VIDEO: Google for Jobs: What Do HR and Recruiting Leaders Need to Do Next?

Going video for you today - lots of buzz about Google for Jobs, what it means and what HR and Recruiting Leaders need to know.

If you've got a big Indeed or Job Board spend, do you have to take action today?  Yes and no.  Take a look at the video below (email subscribers click through for YouTube clip if you don't see it below) as I interview Tim Sackett on Google for Jobs.  Tim covers how to make the most of Google for Jobs today, I cover the threshold you need to keep your eye on to know that someone's moved your cheese and when your current job board/Indeed/recruitment marketing allocation isn't working anymore.

BONUS - I sit in the cube of one of my direct reports who was on PTO and evaluate her "To Do" list which includes items with my name on them.

Good times!


MESSED UP PHOTO OF THE WEEK: Wall Selfie in Workplace (Confidential)...

Yeah, so I travel a bit for work - and I always try and grab some photos.  Ended up at a employer not to be named and took this one a few months back.  To be fair, this wasn't in the entrance of the building but a next level hallway.  Take a look and I've got a comment or two after the jump (email subscribers click through for image):

Selfie

Comments:

--Yes, that's a selfie being taken by a camera, not a smartphone.

--Yes, it's unclear if there's a viewfinder which would indicate it's digital over film.  We're not sure.

--Employer business is focused on sales to youth.  No, I'm not ####ing you.

Bonus points for getting the good looking people right.  Note to marketing director - just take the original art/image and cut that #### down and make it this:

Selfie2

I'm here for you, companies of the Brontosaurus age.  You're vintage, I'll give you that.

 

 


HR PROBLEM: When LinkedIn Recruiter Doesn't Work For Your Team...

Here's a new world take on an old-world saying:

"No one ever got fired for buying recruiting services from LinkedIn"

That's a spin off on what our boomer fathers/mothers/grandparents used to say back in the day: LinkedInRecruiter

"No one ever got fired for buying IBM".

New world. Same type of saying.

If there's one thing that's true, it's that LinkedIn is ubiquitous these days when it comes to recruiting. As i've written before, the old big job board world got pushed aside by the Indeed (owns the new job board posting, powered by SEO), LinkedIn owns the candidate database and Glassdoor owns company reputation.  With the launch of Google for Jobs, this current order is likely to change again.

But the problem for Indeed/LinkedIn/Glassdoor comes back to monetization.  What's the best way to get people to pay for the service?

For LinkedIn, it's putting together a package of job postings, company page assistance, display/social ads and a tool called LinkedIn Recruiter.  LinkedIn is masterful at selling all this in bundles, because that's the best way to maximize revenue and limit focus on the effectiveness of any one feature/tool.  Everyone gets job postings as a concept and will pay for them.  Check out my company's breakdown of the major platform's version of social ads and their effectiveness (LinkedIn trails other options) for a deeper dive into that LinkedIn tool set.

That leaves us with LinkedIn Recruiter.  Ah yes.  Here's the feature set you get when you buy LinkedIn Recruiter licenses, pulled from the LinkedIn solutions page:

  • Zero in on the right person with 20+ Premium search filters
  • View full profiles for the entire LinkedIn network – all 460M+ members
  • Contact anyone with 150 InMail messages per month per team member
  • Easily and collaboratively manage your pipeline
  • See what your team’s up to with powerful reporting and analytics tools
  • Source on the go with Recruiter Mobile, the iPhone and Android app

All that is great and btw, I think LinkedIn is a great service.  Love it or hate it, they've built something truly useful.  It's what you pay for that can be the issue.

When it comes to LinkedIn Recruiter, you're conceptually paying for a form of access to candidates that others don't have.  My company (Kinetix) has onboarded new recruiting clients and had HR and TA leaders provide us access to up to 20 LinkedIn Recruiter licenses.  When we go in and look at those, it's shocking to see the level of adoption present.

Bottom line - There's a lot of companies that buy LinkedIn Recruiter licenses because they're bundled with job postings, and the sales people are trained not to remove the bundle.  There's a good reason for that - job postings almost always get used, but LinkedIn Recruiter licenses can sit vacant and well, it will just go unnoticed and we'll say those recruiters are lazy, etc.

But recruiters aren't lazy for the most part - but they are who they are behaviorally.  Some are hunters, most are farmers.  To use LinkedIn Recruiter effectively, you've got to work - and hunt by really personalizing the InMails you send.  Here's a clip from a LinkedIn product manager describing how the best recruiters use InMail to get great results over at Fast Company:

This may seem cliché, but using the word “connect” tends to boost response rates for InMail. The same goes for mentioning that you’d like to follow up—using terms like “talk,” “chat,” “call,” etc. can all improve response rates.

