Unlike the economic turmoil following 9/11 and the dot-com bubble burst, many recruiting functions have continued to innovate and stretch the limits of what can be defined as “standard recruiting.”

If you work in an organization that has given up on innovation and instead has adopted a survival strategy, it’s important to realize that many of your competitors are not standing still. If your organization chooses to wait for an economic recovery to begin modernizing their recruiting practices, you may find it nearly impossible to catch up.

One of the challenges in the fast-moving profession of recruiting is how to keep up with the latest evolutions in best practice. In my experience, there’s no better place to learn about practical tools and applications in recruiting and talent management than ERE.net.

Fortunately, ERE Media holds a yearly global competition aimed at identifying the very best “next practices” in recruiting. Each year, ERE receives hundreds of applications in eight recruiting program categories from well-known organizations like Microsoft, IBM, Ernst & Young, Intuit, Accenture, GE, Yahoo!, and from less well-known but equally innovative organizations like DaVita, the American Cancer Society, and Tata.

Fortunately, as a judge for the Recruiting Excellence Awards, I’m given the opportunity to highlight some of these amazing practices that your organization should consider adopting.

The applications this year were so powerful that choosing a winner in several categories was a challenge. This article will primarily highlight the practices of those organizations that won, but I simply can’t resist sharing some of the practices of other companies.

Category I: Most Innovative Employee Referral Program — Accenture

While employee referral programs have always been a top source for high-quality hires, during economic downturns, they can be adapted to become the most effective low-cost/high-quality source. Accenture’s latest employee referral program is unique because it began life as a pilot program in The Netherlands. Based on the program’s results, it now serves as a model for future rollouts around the globe. The new program radically simplifies the program’s terms and conditions and dedicates resources to marketing the program internally on a regular basis.

Since inception, just a year ago, the program has grown the percentage of hires attributed to employee referral from 14% to 32%. Employee awareness of the referral program has jumped from 20% to 99%, an astounding feat (do a quick survey in your organization — you might be surprised how few people know the details of your program and how to make a referral). The quality of referrals also improved significantly, reducing the number of referrals required to generate a hire from seven to five.

Consider some of their program’s highlights:

• Charity component. The critical component in any referral program is getting your employees to make high-quality referrals, not for the direct monetary benefit, but for the opportunity to provide their teammates with the very best coworkers. By allowing the employee to allocate a portion of the referral bonus to charity (i.e., KidsRights and local elementary schools), you have added another altruistic reason for making successful referrals.
• Focused referrals. Its referral application form makes it difficult for employees to make referrals of people they don’t really know. The process requires the individual to explain how they know the individual, that the individual’s skills are exceptional, and that the individual will “fit” within the organization. These types of features can help to limit the number of “casual” referrals that can clog the system.
• Exciting rewards. Employees receive a small reward for a successful referral and €500 is donated to charity. They also offer an opportunity for employees who make successful referrals to participate in a drawing for exciting world trips. In addition, employees also receive €100 whenever one of their referred candidates is invited in for an interview. Obviously, any candidate invited for an interview is of sufficient quality to merit at least some reward and recognition.
• Employee scorecard. Employees have their own individual online website that allows them to track the progress of their referred candidates throughout the hiring process (this increases employee involvement and transparency). It also covers the number of referrals and their accumulated bonuses both for themselves and for charity. The scorecard also lists the employee’s personal referral success rate. By allowing the employee to see how well they’re doing in their referrals, relative to others, you can motivate lower-performing employees to increase their referral effectiveness.
• Referrals are flagged. Employee referrals are flagged by the application process so that they can be prioritized and fast-tracked during the hiring process. Under their enhanced program, every referral is acted upon.
• Everyone is eligible. It’s fairly common for referral programs to exclude hiring managers and HR professionals, but this can be a mistake because among all employees, these are some of the most well-connected. Accenture’s program now covers all positions and its expanded eligibility now allows everyone, including managers, HR professionals, and recruiters to participate. Other firms that have adopted this practice simply encourage individuals to donate 100% of their bonus to charity when they see a potential conflict of interest.
• Referral cards. Referral cards can have a major impact on referral program success. Most referral cards are “paper” and are handed out individually. Accenture has taken the practice one step further, allowing employees to send electronic referral cards to people in their network. The e-cards contain a code that allows them to get credit if the individual submits an application.
• Courage. Even though it’s an intangible factor, it’s critical to referral program success. It’s easy for executives to discourage talk about hiring and winning awards during tough economic times, but the managers at Accenture had the courage to continue the development of this important program and to also follow through on the awards process. I salute them for their courage.

Other outstanding referral features from other companies:

• Acumen Solutions. Rather than the traditional passive approach, targeted referral percentage goals are set for each department in order to increase healthy internal competition. They provide a toolkit to educate their employees how to more effectively network. They celebrate referral successes publicly at all major company events.
• Microsoft. Microsoft raises the bar on employee referral related branding with their “Spreadthelove” website. This site allows Microsoft employees to “write up” their own individual story about their career with Microsoft (their story might include pictures, testimonials and video). Employees can then share the web link and “spread the love” with targeted friends, family and potential referrals. Microsoft has increased its process effectiveness by ensuring that every referral is contacted first by an employment specialist, which then introduces them to a recruiter that will manage their experience moving forward.
• Tata Consultancy. Adapted a marketing/CRM model for its referral program (i.e., the company offers a 24×7 referral help desk with a toll-free number). Another component allows newly hired candidates who have not yet joined the firm to refer their former colleagues (in order to capitalize on their “top of mind” knowledge of their networks in their previous organization). They also instituted a “Rapid Hire” process where resumes were collected at referral desks that provide “on the spot” screening followed by preliminary evaluation and instant feedback. They also offer early bird & spot prizes as well as contests between business units to foster a competitive mindset around referrals. The metrics demonstrated (as many other firms have) that referral turnover rates during the first year are significantly lower than traditional experienced hires (2.9% for referral hires versus 8%).
• CACI International. It sends targeted messages to employees for open “hot jobs” and has scaled its incentives and process referrals on a daily basis.

Category II: Best employer brand — Ernst & Young

Coupled with an effective employee referral program, a strong employer branding program can be the second component providing firms with a distinct competitive advantage in recruiting. An employer branding program is an image-building program that emphasizes the “viral” spreading of stories and information about the elements that make your organization a “well-managed” firm.

Some of the key components of the Ernst & Young effort include:

• A targeted branding effort. The most effective organizations try to segment the brand to meet the targeted population. Because Ernst & Young hires a large number of college grads, it has developed an effective employer branding segment that has resulted in them being listed by BusinessWeek as the number one “best place to launch a career” beating out Google and other well-known college recruiting powerhouses.
• Brand pillars. They have four key brand pillars including Learning and development, Workplace flexibility, Inclusive community, and Opportunity. Brand messaging is embedded in every candidate facing communication.
• Web 2.0 channels. Even though they operate in a conservative industry, Ernst & Young has chosen to use the latest technology to engage their primarily Gen Y audience. They use modern electronic tools like video, blogging, Facebook, Twitter, etc. They offer “live” question-and-answer exchanges via Facebook where real questions are submitted and then answered online and shared with all. In the experienced hire category, Ernst & Young has been ranked on the Fortune 100 Best Place To Work List for 10 years in a row.

Other notable features of other companies:

• Microsoft. Adopted a micro-segmenting or micro-targeting approach to employee brand messaging. They used extensive market research to identify the appropriate brand messaging by segment and then the optimal brand messaging channels. Both View and “youatMicrosoft.com” enables a targeted storytelling approach to branding that can be targeted at specific population segments, large and small.
• Johnsonville Sausage. Surveyed employees to identify weaknesses in brand messaging, then created task forces to address the gap between the targeted employee experience and the actual employee experience so employees could become true brand ambassadors.

Category III: Best Retention Program/Practices — American Cancer Society

Retention is always a hot issue, but will become “red hot” when an economic turnaround begins and employees begin to think of “getting even” as a result of their treatment during budget cutbacks and layoffs. Most companies don’t even have a director of retention, nor do they offer formal companywide retention efforts, so invariably, there is a lot that can be learned from best practice organizations.

Some of the key features of the American Cancer Society’s retention program that you should consider adopting include:

• Significant results. The most important feature of any retention program is the results that it produces. As a not-for-profit organization, the American Cancer Society is limited in its ability to offer significant pay and benefits to retain workers. However, even under those constraints, this program produced breathtaking results, namely a 2% turnover rate among program participants compared to the organization’s 37% overall turnover rate.
• Business case. Even though they are not-for-profit, they use metrics to make the “business case,” demonstrating the dramatic impact that employee turnover has on organizational objectives. In particular, they showed a direct connection between high staff turnover and the ability to recruit volunteers in local communities. In addition, they put a dollar cost on employee turnover ($11 million per year) so that managers could better see the impact of losing talent.
• Program elements. The program is called the talent opportunity program. It is a three year, three phase development plan for developing early career professionals. It offers a 5-point support system (online community, a local buddy, a local mentor, a local manager, and a career coach). The program has an electronic component that meets virtually via web 2.0 tools including Facebook and Blogger (used to facilitate a weekly book club).

Category IV: Best Diversity Program — Microsoft

Microsoft has adopted a long-term perspective for diversity recruiting. Rather than just meeting recruiting targets and offering scholarships, they have attempted to actually increase the supply of qualified diverse candidates with technical skills.

Some of the best practices include:

• A pipeline approach. The recruiting begins early (high school) and contains elements that continually identify and build relationships with potential recruits. They sponsor DigiGirlz, a technology camp for young women in high school and they hosted an annual minority student day to get students excited about careers at Microsoft.
• Targeted website. They launched an extremely powerful and targeted website, www.youatmicrosoft.com, a micro-branded website offering diverse candidates an inside look at Microsoft from a several different diversity perspectives. This site spotlights the authentic, personal stories of diverse individuals at Microsoft who have forged successful careers in technology.
• Dedicated diversity recruiting team. Their team has full life-cycle recruiting responsibilities with a special emphasis on executive recruitment.
• Identified challenges. They convened a panel of engineering and diversity experts to help identify the problems and challenges involved in building a multicultural workforce.

The award recipients highlighted here deserve to be congratulated, and I thank them for pushing the envelope in recruiting and HR.

It should be obvious from both the attendance and the tone of this year’s Expo that the “war for talent” is still going strong.

The rate of innovation in recruiting is increasing. The one overriding trend is that recruiting is becoming more “business-like.”

Stay tuned for part two of this article, which will cover the four remaining awards:

Category V: the best college recruiting program – Ernst & Young
Category VI: the best corporate “careers” website – Yahoo!
Category VII: the best strategic use of technology – Microsoft
Category VIII: the recruiting department of the year — DaVita

Video resumes and video interviews are here. Yet some employers, afraid of the legal ramifications of reviewing videos of people in the hiring process, are curling up into the fetal position and taking steps to avoid them altogether. Here’s why you should do the exact opposite and fully embrace them.

I recently had a conversation with a director of recruiting at a large organization who said that he had just put a policy in place to reject all video resumes. “And why would you do that?” I asked.

“Because I don’t want the EEOC or OFCCP breathing down our necks and want to be protected if we are ever sued for discrimination,” was his response.

As I’m about to illustrate, legally protecting yourself from video resumes or interviews would require locking all of your recruiters and hiring managers in a broom closet with a copy of the Journal of Corporate Recruiting Leadership.

