What do we stand for?
What is it we do as recruiters? Fill jobs? Source candidates? Use ATS, social networks, job boards, etc? An excellent recruiter and friend of mine — John Amodeo — has a great answer. John says we’re in the life-changing business. Think about it. When we fill a job we’ve transformed somebody’s life, hopefully for the better.
This is the human side of our work, which it seems many of us ignore. I’m just as guilty of this. It’s easy to lose sight of that in the shuffle when we’re neck deep in Linkedin, Facebook, video resumes, and all the other cool technologies we use. I was fortunate to start my career in recruiting managing a team of recruiters, never having hired anyone myself. At the time candidates were just resumes to me. It wasn’t until later that I became a hands-on recruiter. That was when I realized recruiting was more than moving documents and tracking a process. keep reading…
For today’s recruiters, there’s no shortage of new. New ideas on how to become better recruiters. New systems. New conferences. New tools. New techniques. New tips. New “best practices.” New processes. New blog posts. New communities of practice. New social media sites. New articles (dare I say, like this one!). New thought leaders. You get the idea.
Savvy marketers know how seductive new can be. Companies count on hooking buyers with that “new and improved” label on an otherwise very familiar product. Just for fun, I did a Google search using the words “new and improved” and found 57,500,000 matches! Notice the subtlety here — the implication that new implies better.
I am not arguing against the importance of “newness” for today’s serious professionals. I, too, love “new.” New ideas and new technology can be powerful game changers. But lately I have been wondering: if we want to continue to grow in our professions, is it simply “all about new”? And does new necessarily imply better?
Do “all things new” guarantee you a first-class seat on the non-stop flight to recruiting excellence? Stated another way, is the right question, “How well do I take advantage of ‘all things new’ in the recruiting profession?” Or is there another, perhaps better, question? I think there is. And you may be surprised to see it’s a question that is hidden in plain sight. But first a brief story. keep reading…
Calling yourself a recruiter doesn’t do justice to what “recruiters” have to do. Here’s a quick overview of where the role was, where it is now, and where it’s heading. keep reading…
Aside from the Phoenix-like return of Raghav Singh to the pages of this website from a horrific accident, there’s one more tidbit of news about familiar faces to the recruiting field, this one about Larry Clifton.
Clifton, the former recruiting head at national-security contractor CACI, has been named the chief human resources officer and executive vice president.
If his name or face sound familiar, it may be hardware-related. CACI has won several recruiting excellence awards in recent years; this year for its technology work and for two years in a row it was honored with the department-of-the-year award.
Few in the corporate world would argue against the fact that the actions of hiring managers have a significant impact on hiring. In fact, I estimate their impact to be over 50 percent (with recruiters and the corporate employer brand covering the remaining impacts). But unfortunately, I estimate that less than 5 percent of corporate hiring managers are formally assessed or held accountable for their contribution to the hiring process. What is needed is a hiring manager scorecard.
The goal of this scorecard is obviously to identify “problem” hiring managers but it is also to learn and then share the best practices of top-performing hiring managers with all other managers in the corporation.
After setting your overall functional goals, recruiting leaders need to develop these four items.
- Develop hiring and overall recruiting process metrics
- Develop recruiter competencies
- Develop an individual recruiter scorecard
- Develop a scorecard covering individual hiring managers.
I have covered the first three items in recent ERE.net articles, so this one will focus on a hiring manager’s scorecard.
The Benefits of Assessing Hiring Managers keep reading…
How to develop a recruiter scorecard for assessing individual corporate recruiter performance
Champions insist that you keep score. If you understand that concept, you will ensure that in addition to function-wide metrics, you will supplement them with a scorecard for assessing the performance of each individual recruiter. Everyone knows that corporations are measurement crazy, so I have found that by not measuring something (in this case recruiters), you are inadvertently sending a message to executives and employees that whatever you are doing is not strategic or even important (because if it was, we would measure it).
