Corporate Eye

...compare, compete, excel

Careers

Tick Tock Too: More about Recruiting Hourly Workers

clock-2

Leaving off in a recent post, I introduced “How to Find and Recruit the Best Hourly Employees,” a Workforce Institute white paper by Mel Kleinman of Humetrics.  While the paper is full of interesting insights and information, the part I want to focus on is a study of 500 hiring managers from diverse industries, conducted in 2007-2008.  Asked to cite their best recruiting sources (multiple answers were allowed), here’s how they answered:

55% Referrals

39% Miscellaneous media

21% Walk-ins

21% Schools

15% Customers

14% Internet

9% Company Web site

6% Job fairs

The top choice is certainly no surprise, since “Referrals” are not only the most cost-effective source for all types of recruiting, but also the best predictors of good fit.  “Miscellaneous media” (which includes location signage, billboards, newspapers, radio, and TV) and “Walk-ins” are also not surprising in the hourly hiring realm, since in the first instance volume hiring supports volume advertising, and in the second, many hourly job-seekers want to work near their homes.  “Schools” makes sense since hourly jobs are often starter jobs and/or student jobs.

But why do the two online resources rank so low?  An immediate guess would be that hourly job-seekers lack computer access and/or technological skills.  However, that’s (a) not necessarily true, and (b) rapidly changing.  For one thing, just about everyone has a cell phone these days, and the increasing emergence of phone-friendly communications like Twitter, texting, and email in recruiting may be a response to that fact.

Kleinman’s explanation is that  organizations and managers are not using Internet resources effectively.  “Part of the disconnect,” he suggests, “may be due to the fact that Internet tools deliver applicants much faster than the typical organization can respond to them. Another common criticism of Internet recruiting is that it delivers too many unqualified candidates.”  And it’s easy to see how these factors would be more serious barriers in high-volume, high-speed hiring than in the (often) more leisurely world of salaried recruiting.  Along these lines, Kleinman offers some smart tips for process improvement.

That brings us, finally, to the biggest loser:  the corporate website.  The paper cites “anecdotal evidence” that the major problem may be application processes that are “too impersonal, long, and cumbersome with no appreciable ROI for the applicant.”  And there’s no doubt that frustrating, time-consuming, and/or unrewarding procedures will be a turn-off for all job-seekers, hourly or otherwise.

But the problem could be even more acute for applicants who may have short attention spans or little online experience–especially if they are applying for low-paying jobs they don’t expect to enjoy!  And although improving processes is an obvious step, it’s also especially important to sell these applicants on the job before they start the application.  After all, it’s much easier to stay on a path when you really want to reach the destination.

That applies no matter what type of job is being offered, from Courtesy Clerk to CEO.  Employer branding is important (it helps if the applicant wants to work for the company), but so is “job branding.”  The more information and encouragement you can provide about a job–emphasizing day-to-day rewards and the importance of the worker’s efforts–the more likely it is that an applicant will be genuinely motivated.

(Yes, that’s a very early time clock!  Thanks to Pargon for snapping it at the Computer History Museum.)


Quick Takes and Backward Glances


quick-takes

Some brief observations and retrospective alerts:

1.     Make time to visit Susan Burns’s beautiful site, Talent Synchronicity.  It proves that a website can be visually interesting without being gimmicky, and that an “artful” design can still look orderly and energetic.

2.     While there, read Susan’s post on Community managers and the evolution of recruiting.  This excellent summary supplements a post I did a while back on Recruiting 2.0: The new importance of community.

3.     As much as I like the Talent Synchronicity site, and even though I get the intent of the name . . . the “T-word” seems to be everywhere in recruiting these days.  The word “talent” has become dominant in the standard jargon of recruiting (“talent management,” “talent wars,” “talent search,” etc.)–and I think that raises some concerns:

  • It sounds dehumanizing to refer to human beings as “the talent.” Whatever happened to “persons,” “people,” and “human resources”?
  • “Talent” language seems to focus on finding star performers and high-value resources. Don’t companies need regular “workers” any more?
  • There’s a bit of show-biz glitziness to these phrases that would seem to put interviewing and hiring on a par with American Idol.

Love to hear a contrasting point of view!