I also fully expect pigs to fly well before the EEOC or OFCCP can develop sensible regulations that address the unique challenges presented by these new tools. This is exactly why you should embrace them for all of the benefits they can provide to hiring managers, recruiters, and candidates.

What Videos Can Do for You, Your Hiring Managers, and Candidates

Within the discourse on video resumes, I think we’re really talking about two different things here: video resumes and video interviews.

A video resume is something that someone uses to talk about their experiences as part of an online resume. It’s essentially an advertising tool for the job seeker. A video interview is something that an employer initiates to get a better feel for a candidate’s competence to do the job.

In short, a video resume can help you learn more about a person than you can on a resume, without expecting the candidate to undergo formal questioning or having them take the time to answer questions you design.

This may sound superficial, but sometimes you just know that someone’s not going to work out; every recruiter I know tells me stories about candidates who looked great on paper, sounded just great over the phone, but were loony tunes in person.

Recruiters won’t ever have time to sort through hours of video, but if videos are tied to resumes or profiles that provide more structured data, the unstructured video portion of their profile helps fill in some details that the resume wouldn’t (for example, if it’s a job that requires executive presentation skills, can the person deliver information on themselves confidently and credibly?).

Video interviews, like those provided by HireVUE or (coming soon) InterviewStudio, can save you the time and expense of flying in candidates for interviews, lengthen your memory about the interviews you had earlier in the hiring process (people who interview later in the process usually have a better shot than those who preceded them), and provide a more courteous experience for candidates, who can avoid flying all the way across the country for roles that they’re destined to bomb in the interview process.

There might be some shades of gray in between, such as a video resume that includes answers to stock interview questions. See The Vault’s recent contest winners for an example, most of whom treated the opportunity to create a video resume as more of an interview than anything. To be fair, the contest was for investment bankers, and we all know the danger of getting too personal or cocky with your video resume in that industry.

Why Your Recruiters Can’t Avoid Them

Video resumes can be anywhere, which is why your recruiters and hiring managers simply can’t avoid them.

Video resumes can pop up on YouTube or any number of sites like The Vault, Resume Movie, TalkingCV, personal websites, or even Jobster, which was recently one of the first major career sites to allow video resumes within profiles.

Unless you keep your recruiters off the Internet altogether, which would be foolish given the number of great candidates out there and the fact that some recruiting inevitably happens on home computers, you really can’t keep them from seeing video resumes.

So your range of options for regulating this phenomenon are:

• Discourage people from sending video resumes. But candidates are famous for taking whatever advice you give them and doing the exact opposite in large numbers.
• Don’t accept video resumes. You can write whatever policy you like on this, but someone, somewhere is still going to receive a video resume. I’m not a rule breaker, but if I got one I’d look at it. Curiosity is a powerful thing.
• Tell your recruiters to close their eyes. You might even give them a video resume blindfold that they can put on anytime they accidentally click on a link.

All of these policies are clearly unenforceable. The underlying fear here is that people in your company will discriminate against someone because of race, age, gender, and any number of other, more superficial factors not related to this person’s ability to do the job.

Well, there are plenty of other opportunities to do this, like job fairs, networking events, chance encounters with candidates, blind dates, and of course interviews just to name a few. You might as well outlaw recruiting if your goal is to eliminate all places where a subjective and discriminatory judgment could be made.

Why the EEOC and OFCCP Can’t Regulate Them

Any time a new technology comes out, you can bet dollars to doughnuts that someone in the recruiting industry will immediately start asking about how this will be viewed by the EEOC or OFCCP.

I know that risk avoidance and mitigation are necessary parts of our business, but come on, people. I’m not saying we shouldn’t look before we leap, but let’s not let it get in the way of figuring out how a new technology can add value in our recruiting process and to our constituents.

I would argue that video resumes simply can’t be regulated by the EEOC or OFCCP. It would be rather foolish for them to try. Any attempts at regulations are also likely a long way away. Keep in mind that these are the organizations that took 12 years to define an Internet applicant.

The OFCCP’s much-publicized recent guidance in the Internet-applicant arena sent companies scurrying to figure out how they start tracking every single search their recruiters perform. This is close to impossible given the number of sources a recruiter may search, from their own applicant tracking system to Google, Windows Live, or Yahoo!, at home in their pajamas late at night while watching The Matrix trilogy.

I can only imagine their guidance on the definition of a video-resume applicant. Any link to that video must be captured in the applicant-tracking system; a transcript of what the individual said must be documented along with their gender, ethnicity, race, and clothing preferences; and all websites with videos that recruiters visit (at home or at work) must be retrievable at any given time.

Whether you like it or not, a candidate might one day (if they haven’t already) use a video resume in a lawsuit against your company. They could argue that, because their video resume is out on the open Web, your recruiters might have seen it and their appearance, gender, ethnicity, etc. is why they didn’t get interviewed or offered the job. It would be quite hard to prove that your recruiters never saw it.

Perhaps there’s some good that can come out of this. Instead of focusing on how we restrict access to information that could allow someone to discriminate, perhaps we could focus on educating our employees on how to use this new medium and why we shouldn’t discriminate against anyone in the first place.

Here to Stay

The digital world we live in is like the Wild West: hard to live in at times and even harder to regulate. With social networks, personal blogs, and now video resumes, we’re reaching a level of transparency that a lot of people may be uncomfortable with.

But all of these phenomena are here to stay. It’s how we use them that will make a real difference on whether they positively or negatively impact the recruiting industry.

• Poor program design
• Poor program execution

From an outside advisor’s perspective, recruiting managers underutilize, under-appreciate, and under-fund most ERPs ó despite the fact that in many organizations referral programs produce at least 30% of all hires. This lack of effort in optimization may be partly attributable to a false perception that a program is performing well if it produces results inline with the averages published in widely available benchmark studies. Unfortunately, any failure to optimize the performance of a tool with the efficiency and effectiveness of an ERP is a failure nonetheless, even if output is inline with the averages. Firms with best practices in employee referral routinely attribute ERPs with generating between 50% and 75% of all hires. The key to optimizing these programs is to periodically assess them both using metrics and design feature comparisons against best practice programs. If you want to avoid the all-too-common pitfalls that most programs face, or if you just want to elevate your referral program to “world-class” status, here is an audit you can use. Elements of a World-Class Employee Referral Program A world-class employee referral program:

• Has as its primary goal to become “world class” and to provide only exceptional quality referrals (whose work is known directly by the referrer) for key jobs.
• Has a proactive program that actively “seeks out” individuals and asks them for targeted referrals.
• Educates and demonstrates to employees and managers the necessity of employee referrals as an essential tool in guaranteeing business results and assuring that everyone on the team is a winner.
• Emphasizes the use of branding and viral marketing in driving referrals.
• Utilizes referral rates as an indication of employee morale and internal brand strength.
• Uses split samples and statistics to demonstrate both the effectiveness and the dollar impact of an effective employee referral program.
• Contains a continuous improvement element and a feedback loop to continually drive improvement to the program.
• Prioritizes jobs and managers and focuses their efforts on top performers in key hard-to-fill jobs.
• Realizes that speed and high touch are essential and, as a result, processes referrals first and treats them as special candidates (24-hour acknowledgment time).
• Measures and rewards managers for excellence in referrals within their team.
• Identifies candidates’ “job-switch criteria” as part of the referral process.
• Identifies and informs employees when target candidates are most likely to consider an opportunity using statistics and algorithms.
• Requires the referrer to assess and prescreen candidates for cultural and skill fit.
• Encourages employees to limit referrals to people they know to be as good or better than themselves.
• Has a feature where an employee’s “next referral” is weighted based on the success of previous referrals.
• Takes into account global differences in cultural behavior and provides appropriate design variants when in use globally.
• Involves the CEO, who touts the program frequently in his or her internal talks and speeches.
• “Weighs” and expedites referrals, based on their likelihood of producing a top quality hire in a key position.
• Provides education and information to participants in the program on a persistent basis regarding how best to approach possible referrals and pre-sell them on the opportunity.
• Frequently communicates with both the referrer and referee regarding the status of their referral.

Don’t be frustrated if your current ERP doesn’t contain most (or any) of these features. Instead, look at them as a roadmap that you can utilize to transform a good program into a great one. Design Features of Excellent Referral Programs An excellent referral program will exhibit the following design features:

1. The entire referral process is web-based and paperless.
2. The program periodically measures the satisfaction rates of referred candidates/hires and referring employees.
3. The program tracks the on-the-job performance of referrals, and it gives an added bonus if the employee is rated as a top performer at the end of a predetermined time period.
4. The program includes a method to incorporate referrals from non-employees (vendors, consultants, ex-employees, and even spouses and customers).
5. It has a formal process for encouraging employees who attend conferences and seminars to generate referrals from those events.
6. It actively discourage “average” referrals and referrals for non-critical jobs.
7. The program prevents or blocks bottom performers from actively submitting referrals.
8. It encourages and specifically targets the referral of top performers from key competitor firms (who are also likely to be ready to move).
9. It accepts referrals for certain key positions, regardless of whether there is a current opening.
10. The ERP identifies “super-knowers” in a function or industry (well-connected individuals) and utilizes them as part of the referral process.
11. It measures and encourages referral participation by business unit, in much the same way that charitable-giving program participation is encouraged and measured.
12. It distributes a “best to worst” list of company-wide departmental referral performance in order to embarrasses dawdlers.
13. The submission of “names” only (i.e. no resumes) for top candidates is accepted and encouraged (top performers will often opt-out of a bureaucratic process).
14. All managers and HR professionals are eligible to participate and offer referrals (in non-conflicting situations).
15. The utilization of employee referrals is part of the manager’s bonus criteria.
16. Hiring managers have direct access to the candidate referral database.
17. “Relevant” jobs are “proactively pushed” to employees who are most likely to know a top performer.
18. Drawings and contests for prizes are used as well as guaranteed bonuses for every referral that is hired.
19. The reward varies depending on how critical the job is.
20. The program features a similar “internal” referral program to encourage internal movement within the company (intra-placement).
21. Top candidates who are not initially hired are maintained in a database (where relationships are built over time). These referral turndowns are treated like customers. The firm must be honest to the referring employee and the candidate on why they weren’t selected and what they can do to become better qualified. Referral resumes become a permanent part of the company’s traditional recruiting database, and top candidates are automatically be considered for other jobs.
22. New hires in key positions are asked for referrals on their first day on the job.
23. The applicant’s job references are used as a referral source.
24. The ERP program is supported and at least partially funded by marketing.
25. The program has a specific emphasis on targeting and successfully hiring diversity candidates into managerial and other “key” positions.
26. The program allows referrers to email open job descriptions to their friends.
27. It utilizes “identify the expert” software (e.g. ActiveNet) to identify knowledgeable employees within the firm who are likely to know the best in a particular targeted field.
28. It has a program feature that asks successful referrers which approaches or sources they have found effective in identifying their candidates. That information is used to educate other employees at “lunch events” or departmental meetings.
29. There is an appeal process for individuals who feel they were unjustly denied a referral bonus.

