Videos

movie-theater

Visit these flick sites for a summer triple-feature:

1.       In case you weren’t one of the 225 (give or take) folks who got to attend the “first ever” Social Recruiting Summit, pretend you were there by watching videos of several sessions.   Choices include:  “LinkedIn Networking with Shally Steckerl,” “Online Employer Reputation and Social Recruiting with Shannon Seery Gude,” and “Ubiquity and Authenticity in Social Media with Laurie Ruettimann.”

2.       In case you don’t have time to troll various sites in search of corporate recruiting videos, find a short (but handy) roundup of YouTube links at About.com’s “Job Searching” channel.  You can also do your own YouTube search–but let me save you some time:  Any search string with “recruiting” in it will bring back lots of opportunities to join the armed services and/or play college sports.   Go with “career opportunities” and “corporate recruitment.”

3.       In case you want to rummage around for treasures in a big basket of job-related videos, stop by the Video Job Shop.   And for a real treat (it’s honestly hypnotic) check out some of the one-minute career overviews stored in the VJS Library.  No matter what you ever wanted to be, you can watch a video about it:  Choreographer, Bindery Worker, Glassblower, Psychiatrist, Railroad Yardmaster, Paleontologist, Able Seaman, Fine Artist, Coroner, Nuclear Engineer, Drywall Installer, CEO . . .

There haven’t been any Hollywood blockbusters (yet) about corporate recruiting, but if you want to include a  big screen business classic in your festival–Forbes came up with a list of The Ten Greatest Business Movies:  Citizen Kane, Wall Street, The Insider, Network, and six more.   Business Pundit’s more adventurous list offers up fifty choices, including charmers (Baby Boom, In Good Company, Working Girl); thrillers (The Game, Antitrust, Disclosure); satires (The Hudsucker Proxy, The Coca-Cola Kid, Barbarians at the Gate); documentaries (The Corporation, Salesman); serious stuff (Glengarry Glenn Ross, The Boiler Room); and some surprises (All About Eve, Once Upon a Time in the West).

Missing from both lists are two of the all-time best biz-flicks:  the intelligent corporate soap opera Executive Suite (1954), and the sly, smart farce The Wheeler Dealers (1963).  If you haven’t seen them, now’s the time.

Summer’s just getting started!


(Thanks to Mo Kaiwen for a great shot of the modern movie palace.)


Paper Resumes? OMG!


typewriter

First, read or listen to NPR Morning Edition’s story entitled Job Seekers Find New Rules of Recruitment. The gist:  Recruiters and hiring managers don’t have much patience with job-seekers lacking LinkedIn profiles, snappy digital resumes, and an established social media presence.  “If someone sends us a paper resume folded in thirds, stuffed in an envelope,” opines one CEO, “it’s hard to take it seriously.”  And even for job-seekers who communicate via email, the report notes, there are potential faux pas–such as email sent via AOL and husband-and-wife addresses.

Next . . . read the “lively” (not to say vitriolic) discussion of this story.  Among the commenters are populists who think Recruiting 2.0 is elitist; sympathists who are concerned for the plight of elderly (i.e, thirty-something) job seekers; cynics who think it’s all about HR laziness; and conspiracy theorists who accuse the NPR reporter of shilling for LinkedIn.  Also a few people making thoughtful points.

Takeaways?  (a) There are a lot of passionate opinions on this topic.  (b) Recruiting 2.0 probably is elitist–but that’s the reality of the current job market.  (c) Rising unemployment statistics will shine a harsh light on hiring practices.

For another take on this topic, consider Lou Adler’s article Recruiting Top Talent 2010 – Are You a Traditionalist or a Web 2.0 Free Radical? Traditionalists, according to Adler’s model, may be using niche sites, Facebook, Twitter, and all the other 2.0 trappings–but they are still operating on “the flawed premise that top people will respond to negative, boring, and exclusionary ads if you post them in enough places.”

Free radicals, on the other hand, are “talent-driven,” and their strategy is “nurturing prospects for future opportunities.”  The article offers a ten-point test/action plan for assessing/strategizing this shift.  For example:  “3.  Go req-less, using big-target talent hubs,” and “8. Convert your recruiters from screeners and sales reps into career advisors.”

Food for thought:  What will happen if or when all major employers are nurturing talent with social networks and wooing prospects with precisely targeted micro-sites?  Will that be Recruiting Paradise–or merely passé?


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 . . . )


Got Stories? Lessons from the competition

cliburn


The Van Cliburn International Piano Competition–one of the most prestigious events in all of classical music–occurs every four years, just about twenty miles from my doorstep.  Full disclosure:  I am not a pianist, though I practice occasionally just for the adventure.  Nevertheless, I have always wanted to attend the Cliburn start to finish, from the perpetual motion preliminaries, in which thirty contests play for fifty minutes each, to the suspense-filled final round when six survivors play their hearts out, and someone wins heaps of future fame.  (Yes–it’s basically a reality show with fancy music.)  But every four years, like clockwork, something interferes and I never get there.

Now the spell has been broken.  Though I haven’t made it to the concert hall, I’ve actually had a much better view of the proceedings.  Live webcasting has given me a seat onstage, with perfect views of every note played and every expression of the pianists.  If I miss a performance or just want a rerun, I can watch the archived editions.  I can tune in for rehearsals, research the players, read live-blogging by music critics, and get Twitter updates on every aspect of the competition.  What a world we live in!

So am I happy?  Not exactly.  The new problem is:  I now know too much.  Having seen all the preliminary rounds, I have a more informed view regarding the twelve semi-finalists recently chosen to continue in the competition.  Setting aside that some of my personal favorites didn’t make the cut (that’s just subjective) and acknowledging that I’m not sufficiently expert to recognize subtleties considered by the judges–I’m still pretty sure that at least two of the candidates who moved into the second round have much less chance of winning than some who were left behind.

It’s not that these particular candidates are romantic “long shots” or feisty “under-dogs.”  It’s just that they don’t have quite the level of musicianship or performance excellence that could reasonably be expected to put them in the top spot.

So why were these probably-not-winners advanced?  My theory:  They will attract media attention to the Cliburn, because they have personal stories that can be easily dramatized and neatly fitted into a headline.  Their stories also engage the live audience and energize the hall, quite apart from the particulars of their performances.

Which brings me at last to the relationship between the Cliburn and the Careers website.  Actually there are several potential lines of thought that could be applied to any kind of competition, including the competition for jobs (from the applicant side) and the competition for talent (from the recruiting side).  But I have one particular point in mind, and that’s the importance of story.  So consider:

  • Does your company website tell its employer story effectively?
  • Are there compelling employee stories included in the Careers section?
  • Do applicants have an opportunity to tell their own stories as part of the application process?
  • How does a candidate’s personal story fit into the evaluation process--and how should it?