Comments on: Tamagotchi http://www.ere.net/2007/04/12/tamagotchi/ Recruiting intelligence. Recruiting community. Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:13:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Foster Williams http://www.ere.net/2007/04/12/tamagotchi/#comment-4439 Foster Williams Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:19:00 +0000 http://www.ere.net/2007/04/12/tamagotchi/#comment-4439 Marc, I am too pleased to see someone else with an understanding of the word 'relationship'. I have been a managing recruiter for some years now and have pushed the relationship issue intensely to recruiting groups I have managed. The relationship should exist on both sides of our hiring equation, candidate and client as well. If recruiting professionals take the time to understand the candidates intangible desires in a job and also understand the clients ideas on how he/she intends to apply the skills required in the candidate to be found, we recruiters can make a better job fit for both factions, thus creating a better relationship through the actual solution itself. The company and candidate both fair better in these circumstances. Foster Williams Managing Partner Search 4 U Marc,
I am too pleased to see someone else with an understanding of the word ‘relationship’.
I have been a managing recruiter for some years now and have pushed the relationship issue intensely to recruiting groups I have managed. The relationship should exist on both sides of our hiring equation, candidate and client as well. If recruiting professionals take the time to understand the candidates intangible desires in a job and also understand the clients ideas on how he/she intends to apply the skills required in the candidate to be found, we recruiters can make a better job fit for both factions, thus creating a better relationship through the actual solution itself. The company and candidate both fair better in these circumstances.

Foster Williams
Managing Partner
Search 4 U

]]> By: Aimee Jenkins http://www.ere.net/2007/04/12/tamagotchi/#comment-4440 Aimee Jenkins Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:54:00 +0000 http://www.ere.net/2007/04/12/tamagotchi/#comment-4440 Your article was great! All too often we get caught up in the position we are filling, and forget that people are applying, and those people deserve to be treated with respect. Your article was great! All too often we get caught up in the position we are filling, and forget that people are applying, and those people deserve to be treated with respect.

]]> By: William Johnson http://www.ere.net/2007/04/12/tamagotchi/#comment-4438 William Johnson Thu, 12 Apr 2007 06:10:00 +0000 http://www.ere.net/2007/04/12/tamagotchi/#comment-4438 Kevin had some great suggestions to get on the road to paying respect. I'm looking for other ways companies are using to handle the volume specific to my definition of respect. Have a great day! William Kevin had some great suggestions to get on the road to paying respect. I’m looking for other ways companies are using to handle the volume specific to my definition of respect.

Have a great day!

William

]]> By: William Johnson http://www.ere.net/2007/04/12/tamagotchi/#comment-4437 William Johnson Thu, 12 Apr 2007 06:06:00 +0000 http://www.ere.net/2007/04/12/tamagotchi/#comment-4437 I've read a number of very riveting and well written articles on the importance of the candidate relationship. I think most people understand the importance of giving feedback and closure to the people who are interested in working for our companies. With that said... 100's of candidates apply to positions on a daily basis. Hundreds more are solicited by companies to interview for their precious openings. A great deal of time goes into taking care of the candidate that will most likely be hired but the majority of candidates are thrown into a black hole. What has not been addressed is how recruitment departments are supposed to handle the daunting task of giving every candidate the experience and care they deserve. The internet, email, and social networking tools have helped increase the volume of qualified candidates for every position. So much so that the number of people involved in the process has become very difficult to manage. Most recruitment functions have thrown their arms up and have taken the attitude that there are just too many people to manage. Part of my job is discovering what efforts companies are making to create a better candidate experience. I've seen more than a few companies post, leave a voice mail greeting or send an email out that states, 'Do to the number of people applying to our positions, we can not get back to everyone who applies. If we are interested in you we will get back to you.' This is the equivalent of telling an investor that that too many people want to buy our stock, if we are interested we will get back to you. Or telling donors that too many people want to give money to our charity, if we are interested we will get back to you. I?d venture to say that these two examples happen less than 1% of the time. The majority of candidates involved in the process do not feel this is an acceptable way for companies to treat them. To Kevin's point, companies have spent a considerable amount of time and money to brand their company as a great place to work. This branding has attracted an even greater volume of candidates to those firms. What is being done or what can be done to solve this problem so companies are able to treat every candidate with the respect they deserve? Staffing.org reported that 94% of candidates are not satisfied with the treatment they are given so as a people oriented business we are not accomplishing this task. Only six percent of recruiting organizations are doing it right. Let?s hear from them! The definition of respect I use consists of the following: *Confidentiality* Individuals are entitled to the security and confidentiality of their personal and professional background and data. Any decision to make that data available to others must be at the specific request of the individual. *Credibility* All advertised positions must be verifiably open and available to job-seekers, with the intent of the hiring organization to make any and all efforts to fill the open position. *Accuracy* The description of an open position should accurately and specifically identify the unique attributes of that position as they relate to the Hiring Manager, organization, geography, work group, work to be completed, and performance measurement criteria. *Consideration* All interested candidates, from all available sources, should be considered for an open position based upon their ability and aptitude, and that consideration should be free from racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice and intolerance. *Consistency* Hiring decisions will be made based upon on a set of specific and defined criteria that is relevant to the position, consistent across all candidates and applied objectively. *Follow Up* All applicants are entitled to consistent communications regarding the status of their candidacy, regardless of the outcome of their application. *Preparation* Each individual should expect that they will be provided with all relevant information about the organization and hiring manager in order to best prepare them for success during the interview process. *Respect* Scheduling of interviews will occur in a manner that connotes respect for the candidate, their time and their efforts. *Communication* Every inquiry regarding the status of candidacy or application is worthy of a response. *Information* All applicants will be provided with the necessary information about the company, hiring manager, compensation, performance expectations, etc. in order to make an informed career decision. Best, William I’ve read a number of very riveting and well written articles on the importance of the candidate relationship. I think most people understand the importance of giving feedback and closure to the people who are interested in working for our companies.