Common Problems Associated With Referral Programs Even established employee referral programs run into problems. Some of the most common ones you should plan for include:

1. Recruiting managers assume that the status quo program is working, without constant monitoring and evaluation using metrics.
2. The program suffers from cumbersome administration, rules, and regulations.
3. The volume of referrals isn’t managed carefully, which causes “chatter” to obscure quality candidates.
4. The reward for referrals is nonexistent or is too low to effectively induce referrals.
5. The referral process requires that a resume be presented before a referral can be processed.
6. The marketing aspect of the program is not “re-energized” periodically.
7. Inadequate mechanisms are present for resolving disputes over who “gets credit” for duplicate referrals.
8. Referrals are underutilized (or not supported financially) because of a misguided “feeling” that they have a negative impact on diversity.
9. Individual recruiters ignore or underutilize referrals (because they didn’t source the candidate themselves).
10. The reward process offers slow, split, or delayed payment of referral bonuses.
11. Even though employees might have good intentions, the program fails to educate them about where and how to find referrals and how to “sell” the firm.
12. Non-monetary recognition is underutilized and minor awards or recognition are not provided to employees with unsuccessful referrals.
13. Too many non-key jobs are included in the referral program.
14. The referral programs is not integrated into other recruiting and HR programs.
15. There is no process to handle individuals who abuse the referral program or violate its guidelines.
16. The program fails to require first-hand knowledge and assessment of the referee’s work, and as a result, most referrals turnout to be “strangers” who need detailed assessment to determine if they are qualified.

Metrics to Assess the Effectiveness of Referrals In order to ensure that you get your metrics right, it is critical to involve your finance department early in the process of creating and implementing effective program metrics. Some metrics you may consider proposing include:

• “On-the-job” performance of referral hires (measure and compare the ERP’s performance ratings to other sources of candidates)
• Program ROI
• Retention (turnover rate) of referral hires
• Percentage of all hires who come from referrals (variant: percentage of key jobs filled by referrals)
• Manager/referee/referrer satisfaction with the referral program
• Percentage of diversity referrals/hires (especially in management and key jobs)
• Process time by step (delay from referral point to interview date, which results in fewer top performer hires)
• Employee participation rate in the referral program
• Cost per hire (as compared to other sources)

Conclusion It’s important to realize upfront that although referral programs can be great, most are just mediocre. If you want your program to be world class, you need to start at the design phase and make sure that you design world-class features into it. Once it has been operationalized, it’s important to continually audit the program and the process in order to ensure that it meets its goals and objectives. The use of metrics, feedback loops, periodic audits, and continued vigilance is the only way to guarantee that the program and its results will continually improve.

• Low level of knowledge. Assessment is a complex subject matter that takes some effort to fully understand. My research has shown that a lack of knowledge about assessment has continually been the main reason for hesitancy to consider using these measures.
• Crowded market. There are an increasing number of vendors out there. As the popularity of assessment tools increases, I have already begun to see a proliferation of new products, many of which I feel have been created to help “cash in” on this emerging market segment. Adding to the problem is the fact that there are also a large and growing number of legitimate vendors who have quality products and services.
• Fragmented market. The market reflects a good deal of variation among the types of vendors who offer assessment tools. Each vendor has a slightly different product, and there is a wide range of products that can be called assessment tools. This, coupled with a growing number of new models for the use of assessment, can create a situation in which there are a good many options available to consumers. While this is a good problem to have, it can complicate the process of choosing a vendor.
• Homogonous marketing messages. It is amazing how similar the marketing messages of organizations that offer assessment tools can be. Even more problematic is the fact that many of these messages do not provide consumers with the ability to determine what these products actually do. This is partly unavoidable due to the complexity of the subject matter and the need to sell product based on important outcomes such as “value,” “quality,” “technology,” etc. Still, differentiating between marketing messages can be a frustrating task that clearly reinforces the need for a deeper level of evaluation.

All of the above issues can leave potential consumers of assessment tools confused and possibly discouraged. One of the reasons for this is the fact that consumers in this market seem to have a very strong interest in finding the one “best vendor” whom they can call to magically solve all of their problems. I can’t even count the number of times I have been asked the question, “So, who is the best assessment vendor?” To this question I have only one reply: “It depends.” While the need to identify the best vendor is very a understandable mindset, it is also a very dangerous one. This is because, simply put, there is no one best vendor out there. After working in this space for the past 10 years, it has become clear to me that the only way to think about assessment vendor selection process is using a contingency approach. The best vendor in one situation may be the worst in another, even though both offer quality products. The best methodology for assessment vendor selection is a very personal approach, in which the “best vendor” is the one that can best meet a set of very specific needs. This determination involves evaluating vendors based on a set of parameters that define a good fit between a vendor’s products and services and the needs of the consumer. These include:

• Understanding pain points and objectives. It is important to clearly understand the reason why it is expected that assessment tools can add value in a specific situation ó is it via a reduction in turnover, helping to increase technical knowledge, the development of certain organizational competencies, helping ensure a legal selection process, or any number of other reasons? It is also critical that the organization’s objectives for using the tool are crystal clear at the earliest stages of the process. A lack of direction can end up causing issues down the line and will definitely make it harder to really identify the best vendor for the situation.
• Identifying contextual issues. This includes a number of important parameters, such as company size, level of centralization, locations where assessment will be used, applicant volume, timing required for implementation, budget for implementation, etc. Each of these things can be very important during the vendor evaluation process, and I can promise that accounting for them does make a difference in the end.
• Identifying technology needs. This involves understanding the technology needs related to the use of assessment products. The level of desired technology and the features and functionality required should be clearly identified at the start of the evaluation process. It is also critical to map out the other technology platforms with which the assessment tools must interact.
• Understanding the jobs involved. This goes beyond merely naming the jobs for which assessment tools will be used to include an understanding of the performance requirements of these jobs. The better performance at the job or jobs in question is understood, the easier it will be to evaluate each vendor’s approach to measuring them.
• Understanding the existing hiring process. Assessment is only one component in a process designed to support accurate decision making. While assessment tools are important for accuracy, the overall accuracy of the entire process depends on understanding the process as a whole and the impact assessment will have on it.
• Identifying linkages to other processes. Assessment tools can have a tremendous amount of value above and beyond supporting hiring decisions. It is important to identify the manner in which assessment will be used to support other initiatives such as on boarding and employee development.
• Understanding cultural/political issues. Implementing assessment tools often requires some degree of organizational change. Cultural issues are enough to doom even the most effective assessment tools. It is especially important that assessment is championed from a relatively high level and that end users of the assessment tools also buy in to their value. Representing the concerns of both of these parties during the vendor selection process is a very important consideration that is often overlooked.

Simply identifying the key parameters of a vendor match is only the first step in the identification and selection of your own “best vendor.” The gathering and use of this information should be embedded into a formal vendor evaluation and selection process. While a formal process is not always needed, vendor selection that is driven by misinformation and personal relationships/agendas can be disastrous. Although the formality of the process and the steps it includes can vary quite a bit, I generally recommend the following basic steps:

1. Create a cross functional team. It is important that as many of the groups who will be impacted by the implementation as possible be represented. It may also be helpful to ensure that at least one team member has some expertise in the use of assessment tools.
2. Collect data on key parameters. Various team members should be asked to contribute any information that will be needed to clearly define the parameters that will guide the selection process.
3. Identify relevant vendors. Once data on key parameters has been identified, the team should use it to identify a group of vendors whose products and services seem to meet the basic requirements of the situation. This may require research and initial discussions with vendors.
4. Open two-way dialogue with vendors. Once a group of vendors has been selected, the process now shifts to one of getting to know these vendors a bit better. At this stage of the process, it is often worthwhile to ask vendors for a demo and to begin asking them specific questions about how they will handle your situation. The goal of this step is to narrow the field down to a small group of vendors whom you will ask to participate in a more formal evaluation process.
5. Evaluate vendors head to head. This step most often involves a formal RFP in which vendors are asked to submit written responses to key questions, provide a more detailed presentation, and submit to due diligence aimed at ensuring all questions and concerns about their organization have been answered.
6. Select a vendor. Once all this information has been evaluated, the team can reach a decision and move forward with the implementation.
7. Post-selection activities. The process does not end with the decision to select your “best vendor.” In fact, this is really just the beginning. Once the decision has been made there is still a need to negotiate contracts and develop an implementation plan. I recommend this step include a pilot study in which the vendor’s products can be tested and evaluated. The pilot study should help provide a very clear understanding of what will occur during full-scale implementation and is important for helping to establish the validity and value of the assessment tools being used. Finally, implementing assessment should never be approached as a static event. Organizations should be sure to continually evaluate the effectiveness of the assessment tools and make any adjustments that are needed.

While there is a great deal of variety both in the needs that drive the use of assessment tools and in the tools themselves, any vendor that claims to offer quality products should be eager to participate in a formal evaluation process. In fact, reluctance to provide information is often an easy way to spot a vendor who may not really be able to deliver on the promises they are making. Even when following the advice I have provided here, the complexity that can be associated with assessment tools can still represent a roadblock for many potential consumers. While this can be difficult to overcome, it should not be allowed to stand in the way. If your organization is having difficulty gaining an understanding of how assessment works and how to ensure you are able to find your own “best vendor,” you might want to consider looking for assistance from an expert. If your organization has an industrial/organizational psychologist on staff, you may want to see if you can involve them in the vendor selection process. If you don’t have internal resources there are lots of independent I/O Psychologists out there who may be able to assist you. If you look hard enough, there is also a decent amount of information available on this subject via the web. For example my company, Rocket-Hire (www.Rocket-Hire.com) publishes a buyer’s guide to web-based screening and assessment tools that can serve as a valuable tool for organizations looking to find their own best vendor. The bottom line here is that selecting an assessment vendor does not have to be scary. In fact, doing it right process can provide a very good educational opportunity for those involved in the process. The result will be a better educated organization and the ability to realize a significant return on the investment made in the implementation process.

1. Making the information provided actionable. This edict cannot be repeated enough. To make information valued in an organization, it must be presented in such a way that the recipient can immediately realize how to make use of the information ó and how to act differently.
2. Keeping the information relevant to the ultimate goal. Many metrics exist that are interesting but not relevant to any particular business goal. Since business professionals are often evaluated based on specific objectives, getting them to pay attention to information requires that whatever information you want them to look at be relevant to some aspect of the job they are being held accountable for.
3. Putting context around the information. By itself, most information is useless unless you provide something to compare it against that gives it context. In an ideal world, all corporations would compare their metrics to that of a select group of competitors, but we all know how difficult getting such information reliably can be, so you may have to settle for industry numbers.

With these three keys in mind, let’s look at the most common employment website numbers. The Most Common Corporate Employment Web Measures When corporate employment sites became popular in the late 1990s (yes, it was about one decade ago) the leading business professionals in recruiting knew that measurement would play a key role in making this new mechanism a key tool. To that end, they approached other web professionals and adopted a series of metrics similar to those that power most websites, including:

• Volume of unique individuals visiting each page of the site
• How long they stayed on the site
• What page brought them to the site, if they started their session on any page other than your home page (also known as a landing page)
• What other sites are linking to your pages
• What sites visitors were coming from

By themselves, each of these measures tells you something, but none rise beyond the level of basic reporting metrics. In short, they fail to demonstrate the keys to being world-class on the three counts listed above. Unfortunately, many organizations are stuck at this level. (It is important to note that these statistics do not include those that an applicant tracking system would provide. Those metrics are outside the purview of this article, because in theory, if not in practice, an ATS does not constitute an “employment site” but merely serves as a tool to help make better usage of the information collected by the site. For lack of a better word, most corporate recruiting sites “s**k” and have become nothing more than bland front-ends to ATSs and RMSs, but again that is not the topic of this article. For more on that topic, please see this article.) Transitioning Into World Class Starts with a Goal To move beyond the archaic world that is common web measurement, we must first realize what goal the corporate employment site helps to achieve. Luckily, the answer to that question is commonly known. We know that the site exists to drive qualified applicants into the ATS so that they can become candidates. In the world of sales, the act of taking a visitor to a website and making them a participant in the end goal is referred to as “conversion.” Therefore, we can extrapolate that the most valuable reporting web metric would be conversion rate, i.e. the percentage of qualified web visitors who made it through the process to become applicants, as compared to the average or the rates of other known firms. With this in mind we can now turn our attention to what information might help us make better decisions to impact this metric. Does the following make sense?

