Beyond Google, many other systems we use on a daily basis accept Boolean searches. This includes LinkedIn, Monster, and quite probably your internal ATS. SearchOnTheGo won’t help you with these platforms, so if you want to get the most from them you need to know the basics of Boolean searching directly. Therefore, in less than 1,000 words, let’s see if I can explain how to do it!

Fully constructed Boolean search strings can look both confusing and complex, but don’t worry, because they aren’t! The first important thing to appreciate is that there are only five elements of syntax to understand. These are:

AND

OR

NOT

()

“”

By applying these appropriately, along with the keywords you wish to consider, you can create a huge range of search operations. There is no limit to how often you can use any of these elements in a search, so you can create very specific search strings, which will save you a lot of time in filtering the results.

AND

AND is the simplest function to apply. Any search terms that follow an AND command must appear in the result. For example:

engineer AND “senior developer”

will give results that include both the word engineer and the phrase “senior developer”. All search results will include both, and any CVs that have either engineer or “senior developer” (but not both) will not appear.

OR

OR provides options into a search. Usage of the OR command allows you to create a list of possibilities for which only one match is important. For example, the following search phrase would give you results that contain one or more of the stated words:

hospitality OR catering OR hotelier

NOT

NOT is the command of exclusion. If there are closely related terms that mean very different things, then usage of the NOT command is extremely valuable. An example could be as follows:

architect NOT “software architect”

This would give you results that contain the word architect, but leaving out any that use the phrase “software architects”. Very useful if you are operating in the construction industry.

The one major limitation with the NOT command is that it isn’t recognized by Google.

“” – Quotation Marks

You will have noticed that I have used the “” expression above in some examples already, wrapped around particular keywords. These quotation marks are used to capture a phrase that is to be kept intact, in the precise word order stated. Not using “” around a phrase will mean that each word is treated separately, usually with an assumed AND in between each one. For example:

pork sandwich

would give results that contain ‘pork‘ and ‘sandwich‘, but not necessarily in the same sentence or paragraph!

“pork sandwich”

would give results that only contain the phrase ‘pork sandwich‘

() – Brackets

Using brackets is essential for complex search strings, and it can be their application that causes the most confusion. Essentially, a clause within brackets is given priority over other elements around it. The most common place that brackets are applied by recruiters is in the use of OR strings. Perhaps a good example would be company names. You have a list of target companies from where you wish to find your talent, and a candidate can have worked at any one (or ideally several) of them. You might initially construct a command like this:

IBM OR Oracle OR “Red Hat” OR Microsoft

These are all large companies though, so any search like this is likely to generate a large number of results. If you wanted to find just individuals who have reached Manager or Director level, then you might use the following command:

“Manager” OR “Director”

To combine both commands into one search, we use brackets to tell the search engine that these are separate conditions. In order to tell the search engine that we want to see results containing either Manager or Director and also one of IBM, Oracle, Red Hat, or Microsoft, we group them like this:

(“Manager” OR “Director”) AND (IBM OR Oracle OR “Red Hat” OR Microsoft)

It makes no difference which order the two bracketed sections go; the same results will result either way.

Wrap-up, and big5hire.com

So, that’s a whistle-stop guide to the very basics of Boolean searching. I have only scratched the surface on its usage, and there are many more techniques that can be used by smart recruiters. For that, I can strongly recommend the blog of Glenn Cathey, the self-proclaimed Boolean Black Belt.

To put boolean into practice, play around with http://www.big5hire.com/. Big5Hire is probably the single largest CV database resource in the world, and it’s completely free! It aggregates the profiles from several major social networks, as well as CVs accessible through Google. The best value from it only tends to come from applying particularly complex or specific search strings, but that’s simply because there are so many profiles on there.

I therefore thought that it might be helpful if I provided an overview of the concepts and logic behind this system. Whether or not you choose to actually apply the process, I certainly think it should be given consideration first.

Key Advantages of Competency-based Selection

• Improved objectivity, leading to truer talent acquisition
• Consistency in hiring decisions
• Legal protection for the employer
• Improved consensus on hires across multiple stakeholders

How it Works
The intention of a competency-based assessment is to move hiring decisions away from the classic intuition-led process (i.e. away from: “I feel that this person would be a great hire”). Instead, the system brings in a certain amount of objectivity, replacing much of the subjectivity of traditional assessments. Candidates are not primarily assessed or rated based upon their aspirations, opinions, or similar. Rather, the underlying premise is that we can anticipate how a candidate will behave in a role in the future through an assessment of their behavior in the past.