4.    Speaking of (potential) comments, here are a few good tips provided by commenters on earlier posts:

  • Mel Kleiman–author of the white paper on hourly recruiting mentioned in Tick Tock–hosts a very interesting community forum at HRExchange. Good content, in addition to worthwhile discussions.
  • A comment from autom8 provided a link to Smashing Magazine’s 10 Harsh Truths about Corporate Websites. Though not about the Careers site in particular, the article offers a provocative and generally accurate summary of typical problems and pitfalls.
  • The post On the Hunt for Passive Candidates produced several good tips. In separate comments both David and Richard mentioned RealMatch–worth a look if you’re not familiar with this “pay-per-performance recruitment advertising solution.” And commenter Patrick has a nice instructional post on LinkedIn for HR and recruiters.

5.    Finally, here’s the info on a site I can’t quite figure out how to categorize, so it never gets into a post.  But it’s very interesting, and a good resource:

“Communitelligence.com is a member-based, knowledge-sharing portal aimed at improving organizational and interpersonal communication. At the center of Communitelligence are nine expert-led communities on topics such as intranets, internal communications, marketing, media and presentation skills, photography and design, communications technology and public relations.”

 

(Thanks to Ana Patricia Almeida for the “art of speed” illustration.)

Is Online Recruiting Elitist?


video-2

“Today online recruiting is more than just a human resources tool . . . It’s a whole culture.”

That’s a quote from Peter Capelli, director of Wharton’s Center for Human Resources.  It’s featured in The Evolution of Recruiting, a short, entertaining video put together by ERE’s Brendan Shields and HR superstar Susan Burns.  (Excellent music, by the way!)

I don’t know exactly what Capelli meant by this statement–but it brings up a good question.  “Cultures” can be quite closed to outsiders, especially when they are organized to focus on internal values.  And it doesn’t ultimately matter whether exclusionary tendencies are the result of prejudice, profit-seeking, or just the desire to fit in.

So is it possible that the self-reinforcing culture of online recruiting is inherently (or at least potentially) unfair?  Sometimes it does appear that HR experts and recruiting bloggers are focused mainly on the competition for top talent, oblivious not only to the challenges of job-hunting but also to the practical realities of staffing.  And as mentioned in a recent post, quite a few of the readers who commented on an NPR story about online and social media recruiting had very negative reactions.  Several voiced concern that this trend excludes older and poorer job seekers, who may have less technological expertise and access.

The issue is complicated.  On the one hand, there’s a case to be made that most workers today need to be at least basically conversant with current technologies for working and communicating.  So requiring them to demonstrate that competence during the job-seeking process is reasonable.

On the other hand–there may be some perfect people out there who won’t be found purely with bits and bytes.  They might be ideal candidates for jobs that don’t require much technical sophistication, or they might be able to get up to speed quickly on whatever technology is required.

Hypothetically:  Could someone without email potentially be an asset to your organization?

Sometimes we may have to ask not just what’s cutting-edge for the corporate Career site, but also whether the site supports a broad array of recruiting approaches, suitable for a real-life variety of candidates.  We could think of it as the techno-equivalent of diversity . . .

I’d love to hear opinions on this.


Diversity on the Corporate Website: The Challenge of Messaging

The second post in the Diversity series covered strategies for integrating diversity messaging. considerations about presenting diversity. So now we look at a second group of considerations—both practical and ethical—associated with presentation of diversity on the website. That takes in both subtle factors (such as imagery and language) and obvious content, such as policy statements and executive messages.

This post is a story and some questions. No answers!

The story: A few weeks ago, I came across a mid-sized company that had a most enticing recruiting brochure (available on their website as a PDF). I was about to add the company to my “places I want to work” list when I realized that there does not appear to be a single person of color in the whole brochure. There are dozens of people shown—even a snapshot of a company picnic—and everyone is, to put it plainly, white.

There are two possible exceptions, discovered when I returned for a more detailed trip through the brochure. But they are so subtle I didn’t notice them the first time.

Anyway, here’s what I found on the second review. And let me say loudly, this isn’t an interpretation or an indictment, it’s just a description:

Cover: Posed photo of four white people—two men, two women.
Page 2: Posed photo of white male CEO.
Page 3: Two pictures in classroom settings, with white female teaching white students. In the smaller picture, with extra magnification, it looks as if one student at the back of the class might be of Asian ancestry.
Page 4: Photo of white man talking to white woman at a desk.
Page 5: Group photo depicting employee recognition. Six men, six women, all white.
Page 6: Snapshot of family. Man, woman, two children, all white.
Page 7: Company picnic, at least 50 people in view. With extra magnification, all appear to be white, except for a Hispanic woman in an apron, who seems to be part of the catering staff.
Page 8: Pictures of a fitness facility. White man on treadmill, white woman with dumbbell.
Page 9: Two photos relating to health benefits. One shows a white male doctor, the other shows a white mother taking care of a white child.
Page 10: Two photos relating to career opportunities. One shows a white man looking over some papers, the other shows two women wearing headsets. One of the women might be African-American, but I don’t think most people would be certain of that.
Page 11: Picture of white woman.
Page 12: Picture of building exterior.

