Welcome to “The Most Interesting Recruiting Stories of the Week,” a weekly post that features talent acquisition insights and information from around the web to kick off your weekend. Here’s what’s of interest this week:
Are the Navy’s recruiters overworked? It seems everyday some media outlet is talking about the growing popularity of the four-day workweek. But hey, tell it to the Navy, which is reportedly forcing its recruiters to work six days a week. The Navy’s recruiting head calls this part of “a warfighting imperative.” Something tells me, though, that the solution is not to overwork recruiters. Perhaps there are reasons that have nothing to do with time spent recruiting that is causing the Navy to miss its hiring goals. (Navy Times)
It’s impossible to hire for government jobs. OK, fine, I’m prone to hyperbole. But still, given that the average time it takes between a candidate applying to a public-sector job and receiving the offer has been about 119 days. Wow! Just, wow! That’s more than three-times the time it takes in the private sector. Four months is a long, long time. What do you think? Should government recruiters be working six days a week, too? Maybe seven (with no bathroom breaks, obviously)? How about eight days a week? (McKinsey & Co.)
Affirmative action is dead. Long live workplace diversity? The Supreme Court has basically killed a decades-old practice in higher education. It’s no stretch to imagine ramifications for the workplace. Should DEI practitioners be worried? Probably not, but they will need to operate through different lenses. In other words, diversity hiring is still important. As I stated earlier, let’s not confuse legality with good business practices. (Quartz at Work)
Remote job postings were a fad. OK, again fine! I’m being hyperbolic. You’ve got to wonder, though, about just how entrenched remote work will be in the coming years. It’s definitely here to stay, but to what extent? Recent findings show that remote and hybrid job postings have dipped over the past hear, especially for traditional corporate roles in HR, marketing, and media and communications. The more corporate the job, it seems, the greater the push to return to the office at many orgs. Is anyone really surprised? (Indeed Hiring Lab)
Lilly USA is shelling out $2.4M to settle bias claim against older job applicants. The company denies the EEOC’s charge that it discriminated against older workers, so it settled for a sum unlikely to make much impact on its overall financial health. Still, we all know that such discrimination exists in corporate America. (Perhaps what’s less talked about is the “double whammy” discrimination that women face. Ain’t no “sweet spot” for them. Old, young, middle-aged — there’s too much discrimination to go around.) At least Lilly will now be making more efforts to ensure compliance. (Fierce Pharma)
Should recruiting be removed from HR? Here we go again. The age-old question/conversation/debate that often drivers talent professionals bonkers. The problem lies not in the question but in why we ask it. It’s because corporate America is hyper-obsessed with jargon like “ownership” and “accountability.” (Translation: Taking credit and placing blame.) This is still a good article exploring the question, but hey, if we all just do good work and put feelings of control, as well as any not-my-jobism, aside, this question should hopefully fade away. (SHRM)
The unreasonable, overly picky, short-sighted hiring manager. You’ve likely had to work with more than one of these in the past. And there will be more in your future. The experience is undoubtedly frustrating, but there are ways to get them to say yes to your candidates. (ERE.net)