With that said… 100’s of candidates apply to positions on a daily basis. Hundreds more are solicited by companies to interview for their precious openings. A great deal of time goes into taking care of the candidate that will most likely be hired but the majority of candidates are thrown into a black hole.

What has not been addressed is how recruitment departments are supposed to handle the daunting task of giving every candidate the experience and care they deserve. The internet, email, and social networking tools have helped increase the volume of qualified candidates for every position. So much so that the number of people involved in the process has become very difficult to manage. Most recruitment functions have thrown their arms up and have taken the attitude that there are just too many people to manage.

Part of my job is discovering what efforts companies are making to create a better candidate experience. I’ve seen more than a few companies post, leave a voice mail greeting or send an email out that states, ‘Do to the number of people applying to our positions, we can not get back to everyone who applies. If we are interested in you we will get back to you.’ This is the equivalent of telling an investor that that too many people want to buy our stock, if we are interested we will get back to you. Or telling donors that too many people want to give money to our charity, if we are interested we will get back to you. I?d venture to say that these two examples happen less than 1% of the time.

The majority of candidates involved in the process do not feel this is an acceptable way for companies to treat them. To Kevin’s point, companies have spent a considerable amount of time and money to brand their company as a great place to work. This branding has attracted an even greater volume of candidates to those firms. What is being done or what can be done to solve this problem so companies are able to treat every candidate with the respect they deserve? Staffing.org reported that 94% of candidates are not satisfied with the treatment they are given so as a people oriented business we are not accomplishing this task. Only six percent of recruiting organizations are doing it right. Let?s hear from them!

The definition of respect I use consists of the following:

*Confidentiality*
Individuals are entitled to the security and confidentiality of their personal and professional background and data. Any decision to make that data available to others must be at the specific request of the individual.
*Credibility*
All advertised positions must be verifiably open and available to job-seekers, with the intent of the hiring organization to make any and all efforts to fill the open position.
*Accuracy*
The description of an open position should accurately and specifically identify the unique attributes of that position as they relate to the Hiring Manager, organization, geography, work group, work to be completed, and performance measurement criteria.
*Consideration*
All interested candidates, from all available sources, should be considered for an open position based upon their ability and aptitude, and that consideration should be free from racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice and intolerance.
*Consistency*
Hiring decisions will be made based upon on a set of specific and defined criteria that is relevant to the position, consistent across all candidates and applied objectively.
*Follow Up*
All applicants are entitled to consistent communications regarding the status of their candidacy, regardless of the outcome of their application.
*Preparation*
Each individual should expect that they will be provided with all relevant information about the organization and hiring manager in order to best prepare them for success during the interview process.
*Respect*
Scheduling of interviews will occur in a manner that connotes respect for the candidate, their time and their efforts.
*Communication*
Every inquiry regarding the status of candidacy or application is worthy of a response.
*Information*
All applicants will be provided with the necessary information about the company, hiring manager, compensation, performance expectations, etc. in order to make an informed career decision.