But don’t go much further than that! Among the InMail recruiters send, we’ve actually found that phrases related to scheduling (like specific days of the week), salary, and sharing email addresses, all tend to decrease the likelihood of response.

If you're imaging what % of your recruiters have the ability/time/smarts to become email marketers and do a drip marketing campaign to a passive candidate and nurture them over time, you're right to think the low numbers that come to mind in your head...

It's 1 out of 10.  That's why so many LinkedIn Recruiter licenses sit dormant.  They can't do what's required to make InMail effective, so their response rates crater and they don't use the tool. But you bought the job postings.  Hell - you needed them.  But there's a reason that LinkedIn bundles it's stuff with such a high degree of urgency.

It's because some of the stuff doesn't work for the vast majority of recruiters.  Doesn't mean it's not a great product - but it does mean that you can't provide a $50,000 violin to a county fair-level banjo player and expect them to use it.

Sometimes the banjo player just needs a banjo.

But if your music store is telling you they can only sell you a banjo WITH the $50,000 violin - well, then you have a decision to make.


Targeting Companies Doing Layoffs in Recruiting Strategy - Smart or Lame?

If there's ever been something that's generated a "yeah, duh" in the halls of corporate America, it is the following:

"Company Z just announced a big layoff.  We should go after them from a recruiting perspective."

Well, yeah.  No Sh##.  The devil of course, is in the details.  That's what makes this recent tweet by Marc Benioff, CEO of Salesforce, so interesting.  He's going direct and talking to up to 5,000 people recently impacted by a Microsoft layoff, encouraging them to consider a career at Salesforce.  See the tweet below (email subscribers enable pictures or click through for image):

 Microsoft announced July 6 that it would cut 10% of its global sales team — around 5,000 people. Around the same time, Microsoft CIO Jim DuBois resigned, although it's unclear whether his departure was related to the company's reorganization.

But back to the concept of recruiting people from companies doing layoffs.  Thoughts/questions for your reading pleasure and comments:

  1. Do we really want the laid off people?  They were the weak ones, right?  (damn - that's harsh. Bear with me)
  2. At the end of the day, most of us would love to create FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) in the minds of everyone at the targeted company.  Benioff has a big enough microphone to do that on a macro basis, but the rest of us can't really do that.  Neither can our CEOs, because most of them are babies when it comes to their use of social, their following, etc.
  3. That means in order to target survivors, your recruiters have to do the equivalent of the Mosul ground initiative (read up on your news!) and plant FUD the old fashioned way - by reaching out to candidates one at a time.
  4. But let's face it, if there was ever a time where you were going to reach to a passive candidate or two at a competitor with a "just checking in, heard about the BS" note, it's when a layoff occurs. Sadly, most TA shops have so much going on this won't happen unless it's demanded.
  5. Follow up notes on the value of laid off candidates - I believe they have value.  The bigger the layoff (5,000 is pretty big) and the better the economy when it happens (means the company missed on strategy, not a reflection of the talent), the more there will be high quality employees in the layoff.

Should we recruit from competitors who just announced a layoff?

Um - yeah.

But it's harder than it looks.  And you're CEO tweeting is likely to give you jack in the process.  So get ready to roll up your sleeves and spend a day targeting and pinging candidates with a personalized message.

PS - Benioff is talking to the survivors at Microsoft as much as he's talking to the impacted.  That's the value of having a rock star CEO who can "imply" a whole bunch of things with the social megaphone they have.

 


HOW TO: Use Social Media Ad Buys to Get Better Recruiting Results...

My team at Kinetix is dropping a whitepaper today - The Talent Acquisition/HR Leader's Guide To Social Media Buys for Recruiting.  You should check it out.

There's a lot of options for your recruitment marketing spend - Job Boards, Indeed, the new Google Jobs (actually not asking for your spend yet, just disrupting for now) - it's a confusing Social ad buysmarketplace and it's easy to miss changes in what works.

One of the places most of you haven't experimented with yet is doing social media ad buys to drive candidate flow.  Simply posting your jobs on social platforms without targeting has very limited effectiveness. You need to target and spend to make it really work. The process works like this - each of the major social platforms has targeting options where you can pick who you (by career track) want to see your ad, which can be a job, content related to a career at your company or a mixture of both.

You target and then pay the social platform on a per-click basis.  Sounds easy, right?

Well, all social platforms aren't created equal when it comes to their effectiveness in helping your recruiting efforts.  That's where this paper comes in handy - download it today and we'll give you the following:

--Data on which social media ad platforms you should be using to drive raw candidate flow to your jobs.