In competency-based interviews, questions are asked that require reference to specific events (e.g. “When was the last time you were overwhelmed by your workload?”). Candidates are discouraged from giving general answers and asked to focus on specific incidents. By examining how a candidate has actually approached real situations in the past, we can judge more accurately how they will act again in similar circumstances.

I state above that this is a “certain” amount of objectivity, rather than total objectivity, because no selection system can be expected to entirely remove opinion. However, what competency-based selection does is provide substantial justification for recruitment decisions. By drawing upon multiple sources and contributors, and aggregating the data drawn from these interviews, the outcome ceases to be an individual manager’s choice and instead becomes a consensus. This means that new hires will have the buy-in of all stakeholders, improving prospects for their successful induction into the company. It also results (through keeping the structured interview notes from each interviewer) in a substantial body of evidence to justify hiring decisions, protecting employers from litigation.

Setting the Target
In order to be able to make a judgment on a candidate’s capability, we need to have a frame of reference to set them against. This is something that is individual to every business, as no two organizations have the same expectations. Candidates need to be assessed against defined personality traits (competencies) appropriate to the role in question. Typically these competencies will be drawn from a large global framework, in combinations that are different for each business area (as different departments will need different profiles).

Competencies tend to measure behaviors such as Adaptability, Working under pressure, Customer management, and so on. A candidate’s interview performance against each competency is related to “Key Actions” and other criteria that the employer has defined as belonging to the trait in question.

Rating the Candidate
By asking a series of specific questions (at Red Hat we provide interviewers with the questions they need in a formal interview guide, customized for each business area) and rating the capability that the candidate has demonstrated in their answers against the chosen competencies, the interviewer has all that they need to move into the process of decision-making.

All interviewers gather together (virtually, where required) to discuss their findings. The different scores that they have each given to the candidate are compared and discussed, enabling agreement of an overall score for the candidate against each competency. It is these competency scores that are then used to decide whether to pursue a candidate further or not.

In the process of discussing their findings, there will be differences of opinion between interviewers. That is where the interviewer’s notes are essential, as all decisions on scoring need to be justified by findings from the interview. I’ve found that an interviewer knowing that they will have to justify their score encourages a high-level of self-discipline in producing these notes. Thus there is no room left for hunches and loosely-explained opinions, which as I stated at the start is one of the intentions and benefits of a competency-based system.

We’ve seen why a competency-based selection system can benefit businesses in a number of directions. By having a consistent and objective process in place, employers are not only being transparent and fair to candidates, but they are also greatly reducing corporate risk from litigation associated with decisions that can be challenged as unfair or discriminatory.

Perhaps most importantly, introducing this objectivity helps ensure that organizations are truly hiring the best talent, which is ultimately our goal as recruiters.

As companies increasingly manage their recruitment in a regional or global context, recruiters are more often in a different country from the positions for which they are hiring. This can be a real compliance risk.

Legislation in the UK that affects hiring processes has expanded substantially in recent years, in particular around the area of discrimination. With that in mind, and as the UK is one of the world’s larger economies, I thought it might be useful for others if I highlight the key areas that need to be considered when recruiting for your organization’s UK entity.

These are stipulations in UK law, and you are expected to know them. In the UK legal system, ignorance is no defence. This advice is also no substitute for professional legal consultation (see the end of the article for more on that), but I hope it provides useful guidance.

Discrimination

As is common in many countries, UK law prevents employers from making a hiring decision based directly or indirectly upon discriminatory grounds such as sex, race, age, ethnicity, or disability. If you have an equitable hiring process, you could be forgiven for thinking that this article will therefore be of little relevance to you.

You are probably wrong.

I am sure we can all spot and avoid direct discrimination in our hiring practices, but UK law also gives protection to prospective employees from indirect discrimination. This is much broader in its definition, and has tripped up several companies recently (ironically, some of these have been law firms).

Indirect Age Discrimination

Age discrimination is now a major pitfall for many companies in their recruitment advertising, as indirect discrimination can make it a challenge to accurately describe roles in detail. For example, it is no longer permissible to state that candidates must have “Three or more years of experience in…”

If someone who has 2 1/2 years of great experience could actually do the job, then this statement would be considered discriminatory.

The most common workaround to this problem is to use adjectives to indicate relative competency strengths. For example, advertisements can refer to a requirement for “Strong experience with…” or “Solid experience of…” etc.

Further, employers must also avoid indicating any age preference in their corporate culture (as this can be interpreted as an inherent bias). Any reference to a “young team” or “dynamic environment” are both rocky ground.