• What paths, i.e. what pages, do people visit that most often result in conversion, and in what order do they visit them in?
• What paths do web visitors take that least often result in conversion?
• How does the user experience or information presented differ between the two?

By looking at the paths that regularly do not lead to conversion and attempting to fix them, you can positively impact the end goal. Improving the conversion rate of a corporate employment site is not always an easy job, especially when your employment site is well integrated into your corporate site, because politics often come into play. Some things to keep in mind:

• One of the best ways to determine what might be “offramping” visitors from your site is trial and error.
• Don’t change a bunch a variables at once; it makes it nearly impossible to determine which changes had the desired result.
• The most common problem is that the variables present in high conversion paths are missing altogether from lower conversion paths.
• Your employment home page or landing page is the most critical page under your control.
• Building a corporate website that isn’t accessible to major search engines is akin to locating your business on an island without major access routes!

What’s Next? Web Measurement in the Modern Era (The Amazon Story) As a professional discipline, web measurement has come a long way since the advent of the Internet. It has become such an advanced science that there is little commercial sites like Amazon.com don’t know or are unable to predict about the visitors that come to their sites. In fact, the approaches pioneered by Amazon.com have had such a profound impact on the discipline that any article on this topic would be remiss not to credit them as one of the key innovators. Many of the early features they debuted have already made their way into the recruiting world, and some of the features they are testing now most certainly will as well. Some of the Amazon.com features that have recently transitioned to recruiting (or are likely to in the near future) include:

• Monitoring what type of product visitors routinely seek out for the purpose of recommending other similar products
• Identifying trends among products specific visitors viewed, but never purchased
• Identifying trends among products that specific visitors routinely recommended to others
• Identifying trends among the type of products that get purchased as gifts for other people (not Amazon.com customers)
• Combining web usage and consumer data from multiple sources to mass personalize the landing page to include products and information most statistically relevant given your past behavior

This last feature, while insanely complex, wraps the future up into one tiny activity. For years, corporations have been amassing data that was relevant for short-term reporting purposes at the time, but the data now exists in such volume that data miners can accurately extract behavioral models relevant to each individual. In short, were corporate employment sites or commercial job sites to partner with search engines and financial services providers, they could predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy how likely you would be to accept a specific offer for a specific opportunity. Are we there yet? Not quite. Is it possible? Absolutely. Will it happen? Your guess is as good as mine! Conclusion The art of making a corporate employment site more effective isn’t an art at all, but rather a science. Determining what copy will instill an urgency to act on the part of the visitor is a science we know how to do, a science some companies do very well at on the sales side of the business. Candidate acquisition is a lot easier when everyone you want comes to you, but that is a complicated goal, and one that cannot be achieved without constant measurement and adjustment to operational activities. If having a world-class employment site is a goal for you, as it should be, this article should help focus your efforts. I would wish you good luck, but then again luck has no place in science!

1. Does the system have at least 80% of the features that you think you will need? Can it produce the reports you need? Can it integrate with your HRIS system? Can the vendor give you examples, and will that cost be part of the quote? Obviously, you have to have completed my first recommendation above and know your processes and what you need very thoroughly. You also have to realize and accept that no system will be likely to do 100% of what you want without great expense and customization. Be realistic and work with the vendor you choose over time to evolve the missing elements.
2. Has the vendor installed the system in another organization of a similar size to yours? Can you call up some of those customers and talk to their recruiters? Has the implementation gone smoothly? Were there minimal hidden costs? If not, forget the vendor. If some of my clients had followed this advice, they would have saved hundreds of thousands of dollars on poor implementations by vendors who were often highly regarded in the press and had innovative concepts, but lacked the ability to execute. Features are of no values without execution.
3. What is the vision and growth strategy of the vendor? Do they have the leadership and foresight to stay a market leader? You want to go with a vendor who has been around for a while and has weathered this economic downturn successfully. Do they listen to you and respond promptly to needs and problems? In my experience, customer support and follow up are the most frequently cited reasons for unhappiness with an ATS.
4. Are you in control of the selection process? Partner with your internal IT group, but don’t let them lead. Internal IT groups are trying to juggle many priorities and you are just one of them. They are always going to be focused on the technical side, not on the functional side of the product. This is helpful and you need to understand the issues they have. However, they should not control the selection process. Increasingly, as the applicant tracking systems mature, the technical issues are disappearing. There may be concerns on the part of your IT group, but the vendor can often answer those easily.

Having No Change Management Process Implementing a technology solution in a people-oriented culture is going to create some serious change issues. Recruiters will have to learn new skills. Hiring managers will have to be made aware of new requirements and may even have to learn to use some part of the system. Candidates will be going through new steps, especially if you are also using the Internet more effectively as part of your new process. An applicant tracking system cannot simply be dropped into place without extensive internal marketing and communication to everyone who will be touched by the system, even if only slightly. The HRIS people, the hiring managers, obviously the recruiters, and even the candidates may need some kind of explanation, training, or help in adapting to the system. It is also important to remove, perhaps over a period of time, all the OTHER ways of doing recruiting. Human nature is such that when given the opportunity, most of us will avoid changing and continue to do it the old way. Remember that no technology can solve political or other problems within your organization. Technology only facilitates process.

1. The ATS industry has finally started to get it! The jig is up for companies that have promised to increase quality of hire but fail to offer infrastructure capable of fulfilling the promise. Market demand has required that ATS vendors of all sizes begin to evaluate how they can deliver this essential, but often missing, ingredient. To their credit, most vendors have reacted accordingly and are working hard on a new generation of products that provide the substance required to help their customers make quality hiring decisions.
2. Established assessment vendors have finally start to get it! More and more established assessment companies that have been the cornerstone of the testing market for decades are starting to understand the need to do more than merely deliver tests via the web. These organizations are finally spending money for the R&D needed to help ensure they deliver their content in a more cutting-edge manner.
3. Organizations are finally starting to get it! Finally, organizations are starting to gain interest in the use of some form of measurement tools that can help them to systematically increase the quality of their hiring decisions. This is a significant trend for several reasons. First of all, it shows that organizations are evolving their thinking about hiring and are interested in using technology to support innovative processes. Secondly, increased interest levels help vendors to justify the outlay of cash for the development of new products and systems.

My experience working with both ATS and assessment vendors, as well as the consumers of their services, leads me to believe very strongly that these three trends will definitely lead to increases in the development of more innovative hiring practices in the year to come. The use of screening and assessment tools will represent a significant part of this trend. I myself welcome this trend, because I believe that it will continue to fuel a fundamental shift in the market. This shift will be marked by consumer demand for tools that will provide them with the ability to support innovation and provide an understanding of the value associated with their investment in hiring technology. This demand will continue to be driven and supported by vendor R&D efforts. I believe the winners in 2005 will be those vendors who will be able to offer tools that support the following best practices:

• Breaking down barrier between the major steps in the hiring process. The current viewpoint of the hiring process is still compartmentalized. That is to say, sourcing, candidate management, and maintaining quality of hire are often handled using different systems that are not tightly integrated. The hiring process is a continuum, and the outcome of each element in the process is limited by the step that comes before it. This past year has seen the beginnings of change in the right direction. Several of the larger ATS companies are building out platforms that integrate each of these major functions. This currently exists mostly for the big end of the market. This is unfortunate though, because companies of all sizes can benefit from this approach.
• Movement away from a “test centric” mentality. The assessment industry has traditionally focused on the use of discreet tests in order to help organizations predict which applicants will be the best fit for a specific job. While this methodology can be highly effective when used correctly, it can be a bit cumbersome. Any hiring professional knows that jobs are complex and that often times the ability to differentiate between star performers and average ones requires a set of tools that are mapped closely to job requirements. The most effective way to do this is via the ability to take elements of various tests that are relevant to a particular job and combine them in a manner that allows for optimal prediction. One test is rarely enough to provide a solid foundation for making accurate predictions. The modern hiring process demands that the industry begin to think in terms of creating flexible systems that offer efficiency via the measurement of each of the major elements that combine to define job performance.
• The ability to provide a solid foundation for understanding performance. Effective hiring cannot occur in the absence of an understanding of the requirements of the job in question. While most technology-based hiring systems provide some way to help users identify key performance drivers, this continues to be a weakness. Best practices demand a system that provides users with the ability to verify and document the critical ingredients required for successful job performance. All subsequent activities in the hiring process should then be based on this definition. This process is not only the key to effectiveness, it’s the law! This issue has been defined by the need for systems that can be rapidly configured and those that offer a strong foundation for the measures used in the hiring process. Best practices for the future demand careful attention to this issue.
• The ability to help organizations measure success versus key business outcomes. One of the challenges continually faced by hiring professionals has been the ability to demonstrate the value of various elements in the hiring process. This is definitely not an easy task, but the development of technology systems that can support the collection and analysis of various streams of hiring-related data is a great step forward in this area. I believe best practices for vendors involves a methodology that includes both assisting clients in understanding key outcomes as well as providing technology that demonstrates the hiring process’s influence on these outcomes. This is a definite step towards the application of business intelligence to the hiring process, a trend that I believe will become more common over the next five years.
• Ability to link assessment results to other key parts of the hiring process. For years, I have been suggesting that the data collected during the hiring process has value beyond the initial hiring decision. Assessment data is rich in information that can be used for helping organizations create development plans and facilitate the on-boarding process. An increasing number of vendors are beginning to catch on to this idea. I have seen a few examples of these types of tool surfacing lately. However, it will take a bit more time for the market demand to really accelerate the development of these tools. Organizations simply aren’t thinking this far ahead yet and must first learn to integrate the hiring process itself before attempting to cross this frontier.

While vendors represent one side of the best practice equation, organizations also have a related set of best practices that they should be focusing on for 2005. I am very optimistic about the increased adoption of these best practices, as I believe increased assessment-related educational opportunities and increased levels of interest in using assessment are leading organizations to become more concerned with following them. My best practices for organizations for 2005 include:

1. Continuing to integrate the hiring process. Organizations need to strive to break down barriers between the various parts of the hiring process. Sourcing and branding must be seen as integral parts of the hiring process that directly influence the quality of hiring decisions. Quality outcomes clearly require that assessment be tightly integrated into various stages of the hiring process.
2. Demanding more from your ATS. Organizations need to demand that their ATS is able to provide them the tools required to make informed hiring decisions. The mere management of applicant information should not be considered as a sufficient level of service.
3. Defining key outcomes. Start doing what it takes to hire using these key outcomes. This best practice will never go out of style. The key to successful hiring is documenting what it is you are looking for, and then working backwards to ensure you create a process that will facilitate your ability to find it.
4. Tracking various elements of the hiring process to business outcomes. The real value of creating a best-practices-based hiring process is a clear understanding of its impact on the bottom line. While this can be a challenge, there are an increasing number of tools available to help you understand the impact of hiring on the bottom line.
5. Experimenting with assessment. Organizations that have not given assessment a second look need to snap out of it. The use of scientifically based predictive tools has saved organizations billions of dollars over the past few decades. The introduction of technology into the mix has made the benefits of assessment more accessible then ever before. It is important to understand that assessment is not a panacea, as it is should be only one part of a carefully planned hiring process.