For context, this is a regional company, located more north than south, more east than west. It employs more than 800 people, and has won workplace awards. The text in the brochure hits every single right note about valuing employees, communicating with employees, work-life balance, community involvement, and so on. In fact, they have a whole page that details the array of parties and events—and it looks like a fun place, let me just say!

So let’s consider the possibilities:

  1. They just don’t happen to have any non-white employees. This would be unusual on a percentage basis, with a total population near 1000, but it’s possible.
  2. Some or all of the people in the brochure are not employees, so they don’t necessarily represent the make-up of the company. (Except for the CEO, no one is identified, and several of the illustrations look like stock photography. But the picnic is obviously real, and the employee recognition shot looks real.)
  3. No one considered the images as part of the message. This seems odd, since they went to the trouble of printing a full-color brochure (or at least the trouble of creating a PDF to represent same). But again, it’s possible.
  4. All of the above.

And now for the questions:

  • If they don’t have racial diversity in the company, should they pretend to? After all, if they are using stock photos, they could add a touch of color . . . but would that be dishonest? Hypocritical? And come to that—would it be dishonest (or at least misleading) in general to mix stock photos with real pictures?
  • Will readers notice that the possibly Hispanic lady is a caterer and the possibly African-American lady is the only employee shown wearing a headset? (It’s clearly a call-center headset, not something for hands-free at the desk.) If not consciously, then subliminally?
  • Is it fair to drill down on a marketing document with this degree of scrutiny? Should we draw any conclusions about the company on this basis?
  • Will prospective employees draw any conclusions? And if so, will some be bothered by the lack of diversity, while others find it attractive?
  • Could this messaging be accidental? Could it be intentional?

If you think of other questions, let me know. Except if the questions are “Why didn’t you mention disability?” and “What about invisible diversities?” I’ll get to those topics in the final post of the series.

Diversity and the Corporate Website: Four Strategies

In the first post of this series, I suggested there are four basic approaches to dealing with diversity topics on the corporate and career websites. I’m going to call them:

1. Not a Problem. Say nothing, except by implication.

2. Just the Facts. Post a policy or statement.

3. Effectively Engaged. Expand diversity messaging.

4. Devoted to Diversity. Make diversity a major feature.

Ideally, the strategy selected should fit the company—and realistically, the primary difference between a company that can use strategy 1 and a company that needs strategy 4 is size. The relative diversity reputation of a company may also be a factor (for example, a company trying to make up for poor PR in this area may need to be more aggressive), and some industry sectors may require more diversity initiative than others.

While none of the four strategies is inherently good or bad, each has both virtues and pitfalls. Here’s a quick summary of the pros and cons—based on common sense and my own observations:

StrategyProCon
Not a Problem Suggests the company is confident about diversity.May suggest company does not care about diversity.
Just the FactsProvides information without overemphasis.May appear to be merely lip service.
Effectively EngagedDemonstrates a significant commitment.Message may become fragmented.
Devoted to DiversityMakes it clear diversity is a primary value in the company.May appear to be patronizing, exploitative or exploitative.

To find examples, I visited three sites that I already like, on the assumption that they are probably doing the right thing! And one more that’s a diversity leader. So here we go:

Umpqua Bank, with about 1700 employees (9% minorities, 77% women), represents Not a Problem. No specific mention of diversity, just a brief, pleasant message about empowerment.

umpqua

The Meadows is a tiny employer, with a workforce of only 650 in 2008, growing to about 1,000 with opening of new permanent casino in 2009. Just 6% minority, about 60% women—but they have a really nice diversity statement that makes their Just the Facts approach seem sincere.

meadows

meadows-policy1

Jack in the Box has more than 40,000 employees, but if their diversity statistics are available, I can’t find same! The site includes two discussions of diversity—one at a policy level, the one at a culture level—to show they are Effectively Engaged. They also offer extended profiles of employees representing both ethnic and ability diversities. (Okay. I love the clever bit with the hats.)

jack-2

jack-3

Finally, Sodexo goes the extra mile to show they are Devoted to Diversity. This is the only site in the group I wasn’t familiar with, but Sodexo was the winner of the 2008 ERE Best Practices in Recruiting Award for Best Diversity Program. In fact, the ERE description says: “Whatever you are doing to promote diversity pales in comparison to the Sodexo approach,” so I certainly couldn’t resist a visit.