Indirect Racial/Ethnic Discrimination

A recent employment tribunal has provided much greater clarity on indirect racial discrimination, and this is perhaps the most challenging circumstance of all. In the case of Osborne Clark Services vs. Purohit, a candidate had applied for a training role with a UK law firm whilst not having a valid right to work in the UK. The employer had a policy of never accepting applications for training contracts from non-EEA (European Economic Area) nationals who required work permits to work in the UK. As a result of this blanket policy, the prospective employer screened the candidate out of its selection process at an early stage on the basis of his work status, and the candidate accused the employer of racial discrimination. He won.

The ruling defines that all candidates, regardless of work status, must be considered equal, and hiring decisions can only be made based upon merit alone. However, in the current economic climate, the UK government has also clamped down on the distribution of work permits to non-Europeans, so the possibility of being able to hire someone from outside the EEA is not guaranteed.

The employer attempted to argue that the number of potential applicants for training posts would involve the employer engaging in considerable administrative costs in making work permit applications which were destined to be unsuccessful. This argument was not accepted and it was stated that work permit issues should only come into consideration at the last stages of selection. For employers, this has the potential to mean that recruiters must spend much greater amounts of time screening applicants for positions, and also managing their processing (where they are required to obtain the right to work in the UK).

On a side note, it is worth noting that the work permit regime in the UK was replaced in November 2008 by the Tier 2 skilled worker category. As the labor market test applies equally to Tier 2 applications as it did to work permits, the same considerations as arose in the case discussed above would still apply to applications subject to the new regime.

In conclusion, the picture is both challenging and at times contradictory. Companies should be particularly careful not to assume that advertising styles that are appropriate in the U.S. (and even other European countries) are legitimate in the UK.

Ultimately, it is at the discretion of individual companies to decide whether the most cost-effective solution is to adopt an outgoing search model (using networks and social networking tools), and not to advertise at all. The jury is still out on that.

Key Action Points

Do not justify any hiring decisions (or eliminations) based upon any discriminatory grounds, including:

• Length of Experience
• Immigration status
• Age
• Ethnicity
• Disability

In job advertisements, never:

• State time-specific experience requirements
• Imply an age-specific company culture
• Screen or eliminate candidates based purely upon immigration status

For further guidance on this area of UK law, I can recommend Jen Argent, to whom I also owe credit for sanitizing this article.

As we enter a new and more challenging phase for the global economy, we’ve all seen a sharp increase in the numbers of capable candidates who are available. With a market like this, which should dispel any competitive fears talent acquisition teams feel, I think we have a great opportunity to re-assess how we relate to each other.

Our Problems

From my recent conversations with recruiters in other companies (admittedly all IT firms), it has become clear to me that the main challenges that we face on a day-to-day basis are not related to our ability to source appropriate candidates. Nor are we often faced with a race to hire a particular individual before the “competition.”

More often, the issues that demand our urgent attention relate to internal processes and systems. As our CEO recently said of Red Hat as a whole: “We are succeeding despite our processes.” I would suggest that this is something many of us can relate to.

The most vocal and audible advocates of solutions to our problems are often those third-parties who are keen to sell us something, be it an applicant tracking system, or managed resourcing solution, or something else entirely. Where such a vested interest is held, we cannot rely on any sort of objective assessment of the situation.

Where Are Our Solutions?

So if we shouldn’t turn to the vendors for insight into best practices, where do we look? The key to understanding how to improve our own systems is to look at what other recruitment teams are doing, and to learn from their experiences. In order to do that, we need to clearly define our own priorities. Is it more important for us to keep hiring managers happy, or to foster enthusiasm in our candidate community? Maybe there is a more tactical goal, such as a reduction in the usage of staffing agencies.

Either way, there is bound to be another organization who has confronted the same issues before. We all have valuable experience from our own time in recruitment, but we should also never pretend to know everything.

Knowledge Shared Is a Problem Halved

Our company has a cultural bias towards transparency, and I think the open source software model is something that our industry can draw upon. We are all striving towards similar goals, and we can really evolve talent acquisition as a commercial discipline if we pull in the same direction. The U.S. has a head start in this regard; in other parts of the world dedicated internal recruiters are not yet a common feature of the corporate landscape.

Through groups on LinkedIn and ERE, in-house recruiters are starting to connect with each other. If we are all going to evolve, we also need to contribute. Tell the industry what you’ve tried, or what you’re thinking of trying. Share what worked and what didn’t, and see how it compares with the experiences of other teams.

If we as corporate recruiters want to adopt best practices in our own areas, we need to identify what best practice is. We should not assume that the most painless procedures that we have used ourselves in the past are actually the best systems in the industry as a whole … but they might be.

Open yourself up to scrutiny. Sure, it might be a little embarrassing at first to hold your hand up and say “I’m a recruiter, and my processes don’t work,” but you’ll feel a whole lot better for it afterwards. And who knows, you could just learn something in the process.