So unless you want to purposely send a message that “having top performing recruiters doesn’t matter,” you have no choice but to develop an individual recruiter scorecard. In order to do that effectively, you first need to understand the foundation design principles for individual scorecards and then you must select the actual measures that you will use in your scorecard. In part one, I introduced the concept and provided three examples of what a scorecard might look like. In this part two, I will cover the design details and a list of the measure to consider for your scorecard. keep reading…
Sample recruiter scorecards
Champions insist that you keep score. If you understand that concept, you shouldn’t be surprised that one of the best ways to separate champion recruiters from weak ones is to bring up the topic of assessing individual recruiter performance. The worst corporate recruiters and way too many third-party recruiters that I have come across almost instantly react negatively to the topic of individual accountability. Their protests usually include some variation of three different excuses which are, “professionals don’t need to be measured,” “recruiting is too subjective or soft to measure,” or “it’s not my fault, others are to blame.”
In direct contrast, the very best in sports, sales, academia, high tech, entertainment, and yes, corporate recruiting, not only love to have their performance measured but they also like it to be compared and ranked against their peers. If you are a corporate recruiting leader and you want to know which recruiters to reward or to keep (I recommend that you release those who complain the loudest about individual accountability), you need to move beyond broad recruiting department metrics and dashboards and to also develop a “recruiter scorecard” for assessing the performance of every individual recruiter. keep reading…
Recruiting is a unique field because it has no entry barriers. Unlike most professions, you can become a corporate recruiter without any formal certification, registration, recruiting experience, or even a college degree in the discipline. Because becoming a recruiter requires no formal qualifications, you probably won’t be surprised to find out that in practice, there is a wide variation in the capabilities of individuals who hold the corporate title of “recruiter.” Many corporate recruiters are truly outstanding, but unfortunately in some corporations, many other recruiters can only be classified as what I call a “Recruiter In Name Only” or a RINO (pronounced as rhino). keep reading…
What did your company spend on hiring last year? If you’re really not sure, you’ve got plenty of company. Given the decentralized talent acquisition model that many companies use, it’s nearly impossible to pinpoint the actual spending — and the true return on that investment. This is just one rather startling finding that we confirmed last year when we conducted our first annual Corporate Recruitment Benchmark Survey.
Survey participants included both executives and candidates, and they shared a number of eye-opening facts including:
- There are strong disconnects between hiring concerns and priorities
- Only 9 percent of the candidates were happy and not looking
- IT had an unemployment rate of 3.3 percent
- Most companies have fewer than two recruiters
- 36 percent of companies either do not know how they track hiring or do not track at all
To illustrate some of these key findings, and other common corporate talent acquisition challenges, we invite you to meet Eleanor. Her story is fictional, but the challenges she faces are anything but. keep reading…
Is your “six seconds of fame” enough to land you a job?
As a professor and a corporate recruiting strategist, I can tell you that very few applicants truly understand the corporate recruiting process. Most people looking for a job approach it with little factual knowledge. That is a huge mistake. A superior approach is to instead analyze it carefully, because data can help you understand why so many applicants simply can’t land a job. If you can bear with me for a few quick minutes, I can show you using numbers where the job-search “roadblocks” are and how that data-supported insight can help you easily double your chances of landing an interview and a job.
Your Resume Will Face a Lot of Competition keep reading…
We often read about a variety of supposedly recruiting-related topics which are designed to have in-house (either full-time or contract) recruiters “do better.” We typically work on 15-25 requisitions at a time, putting in 45-60 hours of work/week for immediate hires. Consequently, if it doesn’t directly lead to helping us “quickly and affordably put more/better quality butts in chairs,” these topics are wastes of our time.
A number of these suggested topics/tasks are useful (if not vital), and others aren’t. However, when we recruiters aren’t “drinking from a firehouse,” we’re wondering how soon they’ll lay us off, so in neither case can we work on these useful tasks. It would be valuable to have a company say to us:
We’re slowing down a bit now, so we’ll have you work on these other important tasks you haven’t had time to do up to now to keep you working for awhile.
Many companies are unable/unwilling to do this, and would rather lose our accumulated knowledge and practice and start all over again in the future with some largely/wholly new crew.