My warm fuzzy feelings for 2005 come from the fact that both sets of best practices outlined here provide momentum for one another. As vendors begin to sniff increased interest, they loosen their purse strings for R&D. As more organizations begin to experience success based on the integration of best practices for technology, the work will continue to spread, creating increased demand. The increases in demand will continue to help spark intense competition (hopefully via the roll out of world-class products), which will result in organizations continuing to use a combination of innovation and best practices to create more effective and efficient hiring processes.

1. Handling the needs of less active and passive candidates. For example, recruiters need to focus on job descriptions that are compelling, easy to find, and easy to apply for. The ability to build and manage pipelines of top people with CRM (customer relation management) capability is also important.
2. Improving recruiter productivity. Recruiters spend too much time doing unnecessary work. Finding prioritized information instantly is part of the solution to this, and accurately sorting the best from the rest without having to do too much is another. Properly designed and easy to use technology can address these issues and give recruiters two to three hours more per day in increased productivity.
3. Providing recruiters real time access to important recruiting and assessment tools. What do you say to a candidate who says she’s no longer interested or wants another week’s vacation? Good candidates who got away or were inadvertently excluded are the biggest time-wasters of all.
4. Managing multi-channel sourcing programs to maximize quality while minimizing cost. Recruiters need a real-time, optimized view of what’s happening by channel, by search, by quality, by time, and by cost ó and automatic processing of next steps. Sequenced sourcing like this can maximize candidate quality while holding cost to the minimum possible.
5. Providing recruiting management the tools they need to ensure that performance objectives are being met. Managers need to know how the team is doing every step of the way, highlighting potential problems and bottlenecks, plus the ability to reallocate resources as needed.
6. Providing hiring managers the tools they need to improve their hiring effectiveness. The real needs of hiring managers have been overlooked. While scheduling interviews is important, intuitive interfaces that spoon feed all that’s necessary to select from three great candidates is the real goal.

In this ongoing technology trends series of articles, we’ll focus on these major topics. In a recent ERE article, I examined the needs of less active candidates. These are strong people who look infrequently. Because they’re more discriminating and time is of the essence, technology needs to be able to handle their unique needs. We just completed a report on how the major ATS vendors are handling this important sourcing issue. There were two clear leaders, a few making good progress, but over half of the thirteen systems we examined fell far short of basic needs. The key ingredients to progress on the IT front are clear: customer-centric vendors with robust, flexible technology and strong customers who push their viewpoint. Fortunately, all of the vendors who participated in our evaluation recognize the need to improve the functionality of their systems. Unfortunately, users aren’t responding as rapidly. Recruiter productivity is another area that needs more attention. Corporate recruiters never have as much time as third-party recruiters to complete their work, so technology must do a better job of evening the odds. While an employer brand can help bring in more candidates, processing and selecting the best is still time consuming. Couple this with the need to deal with more hiring managers, less time to network, less time to spend with each candidate, and with more reqs to handle, just dealing with the basic stuff is sometimes overwhelming. Here are some big areas where technology can be improved:

• Desktop navigation
• User interface and the ability to quickly update records and move candidates
• Using the search engine to quickly bring only the best candidates to the top of the list
• Automated correspondence with candidates
• Eliminating unnecessary steps
• Minimizing the number of candidates sent out to employers
• Automatically scheduling interviews
• Coordinating activities with hiring managers

As part of our technology review on recruiter productivity, we’ll examine all of these areas. Two stand out as critical issues: desktop navigation and the robustness of the search engine. As you read the following, consider how well your system handles these two critical issues. Desktop Navigation The ability to quickly find what you need to work on every day. This shouldn’t be a problem. Unfortunately, for some systems it still is. It’s caused by the initial system designers building their process around the standard cycle of requisition approval, candidate sourcing, selection and offer process. While it sounds logical, recruiters don’t work this way. They work on priorities. It doesn’t matter what stage of the process a candidate is in; if an interview needs to be set, an offer extended, or a phone screen conducted, a recruiter needs to know what to handle each day. Sorting through reqs to get this information is time consuming. Most technology vendors didn’t consider this recruiter vs. requisition process difference in their initial designs. To catch up, they had to scramble to pull out the critical pieces from each req and put it all on the desktop. Some do a better job than others in handling this data management issue. It becomes a problem when the underlying database structure doesn’t allow for easy access and presentation of the data. Part of our upcoming review will be to evaluate how well the vendors currently handle this critical area, and what they’re doing to get better. Searching for Resumes Finding candidates quickly and accurately is essential. This is probably the deal-breaker for all systems. The goal here is to get the best candidates to the top of the list so you don’t have to ever look at more than 10 to 20 resumes in total per search. You should be able to ignore the other candidates in the pool if the search worked properly. If there aren’t any good candidates in the initial batch, then stop looking and switch to another sourcing channel. For a search engine to rank high on performance, it must be able to handle limited data from less active and passive candidates and accurately rank order and separate the strong from the weak. Coupled with this, it must be easy for all recruiters to use, not just super users. Unfortunately, too many don’t work well enough. Don’t accept false solutions either. A search engine that can quickly sort through active candidates who completed some extensive questionnaire is counter-productive. In this case, you’ll need to track opt-out rates at each step and add more inducements for candidates to stay involved at each step. These are the type of unnecessary workarounds we see when systems weren’t designed properly to begin with. It all leads to more work and weaker candidates. Recruiter productivity can’t be considered in a vacuum. Even as noted above, improving recruiter efficiency while eliminating the best candidates is illogical. Yet things like this happen too frequently. Technology design must be considered from the perspective of all users. In the recruiting/hiring area, this user group includes less active candidates, recruiters, hiring managers, other interviewers and recruiting/HR management. Balancing their often competing needs is the key to strong system design. For technology to evolve more rapidly, it needs strong technology users who can see beyond their own personal needs. This high level systemic look is essential if we want technology to play a more important role in helping companies hire the best talent more quickly at the lowest possible cost. Note: If you’d like to join our technology users group, send an email to info@adlerconcepts.com for information on how to participate. You’ll receive a copy of our latest white paper, “ATS Vendor Review: Handling the Needs of Less Active Candidates,” and a chance to influence the technology roadmap. Upcoming reviews include recruiter productivity, new emerging technologies and multi-channel sourcing. The vendors are listening, and they want your input. This is your chance to be heard.

Where have all the flowers gone? Long time passing…

Where have all the flowers gone? Long time ago…

Where have all the flowers gone? (Stop humming! You got the idea.)

The song lamented the loss of the way things were: the loss of promise, the loss of hope, the loss of a safe environment (at that time there was a real potential for global “warming” of the nuclear type). Today, the same song is being sung by those of us watching the recruiting marketplace. But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. Let’s go back a few years first, to the time when a very big stone dropped into the business pond. Taking our cue from the “Fifth Wave,” we’ll call our story the “Seventh Ripple”:

• Splash! The World Wide Web becomes user friendly and easily accessible.
• First ripple: Computer proliferation + Consumers + User-friendly graphic interfaces = Strong demand for web-based goods and services
• Second ripple: Entrepreneurs respond by founding new organizations.
• Third ripple: Demand for qualified employees skyrockets, creating a need for applicant tracking systems and job boards.
• Fourth ripple: Unprofitable web-based organizations disappear faster than boiled shrimp at a senior citizens’ party.
• Fifth ripple: Newly vaporized organizations dump employees back into the labor market.
• Sixth ripple: ATS and job board revenue is no longer driven by market demand, and sales fall as a result.
• Seventh ripple: It all depends…

Will the Seventh Ripple Be Marked by Cluelessness? Clueless vendors in the hiring industry are organizations where executives once sat around drinking Starbucks and watching sales multiply like dust bunnies. They thought their rapid growth was caused by brilliant marketing. Imagine their surprise, and then disbelief, when sales started slipping, slipping, and slipping. Despite their best efforts at cold calling and servicing accounts, Starbucks had to be replaced with a water fountain; the pool tables and pinball machines gathered dust; and staff was decimated again, again, and again. What happened? Who changed the rules? These brilliant folks missed the point. As luck would have it, they were fortunate to be in the right place at the right time. As long as demand exceeded supply, they were able to ride the updraft of market demand. But when the product rapidly matured and the product had to stand on its own merits, their high-flying balloons started losing altitude. An experienced balloonist knows when his balloon can no longer ride the updrafts. At that point, there are only a few ways to avoid crashing: throw excess weight overboard, repair leaks, pump in more gas, or find other updrafts. Clueless balloonists do nothing. They sleep “remembering the Starbucks of the good old days.” Web-based services were then, are now, and will always be, just another delivery method, not a panacea for all hiring problems. The “updrafts” of excess market demand are gone and will probably never return. Vendors that remain clueless will continue to crash and disappear. Will the Seventh Ripple Be “Eat or Be Eaten”? Vendors who still have a few bucks in the bank from the boom time might believe that survival depends on finding other balloonists in the same condition and tying their aircraft together. This might seem like a good short-term solution, but getting bigger won’t solve the problem of decreased market demand. But market forces are no longer a primary business driver. Merely managing huge numbers of applicants is not the problem. Better, and legal, hiring and screening practices remain the undiscovered country. Will the Seventh Ripple Be “Tree Huggers”? Tree huggers are “fractured” vendors who think recruiting is a collection of trees (as opposed to a forest). They embrace their interview tree, their job description tree, their database tree, their background-checking tree, their applicant tracking tree, their testing tree, their EEOC tree, their competency identification tree, and so forth. Tree huggers have no idea they live in a forest and that an individual tree is just part of the organic whole. Woe to them! Remember Lotus 1-2-3? WordPerfect? Dbase IV? Harvard Graphics? That’s what happens to tree huggers. Almost everyone buys a Microsoft suite these days. There is a lesson here. Who has the foresight to become the next ASP/recruiting suite? Will the Seventh Ripple Be “Snafu”? SNAFU is a venerable military term. It refers to a state of affairs where everything goes wrong. It also refers to the normal state of recruiting. For example, let’s presume the real purpose of recruiting, pre-hire screening, and HR is to find, screen, and manage fully qualified people (yeah, I know that’s a stretch). What do we need to accomplish this goal?

• A documented list of measurable competencies for each job family in the organization
• Some trustworthy and reliable tools to measure each candidate’s qualifications
• A source of potential applicants
• A way to manage, track and record applicant flow for EEOC purposes
• A way to manage and benchmark employee skills for succession planning and restructuring

Okay, good list. Makes sense. Now, what really happens?