Best,

William

]]> By: David Hafernik http://www.ere.net/2007/04/12/tamagotchi/#comment-4436 David Hafernik Thu, 12 Apr 2007 03:52:00 +0000 http://www.ere.net/2007/04/12/tamagotchi/#comment-4436 While this is an area of recruiting that I have long been championing with the companies I have worked for, there can also be a down side. While no one can down play the importance of generating and maintaining a relationship with good, strong, candidates, not every candidate is a good or strong candidate. Unfortunately, it is often these less-than-strong candidates that want, and dare I say, demand the most attention. The effort required to generate this relationship with every candidate can be daunting and overwhelming. Sometimes it seems that the less qualified the candidate, the more attention they want. The trick is to find a way to provide every candidate with some degree of relationship, that regardless of their skill level, background, or likelyhood of being hired, they are valued by your company. And at the same time, provide the best candidates with a more involved, indepth relationship. Not always an easy task. While this is an area of recruiting that I have long been championing with the companies I have worked for, there can also be a down side. While no one can down play the importance of generating and maintaining a relationship with good, strong, candidates, not every candidate is a good or strong candidate. Unfortunately, it is often these less-than-strong candidates that want, and dare I say, demand the most attention. The effort required to generate this relationship with every candidate can be daunting and overwhelming. Sometimes it seems that the less qualified the candidate, the more attention they want. The trick is to find a way to provide every candidate with some degree of relationship, that regardless of their skill level, background, or likelyhood of being hired, they are valued by your company. And at the same time, provide the best candidates with a more involved, indepth relationship. Not always an easy task.

]]> By: Marc Nolan http://www.ere.net/2007/04/12/tamagotchi/#comment-4435 Marc Nolan Thu, 12 Apr 2007 02:21:00 +0000 http://www.ere.net/2007/04/12/tamagotchi/#comment-4435 Kevin, Good Article. I rarely post on ERE, but wanted to share that in my 20 plus years of working with candidates and the whole 'relationship' side of this, one glaring omission I think that you may have touched on is a deeper view into the word 'relationship'. For instance, when I started in recruiting/selling with Source Consulting (Division of SourceEDP) one of the main differences we brought (the Source model) to this relationship was that EACH division had people working in it who actually had real life working experience in the division they worked. Our sell to the consultant was that we were not selling beepers and car phones (yes that's what I said) and decided to get into staffing. The relationship became one of knowing not just the requirements we received from the hiring managers, but also understanding the technical and functional aspects of what the candidate's skill sets were and where they were a 'fit'. Some readers on this forum (who are not from the functional/technical background) will probably disagree that 'it's not really important to have been either a road warrior on implementations or a 'codehead to place people' and that may be somewhat true- but I can tell you that the word 'relationship' to me as a previous consultant who worked 65-70 hours a week extended beyond the 6 month gig that a recruiter lined up for me. More important to the post- should be the question to each recruiter; 'How many times have you placed the SAME consultant on more than 4 gigs over the past 3 years? This is how I measure my relationships with those who I work with on my projects. Kevin,

Good Article. I rarely post on ERE, but wanted to share that in my 20 plus years of working with candidates and the whole ‘relationship’ side of this, one glaring omission I think that you may have touched on is a deeper view into the word ‘relationship’.

For instance, when I started in recruiting/selling with Source Consulting (Division of SourceEDP) one of the main differences we brought (the Source model) to this relationship was that EACH division had people working in it who actually had real life working experience in the division they worked.

Our sell to the consultant was that we were not selling beepers and car phones (yes that’s what I said) and decided to get into staffing.

The relationship became one of knowing not just the requirements we received from the hiring managers, but also understanding the technical and functional aspects of what the candidate’s skill sets were and where they were a ‘fit’.

Some readers on this forum (who are not from the functional/technical background) will probably disagree that ‘it’s not really important to have been either a road warrior on implementations or a ‘codehead to place people’ and that may be somewhat true- but I can tell you that the word ‘relationship’ to me as a previous consultant who worked 65-70 hours a week extended beyond the 6 month gig that a recruiter lined up for me.

More important to the post- should be the question to each recruiter; ‘How many times have you placed the SAME consultant on more than 4 gigs over the past 3 years? This is how I measure my relationships with those who I work with on my projects.

]]>