Anyway, back to those favorite wastes of time we’re supposed to do in the negative-5 to negative-20 hours of free time we have during the week: keep reading…
I’ve had many recruiting bosses, sometimes in large organizations, sometimes in small. I’ve been privileged to have had a few who have been exceptionally good. Here’s what the good ones had in common, and the sorts of things they would and wouldn’t do. keep reading…
A problem common to most recruiters and human resources professionals today is a lack of understanding the actual job they are trying to fill. It’s really a fine line a recruiter toes, because understanding the role itself is not only imperative for sourcing talent but is also a huge advantage for closing that top passive candidate. The overall understanding of the role itself starts with the job title. If the job title is not a good fit for what you seek, you are likely in big trouble. keep reading…
No one ever said that recruiting was simple, or easy, and if you were listening Tuesday on Day 1 of the Spring 2013 ERE Recruiting Conference & Expo in San Diego, you know that there is an overwhelming desire for how to do it better in today’s rapidly changing, post-recession workplace.
Ron Mester, the president and CEO of ERE Media kicked off the two-day event by observing that recruiting seems to be at a precipice and is viewed by recruiters and other talent managers in one of two very different ways:
- The Golden Age of recruiting is over – We’re not at the strategy table and technology is taking over. Call this the “Wile E. Coyote Group,” or the people who are always worried that the anvil is about to fall on their head. Or,
- This is the time for recruiting to break out and soar — Executives finally seem to understand how important talent really is, and we are all about to become “Masters of the Universe.“
Challenges to Be Addressed keep reading…
Two years ago, LinkedIn realized how much it needed not just a lot of good employees quickly but a lot of good recruiters quickly.
It came up with an uncommon answer, one its recruiting director Brendan Browne talked about at today’s ERE conference in San Diego. keep reading…
I hear from talent acquisition leaders that they want a seat at the table. I ask: “What does that mean to you?”
For an individual recruiter, it’s building trust with your hiring managers. For a recruiting manager, it’s building trust and showing progress on hiring needs with multiple hiring managers. For the leader, it’s driving quality of hire, building relationships with leaders, enhancing the brand, globalizing hiring if required, managing a large budget, driving productivity outcomes with the teams they manage, and delivering on hiring goals set out by the company at all levels especially the executive level. Any talent acquition strategy has to be aligned to these company goals and directly to the HR vision.
HR has to build bridges with their finance leaders and with those who influence strategy. For this to happen, talent acquisition has to be the bridge with its HR leaders to be the subject matter expert in hiring practices; specifically, hiring practices that help reduce short-term attrition. keep reading…
On the verge of leaving the recruiting calling …
I am a second-generation recruit who knew he wanted to be a recruiter. In junior high I’d go to my dad’s office and stuff envelopes of candidates to prospective clients and help rewrite resumes. I went to school and studied HR management and organizational development. After a stint in social work to give back and learn more about how people ticked, I went into recruiting.
I have started departments, trained recruiters and managers on targeted interviewing, and worked for some of the top firms in life sciences and finance — making them able to compete in a global economy.
I have had the privilege to study sourcing from Shally Steckerl and to debate Lou Adler on the art of recruiting. And I read articles each day on the profession of recruiting.
So, I am stunned to say I am done. keep reading…
My last post on why I believe LinkedIn will never kill the professional recruitment industry seemed to generate a lot of attention. While some of the numerous comments made a lot of sense, I can’t help feeling that there are still a lot of people missing the point.
Recruitment can mean different things to different people. There are a plethora of different business models within the staffing industry, so I thought it might be a good idea to define what I believe good recruitment is. This will perhaps put into context why I don’t believe that LinkedIn — or for that matter any other web-based product — can ever replace the service we provide. I expect this will be particularly helpful for those who seem to feel that they are qualified to comment on the impending death of our industry without having ever having been a recruiter, or in some cases ever having recruited a person themselves.
Talent Is Not an Online Commodity keep reading…
Like you, I started seeing the posts and pics last week on LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram (yes, Instagram) from friends who were receiving the “You have one of the top X% most viewed LinkedIn profiles for 2012” email from LinkedIn.
First it was 10% then 5% and later in the week 1%.
And I started thinking, “am I really not that cool to have ranked in the top 1%? How can that be?” keep reading…
The writer of those Recruiting 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 pieces is leaving Autodesk and is headed to SAP as Global Head of Talent Acquisition Strategy & Innovation. keep reading…