1. Everyone invents his or her own definition of “competency,” while HR writes job descriptions that describe what the person does, not how to do it.
2. Error-filled resumes are screened in detail for keywords (as if smart applicants didn’t know how to get around the system).
3. Companies screen based on interviewing skills but leave out competencies and evaluations.
4. People buy tests on blind faith from vendors who never did a validation study in their lives (validation = proof the test predicts performance).
5. Viable applicants are hard to find.
6. Few people seldom, if ever, manage and track applicant flow as defined by the EEOC (the 80% rule).
7. Once an employee is hired, they disappear into the employee pool void, with no way to manage, maintain or benchmark their skills.

Conclusion What now? Which “ripple” represents the future? Which vendor has the inspiration and motivation to become the next supplier of integrated recruiting tools? No matter what kind of technical rap Microsoft gets, you have to admit they did not grow from a DOS vendor to one of the largest corporations in the world by being a tree-hugger or clueless. They were savvy enough to buy the whole forest (take that, Harvard Graphics!) What happens in our neck of the woods, for now at least, remains to be seen.

• Find and talk to people who might not have considered or even heard of your organization in the past ó and not just the people with resumes.
• Help people understand whether or not they are right for your organization and vice versa, and how your openings compare to the competition’s.
• Persuasively sell your organization and openings ó without over-promising and without overtly disparaging competitors ó by putting everything in the context of what’s in it for the candidate.
• Take down contact information if there isn’t a suitable current opening and systematically contact candidates if and when there’s a better opening down the road, and network to see if there are others that this person knows who might help them fill current or future openings.
• Help ensure that the candidate has a good experience during the hiring process by bringing forward relevant, personalized information at strategic times.
• Don’t ask for more information than they really need.

The web has evolved beyond a collection of static pages. As contradictory as this may sound, technology at its best can help make what can seem like a very impersonal process much more personal. An employment website at its best can be the online reflection of how your best recruiters recruit. It can influence what your recruiters say about your organization and get everyone working from the same playbook. It can act as the central place that starts to close the deal on your recruitment marketing efforts and makes all the advertising money you’ve spent worth it (and less costly to boot). It can compel the passive visitor to apply to an open position that is the best match for his or her particular skills. A major consideration for employers as you build your websites should be your set of hiring goals. Do you recruit globally? What are your hardest to fill or highest volume openings? Is your audience tech savvy? Is there a lot of competition for the same talent pool? The answers to these questions impact what type of employment website you’ll need to succeed. One other important criteria of this evaluation is that each site has been built to accomplish specific business and recruiting goals for their companies ó gratuitous animation, extraneous information (no matter how deep the content) and meaningless hyperbole, cliches, or unsupported promises were considered negatives. Without further ado, the envelopes please… Overall Best in Class A few companies outshine all the rest regardless of which categories you put them in. These companies include:

• Proctor & Gamble. This is exactly what any employment website should aspire to be. The P&G employment website takes treating the candidate as a customer to new levels. Not sure how to get a job at P&G? Take one of their job seeker seminars or visit their Candidate Advice Center. Want to know about how they recruit and why? They’ll tell you everything you want to know about what they do to recruit and select talent. The site leaves you wondering, why doesn’t everyone have the same transparency in their recruiting practices that P&G does? Most importantly, the P&G employment website represents an experience, not just a static group of pages. Interested college candidates can take a very interesting “Just In Case” challenge. Along the way, they’ll learn more about P&G, and compete against other players from around the world ó while helping P&G capture unconvinced passive candidates and separating the best from the rest.
• Enterprise Rent-a-Car. What in the world is a rental car company doing at the top of this list? They’re getting a huge competitive advantage for talent in their space and redefining their industry, that’s what. Enterprise presents an engaging, highly targeted experience that helps sell a specific audience of candidates ó college graduates who won’t consider a career with any other rental car agency ó on working for Enterprise. Instead of saying how great the company is, everything is put in terms of the job seeker. They do such a great job that I could actually see myself working there. The results? Higher quality candidates that no one else in their industry can hire and a competitive advantage for talent that drives their industry leadership.
• Deloitte. Seventy countries. Nine languages. Local content. Customized job seeker experiences for anyone, anywhere, anytime. Deloitte is able to present one consistent image worldwide, in a way that still gets recognized for excellence as far away as Germany. Visit Deloitte’s career site if you want to learn what it means to recruit from a global talent pool.
• Federated Department Stores. For many retailers, convincing their hiring managers that their candidates are online is like pushing a very heavy rock up a very large hill. “We’ll lose our walk-in traffic!” they protest. Yet somehow, FDS has been online for years and has had enormous success (and fun) doing it. Their career website brings together several different cultures ó think Macy’s, Bloomingdale’s, Rich’s, The Bon Marche, Burdine’s and Lazarus ó into one powerful, accessible employment brand that leaves the competition in the dust.
• Siemens. The Siemens employment website communicates a wealth of global information about what they do, where they’re going, their investment in R&D, and what kinds of people succeed there. In one of the most unique and most useful global features I’ve seen to date, Siemens also gives candidates the ability to “self screen” themselves on personality traits, fit, and their ability to think and act as part of a global team.
• Intel. The Intel careers website really represents a personal conversation between them and every developer, engineer, or marketing, finance, and HR professional who even thinks about working for them. Just like a good recruiter, their website sells to different types of audiences in very different ways. After all, an engineering candidate will certainly not have the same priorities as a finance candidate. The numerous awards Intel has received as an employer are also on display. Most importantly, their website acts as a conversion mechanism in support of their hiring goals ó you know exactly where they’re hiring and the types of people they’re after.

Honorable Mentions Other general sites that deserve mention include Home Depot, Cingular, General Motors, UPS, Boston Consulting Group, General Electric and Microsoft. KLA Tencor has a few innovative features, like event reminders, tight integration with their ATS, and even new hire and interviewee portals that help sell through the entire candidate lifecycle. T-Mobile’s site is currently in transition but will soon have some highly creative and fun features that will really set them apart. In the highly competitive healthcare field, only a few entries I’ve seen really stand out: CrossCountry Travcorps, Advocate Healthcare and Exempla. In aerospace and defense, Boeing and Northrop Grumman set the pace. And in public service, there are some high profile examples of putting our tax dollars to good use, including USA Jobs, the official site of the federal government and a masterpiece of integration work; the U.S. State Department; and the U.S. Naval Reserve. With the new talent wars just beginning, many employers are realizing that the first step in gaining a competitive advantage in the electronic recruiting space is to get their employment website in order. Companies are just starting to scratch the surface with emerging practices such as:

• Providing more adaptive and personalized experiences to better sell passive candidates
• Mutual online assessments, self-screening and simulations to reduce volume
• Ongoing relationship marketing, loyalty programs, and even blogs targeted towards niche audiences
• Candidate service features, such as clearly defined hiring practices and job seeker seminars
• Unified global recruiting and applicant tracking
• Candidate, recruiter and new hire support during and after the hiring process
• Relationship-based networks

While the sites above all represent great examples, the best is yet to come. If you know of other great sites out there that I missed (even if it’s your own), please post a review below. I’d love to hear about them.

• Good: At least two-thirds of the recruiting team uses most of the features of your ATS, keeping all information current.
• Not good: Low user adoption rates; many important features not used or understood; information not kept current.

2. Desktop navigation

• Good: It’s easy for recruiters to find all of their hot tasks and action items every day. It integrates efficiently with enterprise calendar and scheduling tools.
• Not good: Recruiters have to hunt through req folders to find the status of most issues. Alerts aren’t easy to set up and hot tasks often go cold because of the need to keep dual scheduling and calendar systems.

3. Ease of use

• Good: Finding and updating records is easy, quick, and efficient; recruiters gain time to spend on critical recruiting tasks, with some flexibility to match individual recruiter styles.
• Not good: Recruiters need to open up too many windows and make too many clicks to change a candidate’s status; it takes too much time to update information. The system is not very intuitive.

4. Resume screening and reviewing

• Good: It’s easy to rank order all of your candidates from every source in terms of quality and review these resumes quickly. Recruiters don’t waste time looking at the resumes of unqualified people.
• Not good: Filtering and screening resumes is not done by everyone ó and even those who do it find it slow, cumbersome, and not very accurate. Recruiters spend too much time reading too many resumes of unqualified people.

5. Candidate application process

• Good: It’s easy for candidates to find jobs and apply online. Seven minutes or less is the target. Questions are designed to insure no opt-outs of top people.
• Not good: It’s hard to find jobs; applying is difficult; parsing of data to speed up applications is non-existent or inaccurate. Opt-out ratios at each step are high.

6. Requisition management

• Good: It’s easy to use. There is a great library of approved requisitions that are easy to find and use. Getting approvals is natural.
• Not good: It’s cumbersome. It’s difficult to open, find, and organize requisitions. Approvals are difficult or impossible to manage electronically.

7. Sourcing channel strategy and management

• Good: It’s easy to write ads, post and update jobs on best sites, manage outside vendors, and manage multiple sourcing channels including pipelines and employee referrals.
• Not good: It’s difficult to track responses by source, and managing multiple channels is not easy to do.

8. Reporting and metrics

• Good: Recruiters, recruiting managers, and hiring managers can quickly find out what’s happening on every search, how productive each recruiter is, and where the best sources of talent are located. Reports can be modified easily without vendor involvement.
• Not good: Reports are mostly historical and too late to be meaningful. There is little visibility available about how productive the recruiting team is on a daily or weekly basis. There is limited flexibility to create user-defined reports without significant vendor support and cost.

9. Hiring manager interaction

• Good: Managers are involved and pleased with the system. It’s easy to correspond, including sending resumes, scheduling interviews, updating candidate status, and maintaining notes. It’s easy to keep managers up to date.
• Not good: Managers fight the system. Too much time is wasted coordinating candidate activities with hiring managers and others interviewers. It’s difficult to keep track of important information and resumes.

10. Off-line activity

• Good: Very little information is needed to be kept in offline files or spreadsheets.
• Not good: Recruiters develop their own outside workaround processes to offset inherent weaknesses in the ATS.

How many “not goods” did you have? Add them up and multiply by 10%. This is your ATS Inefficiency Factor. Each “not good” detracts from a company’s ability to hire good people. A good ATS, properly implemented and used correctly, will significantly enhance a company’s ability to hire more top employees. The cost of missing a great hire because of inefficiencies in the recruiting process is just as costly as making a bad hire. Often, bad hires result from a manager being forced to hire a second or third choice because the best candidate either didn’t apply, or the best person opted-out during the process. [Note: If any problems are revealed by the survey, you should take a more dynamic evaluation, my ATS Online Performance Evaluation. This interactive diagnostic tool will quickly pinpoint your problems and quantify how much an underperforming ATS is costing you every day in lost productivity and, more importantly, in lost opportunity to hire top people. We'll be presenting a free online summary of the results of this survey on October 27, 2004. You'll be invited as long as you take the survey. In addition, we're now working with all of the major ATS vendors to determine where they stand on developing new features to support the needs of less active candidates. We'll provide a sneak preview of this report during the online summary. This is something you won't want to miss if you'd like to get more out of your technology investment.] Recognize that a well-designed and properly used ATS can provide these major benefits.

1. Improve recruiter productivity through ease of use and more expert tools.
2. Improve the candidate experience by focusing on the needs of less active and more discriminating top performers.
3. Attract and hire more top performers by integrating workforce planning with multi-channel sourcing strategies.
4. Reduce time-to-fill through the development of high-yield pools, pipelines and networks.
5. Reduce “bad hires” by providing better tools to instantly weed out the good from the bad, and providing more time to select rather than settle.