And although the Diversity portion of their Careers website is low-key in presentation, it is extensive and effective. A badge box revolves a series of diversity awards (they have more than two dozen), and sub-pages profile Sodexo “Champions of Diversity” and describe Employee Network Groups that cover a wide range of affinities. With over 100,000 employees, Sodexo is about half minority and more than half female.

sodexo

For a textbook example of diversity messaging, check out Sodexo’s 32-page Annual Diversity Report. Really—it’s worth the time.

A Macy’s Mystery, Continued

Picking up where the previous post left off, for a new day of sleuthing:

Question 1 . . . Did the companies that flunked Forrester’s 2008 review do anything to improve their Career sites? The Forrester report came out at the beginning of April 2008. I know from previous research that both AIG and Citi redesigned their sites sometime after February of 2008. As noted in Recruiting in the Headlights, they went with very different approaches: sizzle (AIG) and steak (Citi).

The Wayback Machine reveals that the other two financial companies have also redesigned their sites in the past year or so (Goldman Sachs sometime after November 2007 and Merrill Lynch after February 2008). Both stepped up to a bold, clean look on the landing page, with a giant graphic and just a few top-level “gateway” links.

As for the retailers: JCPenney has vamped up its Careers look sometime since the last Wayback capture in mid-2007 (big improvement, though blindingly red); Kroger has freshened up since early 2008 (not a radical change); and Rite Aid has not redesigned at all, just added a few drop shadows.

Now we jump to Question 3—concerning Macy’s—and the plot thickens. This is also a site I’ve looked at before (Communicating the Employer Brand), noting that it didn’t stand up well by comparison to Nordstrom. It appears that the current site design has indeed been upgraded since the Forrester review, and presumably addresses the functional issues highlighted by Forrester.

But this research has revealed an interesting story . . .

Once upon a time, the Macy’s (aka Federated) Career site was an industry darling. Not only did it win the ERE “Best Corporate Careers Website” award in 2005, it was also named by CareerXRoads in their “Top 25 Corporate Websites (PDF)” list, and in 2004 had been cited by ERE as one of “The World’s Very Best Employment Websites.”

Even setting the bar at a pretty ordinary height, I cannot imagine anyone would pick out today’s Federated/Macy’s site as among the world’s best, even if it works well. So—what happened?

In 1999, Federated launched a college recruiting site called Retailology, which was so successful that in 2001 it was extended to become a branded portal for company-wide recruiting. By September of 2002, according to a story in Internet Retailer, “more than 2.2 million job seekers–an average of 6,253 a day–have visited Retailology. The average visitor session length clocks in at more than a quarter hour, and some 205,000 people have begun the job application process by submitting their information to Federated online through Retailology.com.”

Many of the factors that attracted attention to Retailology have become best practices today—but they were on the leading edge then. For example: detailed job descriptions, real-time postings, career path examples for actual employees, executive profiles, diversity messaging, location highlights, an interactive forum on the college portion of the site, more than 70 employee interviews, and a “Connecting With Our Customer” section sharing “the experiences of exceptional sales and sales support associates,” along with “unedited thoughts and experiences directly from Federated customers.”

On top of all that, the site had an unconventional, fashion-oriented look:

retailology

We can probably agree that the Retailology design was outdated by 2007, and no doubt needed a makeover.

macysdesign2007But the design that replaced it (in June of that year) was not a creative update—more of a 180 turn from fun to serious, from fashion to business.

Much of that best-practice functionality was still in place, but the look-and-feel was decidedly different.

The 2007 version was probably the one reviewed by Forrester.

Sometime in 2008 the site underwent a design polish, and—fast forward—here’s what you see today:

macystoday

What drove the shift–and whether it pays off–are questions that can’t be answered from the outside. But I would love to hear opinions, insights, or information regarding Macy’s apparent decision to fit in rather than stand out.

And in the meantime (in case you were keeping up!) I promise to illuminate the remaining mystery of Question 2 in a future post.