Comments on: Solving the “Candidate Sharing Problem” Using a Social Media Approach

By: Ty Chartwell

Ty Chartwell — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:06:27 +0000

Another brilliant article Doc.
Susan – R U Kiddin?

By: Susan Burke

Susan Burke — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:29:07 +0000

I love the concept of this (and have used it with previous employers). One concern that continues to be brought up around this though is OFCCP/EEOC reporting. If you create a list such as this and share it, wouldn’t you then have to include that person in the applicant pool for every position posted for each of those managers, and, potentially, every position being managed by the recruiters who receive those resumes? The company I work for now is compliance-oriented to an extreme (for a variety of reasons I won’t get into here), and we require our applicants to express interest for every position before we’ll “consider” them for the job. It’s certainly not ideal from the candidate experience side, but allows us to better manage our applicant pools.
On a somewhat unrelated note… we’ve been hearing about potential changes to the treatment of candidates with Veterans status – that we would have to consider them for every opening, regardless of whether they applied. What you’re suggesting in this article might be a great way to help manage that.
Susan

By: Keith Halperin

Keith Halperin — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 17:52:08 +0000

Thanks, Dr. Sullivan. ISTM that this assumes a couple of conditions are true:

1) Entered information about candidates is complete, correct, and easily accessible to recruiters and managers. I’d like to work at a place where this is the case- quite often there is a mystery about a possible candidate that takes time and effort to track down.

2) Recruiters and recruiting managers have the bandwidth and support to be able to share in this manner- often we don’t have either.

Cheers,

Keith

By: Richard Melrose

Richard Melrose — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 16:23:50 +0000

Great points, Dr. John.

The “sharing candidates” challenge poses the same basic requirements as hiring, promotion, succession planning, high potential identification and strategic workforce planning — i.e. specifically the need to compare people to jobs and jobs to people, in an expedient and yet results-oriented and compliant manner.

The Profile XT (PXT) assessment accomplishes that by characterizing jobs in terms of Performance Models based on the scale score ranges achieved by top performers and contrast performers, augmented by Job Analysis Surveys.

Employees and candidates assessed with the Profile XT can then be compared directly to any PXT Performance Model to determine the degree of cognitive, behavioral, interest and overall match. The PXT also provides structured interview questions to probe departures from the performance model ranges. The assessment has a small one-time cost and all future analytics, including unlimited Performance Model comparisons and Strategic Workforce Planning exercises are free.

In the context of candidate sharing, any high quality candidate could be automatically (i.e. via software) compared to the Performance Models for jobs in the same or proximate job family. Strong matches could be forwarded to hiring managers for consideration via emailed “Total Person” interview reports. “Kept on file” would come to mean “available for immediate and objective consideration”.

Even candidates that turned down offers could be retained as targets for future recruitment, based on a strong job match to a subsequent position opening.

Most employers have no way to make direct, objective valid, job-related comparisons between people and jobs, as required by the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. That jeopardizes regulatory compliance but, just as importantly, it undermines enterprise talent management.

r.melrose@vision21.us