If your ATS Inefficiency Factor is at 100% (all “not good”), it means that just about all of your new hires sourced and managed through the system are not as strong as possible. This is costing you time, money, and lost opportunity every single day. There is no reason to settle for an underperforming ATS. Short-term fixes are possible. This could be as simple as ensuring that recruiters put all of their hot candidates into a “red alert” folder. These “hot candidates” could then be worked daily without having to find them by requisition. Surprisingly, we find that only 20% of corporate recruiters use this simple technique. Sadly, we also find that many top rated ATSs make this simple idea hard or impossible to implement. The other area we find lacking is a company-wide optimized standard for using the ATS’s resume filtering and screening capability. This is the most important productivity feature of an ATS, and most recruiters don’t use it correctly. While some screening tools are below par, improper use makes matters worse. Recruiters can’t spend time looking at the resumes of unqualified candidates. This is a huge time-waster and technology can help. The major ATS vendors are starting to recognize these problems and many are willing to take action. But they need more direction and leadership from their clients. Without this input, hiring top talent will never be a systematic business process. It requires strong HR/recruiting managers who know the value of well-designed and properly implemented IT systems. For some, this will be a steep learning curve. But the lack of knowledge and appreciation for IT has been one of the reasons most companies have not seen a good return on their ATS investment. A tremendous opportunity now exists for corporate HR/recruiting to take full advantage of the latest technology and expert systems to improve the quality of every hiring decision. It starts by not accepting the status quo. Tell your ATS vendor to focus on what’s important to you, not what they think is important. If you didn’t do too well on the ATS diagnostic evaluation, now’s the time to take action. The results are just a clue that you’re not hiring the best people you should be.

• Broad scope and fragmentation. Screening and assessment involves a wide variety of different products that are offered by many different types of vendors.
• Proliferation of smaller vendors. Assessment has its roots in small boutique test development firms, so there are a large number of homegrown assessments currently in use. These can be hard to keep track of, but collectively they do account for a significant amount of revenue.
• Lack of education. There is no shortage of junk floating around this marketplace. Unfortunately, it often takes a trained eye to separate the good stuff from the bunk.
• Continual refinement. Many firms are continually working hard to address their weaknesses. This means that vendors may significantly upgrade the amount and quality of their offerings from one year to the next.
• Increased attention from ATS market. The glaring need for ATS companies to provide tools that can help increase quality while demonstrating an impact on the bottom line has been a major factor in the emerging development of screening and assessment. While this is a positive step, many different strategies have been used to accomplish it, often making it difficult to predict movement in this area.

Despite all these pitfalls, I am happy to see the online screening and assessment market beginning to mature as demand for these tools increases. Interestingly enough, some of the very issues that make this a challenging market to keep up with are also responsible for increased demand for screening and assessment tools. For instance, the single biggest driver of recent demand for assessment tools is the fact that ATS customers have been left high and dry when it comes to the ability to demonstrate ROI from their investment in ATS technology. Increased awareness of the solution to this problem has come from both vendor marketing efforts and the efforts of a small but dedicated group of subject matter experts who are working hard to provide educational opportunities designed to demystify assessment. In an effort to get my arms around the impact of the forces that are creating change and movement in the online screening and assessment market, I have created a simple model to help track the current landscape. This model is based on two axes that are crossed to create four distinct quadrants. Axis 1: Technology level (vertical axis) This axis represents the sophistication of the technology that underlies a vendor’s products. The continuum here runs from low technology (defined as either paper and pencil or rudimentary web-based technology) on one end, to more complex ASP tools (that offer sophisticated functionality) on the other. More technologically advanced systems tend to provide the ability to deploy content in a highly flexible, modular fashion while also supporting the ability to do more with the data that is gathered during the assessment process. Axis 2: Quality of Product (horizontal axis) This axis is more difficult to define in a precise manner. For the most part, it describes the vendor’s approach to creating their product line. Higher quality products are based on solid theories of predicting job performance, are developed using a strict process that follows a set of best practice guidelines, and have been validated to demonstrate their ability to predict job performance. Lower quality products tend to range from products that are effective but have been created as “one size fits all” solutions, all the way to products that are complete junk because they lack any of the characteristics that define a viable assessment tool. Crossing these axes creates four quadrants, which I’ll discuss now in greater detail. Quadrant 1: Low Tech/Low Quality This quadrant is one that, for the most part, is to be avoided at all costs. There is little good going on here. There may be some vendors in the top right of this quadrant who are can provide value ó assuming that the consumer does not need advanced technology.

• Who is likely to be in this quadrant? The same characters that have been bilking people for years. Most of these folks have invested in enough technology to allow them to use the web in a rudimentary fashion. Most of the action in terms of low quality testing is actually occurring in Quadrant 4, where unscrupulous firms are looking to cash in on the increased popularity of technology-based assessment tools. There may be some marginal products in the top right corner of this quadrant that can add value if used in the right situation, but these usually represent products that cut corners in an attempt to make using assessment “easy” and “fast.”
• What will their products look like? This quadrant is populated by solutions that include techniques such as handwriting analysis, color analysis, Myers Briggs type indicators, or other legitimate assessment instruments that are not suitable for employee selection purposes, not to mention all manner of pseudo-scientific tests. About the best you can hope for here is a homemade personality test that may be marginally predictive of some basic job-related behaviors.
• Whose needs will they fit? No one’s. Most likely they will be adopted by small- or medium-sized companies who don’t know any better.
• How is this quadrant evolving? Low quality assessments are nothing new. They have been making things hard for vendors of good assessments for a long time. This quadrant will be relatively stable (and may actually decline) as more and more vendors look to invest in moving faddish assessments online. While some vendors in this space will make an investment in technology, most will not have the capital to create technology systems that are anywhere close to the market standard and thus will stay in this quadrant.

Quadrant 2: Low tech/High Quality There are a good many firms who are currently in this quadrant. This is an okay quadrant to be in, because there are many opportunities for organizations who offer high quality products.

• Who is likely to be in this quadrant? This quadrant is made up two types of organizations: firms that have been making a living creating customized assessment tests for decades, and test publishing firms. There is a wide range in terms of size within both of these categories. For instance, customized test development is a staple for firms of all sizes, from small shops all the way up to large world wide consulting firms. Test publishers range from smaller firms with only a few tests all the way to global publishing giants.
• What will their products look like? This quadrant is defined by a very test-centric mentality. That is, vendors in this quadrant are focused squarely on the creation and validation of individual tests to be used for selecting employees. Most firms in this quadrant do offer some web-based capabilities, but they are not nearly as sophisticated as those of the firms in Quadrant 3. Vendors in this quadrant are likely to follow established best practices for test development and validation. Test publishers are likely to have a broad catalogue of assessment tests that have very solid validation history and will work very well when used correctly.
• Whose needs do they fit? Firms in this quadrant are able to serve a wide variety of needs. Much of the activity here is carried out by firms that fulfill small to medium volume testing needs of all types. These firms have the resources and experience to develop highly customized tests and also have a decent inventory of tests that can be used off the shelf with a slight bit of modification. The high quality of content provided by firms in this quadrant is also useful for larger scale testing initiatives. Firms in this quadrant lack the bandwidth to support this type of scale. For this reason, many vendors in this quadrant end up partnering for companies who are interested in creating high-tech assessment platforms but that lack the resources to develop the content to be delivered by the test system.
• How is this quadrant evolving? Vendors here are moving towards developing more refined and advanced technology capabilities due to increasing demand for technology-based tools. The better capitalized firms in this area are making great strides in this regard. This is especially true of test publishers. A few years ago, most major test publishing houses had very little to offer in the way of technology. Now some of the larger firms have developed very sophisticated technology platforms. However, most test publishers have a very test-centric mindset and thus their products are still not as advanced as some of the vendors who populate Quadrant 3. This will remain an active area, as there will always be a demand for custom-made tests as well tests that can be purchased in a transactional manner. Still, this quadrant will continue to be marked by vendors who are seeking to upgrade their technology level and move into Quadrant 3, where much of the action is currently taking place.

Quadrant 3: High Tech/High Quality This is the quadrant that represents the future of online assessment. Vendors in this quadrant understand that the value in assessment comes in creating a system which takes a holistic view, such that the sum of capabilities of the system are greater then the individual contribution of technology and content individually.

• Who is likely to be in this quadrant? There are presently very few firms who are at the far end of both axes in this quadrant (the top right corner). Firms who populate this corner of the world for the most part were founded as technology organizations that offer a testing product, as opposed to organizations that started out in the testing business. Many of the vendors in this space got started by purchasing content created by vendors in Quadrant 2 and using it to build out their product. Others have hired the resources to create their own test content. At the lower-left of this quadrant reside companies of various types that are pushing to move up from the top right of Quadrant 2 based on a realization that a blend of technology and content presents opportunities to demonstrate significant ROI to customers.
• What will their products look like? There are a wide variety of products represented in this quadrant. The most advanced of these have left behind the test-centric mentality. These vendors are driven by the need to provide a flexible modular approach to assessing competencies using a variety of different techniques. This type of assessment is most often coupled with a technology platform that provides candidate management functionality as well as advanced reporting capabilities. The firms in this quadrant can extend the footprint of assessment towards the initial point of applicant contact (website or job board) as well as towards the management of applicant data via integration with an ATS. Firms in this quadrant also use technology to help their clients clearly understand the ROI associated with their staffing process. Finally, this quadrant also houses firms with advanced products that are based on quality content. These include high-end web-based simulations and other innovative tools that are creating new paradigms for assessment.
• Whose needs do they fit? Vendors in this quadrant can serve companies of all sizes. They typically have the bandwidth to deliver to larger clients, but many offer simpler systems that can be scaled down to serve smaller clients as well. There is an increasing trend towards productization in this quadrant, with firms trying to take advantage of demand that is arising in specific verticals.
• How is this quadrant evolving? These are the folks that are really advancing the practice of selecting individuals for jobs. They are thinking five years ahead and are funding this effort via the creation of tools that use technology to collect data that will help organizations to understand how to find and document the value associated with their staffing processes. These firms understand that the next stage of evolution in technology-based assessment will be in expanding the value provided by staffing-related assessments via integration with other key HR functions, such as training and performance management.

Quadrant 4: High Tech/Low Quality For the most part, this quadrant is a bust if you are looking for top-notch stuff. However, the firms in the top right of this quadrant may actually have products that are somewhat useful ó even if they are probably far from the optimal solution.

• Who is likely to be in this quadrant? This quadrant is an interesting one, because it contains firms that actually have viable products as well as those that are offering nothing but junk. To the left side of this quadrant are the folks you really need to look out for. They are likely to spend lots of money creating and marketing their high-tech systems, but these systems will be essentially useless because they aren’t loaded with usable content. Fortunately, there are very few of these companies, since it is simply too costly for an organization to move to and remain in this quadrant without a viable product. Most of the vendors in this quadrant are in the top right. These firms have a good technology system and a viable product that is not total junk, but which may cut corners in some way. Most of these products can provide some value, but often times they do not represent the optimal solution.
• What will their products look like? Products in this quadrant range from the same junk found in Quadrant 1, but with a higher technology level to actual viable products. On the good side of this quadrant are companies that use technology to help make the process of selecting and implementing assessment “fast and easy.” By taking this tack, they are sacrificing some predictive accuracy in exchange for the ability to use assessment with less upfront work.
• Whose needs do they fit? Products in this quadrant range from doing no one any good to helping companies that may need a fast, easy, and scaleable process for helping provide some rough guidelines during the hiring process. This is a difficult quadrant to shop in due to the combination of the attractiveness of the vendor’s technology-based value proposition and the possibility of buying a substandard but sexy-looking product.
• How is this quadrant evolving? This is a quadrant that will be growing just as fast as Quadrant 3. As the need for cool, innovative, high-tech solutions begins to drive the marketplace, there will be an increasing number of firms attempting to cash in. While some vendors may actually offer products that are viable in some situations, others will continue to offer empty promises.

At the end of the day I think the movement in this market will be away from Quadrants 1 and 2 (low tech) and towards Quadrants 3 And 4 (high tech). The content side of things will remain an interesting area to watch. At the present time, most of the content that is being delivered as part of online assessment is either stuff that has been around for years and has been loaded into a technology-based delivery system, or stuff that has been created using the same set of guidelines that test developers have been using for years. Neither of these is a bad thing at all, but I am really interested in movement towards the development of new types of content that are completely new and innovative. Once these begin to appear, the real challenge will be to determine if they belong in the wastelands of Quadrant 3 or are worthy of a position in Quadrant 4.

1. Increased ability to create new and innovative products. Technology has fundamentally changed the world of assessment. Administrative burdens no longer present a barrier to the use of assessments. More importantly, companies on the cutting edge of this market are blending technology and assessment content to create systems in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The rise of companies that are equal parts assessment and technology has resulted in the creation of products that can do much more than the paper-and-pencil products of the past.
2. Dissatisfaction with the ability of current systems to help make quality hiring decisions. As the online hiring process has evolved, more and more organizations are realizing that making good hiring decisions is something that goes well beyond the corporate website or the mere presence of an ATS to manage applicant information. While these things are important ingredients in creating a technology-based hiring process, they do not provide organizations with enough data to support effective decision making. By adding assessment to the mix, those making hiring decisions are given additional data to help them better understand each applicant relative to job and organizational requirements. As the adoption curve for applicant tracking systems begins to mature, more and more organizations are looking to assessment to help them extract more value from their hiring processes.
3. Increased exposure and learning. There is a small but dedicated group of individuals such as myself who understand the value assessment tools can have for organizations and have been helping to spread the word. My research has consistently identified lack of knowledge about assessment as one of the major reasons that organizations have resisted using it. True, assessment is a relatively complex topic, but there is information and assistance readily available to those who are really interested in learning more about it. More and more assessment companies are sponsoring webinars and white papers dedicated to helping those interested move up the learning curve. Also, there seem to be an increasing number of persons who are seeking out educational opportunities in the field of I/O Psychology. I think that this collective effort will have a significant impact on the availability of information and expertise about assessment tools.
4. Increased adoption by non?assessment vendors as a value-added service. Reasons 1 through 3 have created a situation in which vendors of other related hiring tools have begun to understand the value of offering assessment tools to their clients. While creating assessments from scratch is often a difficult and complex process, there are many assessment vendors who are eager to exploit new sales channels. The result is that ATS companies working across markets of every size and shape are beginning to educate themselves about assessment. This most often results in partnerships in which assessment providers gain additional exposure to customers, while the ATS company gains the ability to sell products that can help ensure their customers can optimize the predictive ability of their hiring systems. I expect this model to continue to expand, and I expect to see the trend of acquisitions of smaller assessment companies by non-assessment companies to continue in the near future.
5. Increasing collection of positive results. Nothing increases interest in something like the ability to demonstrate proven results. As more and more companies are starting to use assessment tools, there are an increasing number of success stories to be told about the value of assessment tools. When done correctly, assessment can have a significant, measurable impact on many work-related outcomes. Increases in the use of technology to collect and report assessment results have made it even easier to demonstrate the return on investment of these systems. I firmly believe that the ability to demonstrate bottom-line financial impact of assessment tools is essential for their continued adoption. Assessment is an important component of the growing and long overdue HR metrics trend.

While the above reasons chronicle some really great progress, when it comes to the adoption of assessment tools, we still have a long way to go. While many organizations use these tools, they are still being treated experimentally in most cases. This means that organizations may use them for only a few jobs in isolated locations. This usage pattern is often the result of firefighting tactics employed in a distributed manner. For instance, a VP of sales for a business unit of a large company with the ability to make her own decisions may read an article about assessments and decide to try them as a way to increase sagging sales in her area. We have a long way to go before assessments are used in a more widespread manner. Below are some of the major obstacles that I feel must be faced moving forward:

1. Education. More knowledge of what assessment is and how to use it properly is still badly needed. Deciding to use assessment is no enough; knowing what type of assessment to use when can make the difference between success and failure.
2. Ability to distinguish between a good product and bunk. As the market grows there will undoubtedly be an increase in the number of vendors who are selling junk assessments. This has been a problem for a long time but the bigger the potential revenue pie, the more hucksters will begin to surface.
3. Cultural issues. If the people who will be using assessments don’t believe in them or aren’t willing to help provide the data required to demonstrate its effectiveness, all of the time and effort spent developing an assessment program will be wasted.
4. Security and legal issues. Both represent realistic problems, but both are relatively easy to overcome with knowledge and creativity. Neither represent obstacles big enough to preclude the use of assessments.
5. Lack of vision for assessment in the big picture. Organizations are still using assessment tactically. While this provides some great hands-on experience, it falls well short of the potential for broader strategic initiatives that tie hiring processes with broad-based and long-term organizational strategy.

• Tight integration between the hiring management system and corporate recruitment site. This is key, because it is the basis for ensuring a consistent and positive job seeker experience. It’s also the most visible aspect of the online employment brand interface. The hiring management system needs to support the integrity of the company’s brand first and foremost, which, depending on the company, plays out at varying levels of complexity. An intuitive, flexible interface, supported by data capture, provides insight into the job seeker and drives the overall effectiveness of the system.
• Engaging above-average talent by providing a streamlined and user-friendly online application process ó one that candidates tell you is better than your competitors’.
• The ability to seamlessly pre-screen candidates by asking job-specific questions in addition to collecting their resumes. This component should also add value to the applicant’s experience while supporting recruiter productivity. If done well, a thoughtful approach integrated into your hiring management system can serve as a self-screen or job preview.
• The ability at a glance, to see how a candidate fits with the job he or she has applied for. You should be able to accomplish this individually and in comparison with all other applicants.
• Making it easy for your recruiters to communicate and build relationships with candidates throughout the recruiting process.
• Additional recruiter productivity enhancement tools.
• The ability to extract data from your system to make decisions that support continuously improving your recruiting and talent attraction process.

So where are you heading? If any of the above areas are priorities for your organization, then you’re already focusing on hiring management, the next stop in the evolution of the applicant tracking paradigm. Changing the perspective to hiring management also supports moving the technology from a commodity to a competitive advantage. Functionality that once was only accessible to a few at the high end is now within reach to any company with a desire to leverage the technology. Now’s a great time to define your needs through the hiring management lens and explore the alternatives. Note: Gary Alpert contributed to this article. Gary is the CEO of WetFeet Inc., a recruitment services firm that conducts ongoing research on trends and best practices in recruitment and works with companies nationally on a variety of recruitment issues, from technology to college recruiting and employer branding.

• Names research
• Name identification
• Unbundled search

Whatever you call it, name identification research is simply the most underutilized sourcing tool in corporate recruiting. The reason that name research is so valuable is that most corporate recruiters are weak at sourcing or finding candidates. In contrast, corporate recruiters are pretty good at assessing and selling candidates once they have their name, number, and bio. It’s not surprising that most corporate recruiters stumble when it comes to identifying names because of their high req loads and the fact that they recruit for positions in many different disciplines. It’s obviously hard to keep up with “who’s working where” when you have limited time and multiple disciplines to cover. Fortunately, employing a names research firm can provide corporate recruiters and managers with all the names they need. It’s A Miracle! Think of it. You can call a name research firm like RW Sterns and tell them that you need the names, phone numbers, email addresses and a brief bio of all the people that hold a key position title at each of your major competitors, and in a couple of days you’ll have it. The names provided will all be employed people (the so-called passive candidate) and they will only be from firms that you have expressed an interest in. Once provided with this information, all the corporate recruiter or manager must now do is to contact them, begin building a relationship and make your sales pitch. Even though most corporate recruiters have never used name generation, the tool is commonly used by third-party recruiters and executive search firms. They realize that finding names is a unique and specialized talent that, while essential, is a completely different skill from assessing and selling candidates. Many of these third-party recruiters realize that their strength is in building relationships and selling candidates, so they don’t hesitate to focus on those important element of recruiting. In fact, many corporate recruiters are surprised when I inform them that it’s not uncommon for third-party recruiters in a specialty area to buy the names of the people that they provide as candidates. Managers frequently think that these third-party recruiters have a huge database of people in a certain profession. While a few do, most, when they are given a recruiting assignment from a client firm, just call their research firm and buy the names. Some large third-party recruiters have their own internal name researchers, but the concept is the same. If you excel at building relationships and convincing candidates, focus on that and let someone else that specializes in finding the names do the sourcing for you. Costs I find the cost of unbundled research to be quite reasonable and the quality of services provided to be extremely high. In most cases, if the name is unusable there is no charge. Incidentally, if you compare the cost of names research and the results it provides to the most common sourcing approach, newspaper ads, there is no comparison. Newspaper ads get you active candidates, people that don’t currently possess the job title you are currently recruiting for, a large percentage of unemployed candidates, or candidates from firms that you might care little about. In contrast, names research guarantees you get only what you specify. The need for expensive executive searches can also be reduced if you don’t really need the whole range of services offered by executive search firms. If they are given the names and contact information, many senior managers can make the calls necessary to get these top candidates in for an interview. Ethics I know you’re probably thinking about the various tricks that these names researchers use to identify these individuals and to get their contact information. My response is, get over it. They don’t break laws in order to get the names and that’s all you need to know. Incidentally, it’s important to realize that you are offering these candidates a better job and opportunity, so you aren’t misusing their names in any way. Identifying Names Research Firms Kennedy Information (a recruiting publisher) publishes a directory with a complete list of all search firms, and it highlights the ones that do names-only research (also know as unbundled research). Although I don’t endorse firms, here are the names of some firms that can get you started.:

• R W Sterns
• James Duran – Human Capital Partners
• Redmond Research
• Professional Research Services
• Search link
• HTC Research
• The Carlson Research Group
• ATM Executive research

Conclusion The first step in shifting to a model that relies heavily on names research as a primary sourcing tool is admitting upfront that your recruiters don’t have the time, interest, or skills to do cold calling and all of the necessary things required to gather names. It’s a common weakness in the corporate world but fortunately, it’s not a deadly one. By utilizing names research firms to supplement the names you get from the other most effective sourcing tools (your website, conference recruiting, and referral programs) you can essentially solve your sourcing problem. Then, corporate recruiters and managers can focus on what they do best, which is convincing the identified people to apply, assessing them and selling them on your offer. The thought of eliminating this tremendous roadblock to recruiting success should make even the most cynical corporate director of recruiting smile. Try it, you’ll love it!