--The Kinetix experience related to which social media ad platform delivers the best results when trying to attract quality applicants.

--A rundown of factors that Talent Acquisition and HR Leaders should evaluate when picking the right social platform for their industry and recruiting pain.

--And of course, we rate 4 major social platforms related to their overall recruiting effectiveness so you know where to go first!

Download The Talent Acquisition/HR Leader's Guide to Social Media Buys for Recruiting today and learn how to stay ahead of the recruiting and hiring curve using social.

Remember - if you need recruiting help, Kinetix is just a phone call/text away!  

Download the paper via the form below or use any of the links in this email.


Google For Jobs Launches: Are You Going to Nap On This For the Next Year?

It's go time for Google for Jobs.  

Earlier this year at Google I/O, the search giant announced a new initiative named Google for Jobs. The goal is simple: leverage Google’s skills at organizing information to make finding jobs easier. Today, one of the first steps in this project goes live, with the launch of an improved job search feature rolling out on mobile and desktop.

The feature is pretty simple. For searches with “clear intent” (e.g., “head of catering jobs in NYC” or “entry-level jobs in DC”), Google shows a preview of job listings scraped from various sources. These include job sites like LinkedIn, Monster, and Glassdoor, but also information hosted on company’s own websites — if they’ve updated their sitemap, that is. Users can then click on results to get more information, and filter listings by criteria like location, employer, and the date of the listing.
 
They don't scrape/include Indeed, btw.
 
 
There's 2 things that you can do right now to experiment with that 10%.  You can buy social ads targeting the type of candidate you want on social platforms with great targeting (Facebook) and you can get ahead of the curve on Google Jobs.
 
Much like Indeed back in the day, there's no way for you just to write a check and say that your jobs are being maximized on Google Jobs right now.  Instead, you'll need to look at standards and understand some technical details.  Click here for a developer guide to improve search results for jobs in the Google engine.
 
Some of you were years late to the Indeed party.  That party isn't over yet, but let's just say it's winding down.
 
Search changes.  Indeed changed the job posting over a decade ago by understanding SEO, scraping every job in the world and forcing you to pay for preferred placement in their ecosystem. Now the ecosystem they built that practice on is in the jobs game, and while Google has included job postings from sources like CareerBuilder, LinkedIn, Monster, and Glassdoor, they haven't included Indeed.  Logic suggests the others might find themselves on the outside looking in as time goes by.
 
The cheese moved.  The best way for you to spend resources on Google Jobs is to maximize your own jobs and not be reliant on a partner.
 

New Growth Area In Executive Search: The Search Where All Viable Candidates Are Known!!!!

I must say - as someone who helps run a recruiting firm, there are always a few types of searches that surprise me.  It's a field where you're always learning.

One of those surprises is the past few years is a rare type - the search where almost every viable candidate is known, or at least easily verified.  Confused?  Let me explain. Riley

We've done some of these searches at Kinetix, in the field of education and other industries.  Who would pay a recruiting firm a full fee to run a search where they already know who all the viable candidates are?

As it turns out, people looking for a new hire where all the candidates are incredibly paranoid of being outed publicly that they're in the market to change jobs.

Case in point - the education industry.  Get involved in any leadership/CEO/Superintendent search and you'll soon learn that it's hard to have conversations with incumbents in other jobs who might be good candidates for you - because they are scared to death of the organization/school/community they currently work for finding out that they have interest in that job.

Is this America?  Yeah, it is.  That means people can judge you for nothing as well as you having the right to change jobs if you're so inclined.

The risk for this type of candidate is just too great to be seen as interested in your job.  For organizations with open leadership spots, the search firm becomes a layer of plausible deniability.  The hard part for the search firm in the education industry is that the interview process is public record.  You want to provide a slate of 5 candidates to give great options, but look at your next school leadership search and one of two things will be present - there's either 2-3 finalists or you have a full slate of 5 candidates, but three of those five aren't currently employed.  Once these candidates are forced to go public and it hits the paper, it's hard for them with the current organizations.

A similar type of search happens in the sports world for head coaches, general managers, etc.  Here's notes from a recent GM search for professional basketball's Orlando Magic:

The Orlando Magic have named John Hammond as general manager. The organization tapped Korn Ferry to help replace past GM Rob Hennigan, saying that after missing the postseason for five consecutive seasons it was time for a new approach. Jed Hughes, a Korn Ferry vice chairman and global sports sector leader, led the assignment.

Mr. Hammond, GM of the Milwaukee Bucks for the past nine years, won the NBA’s Executive of the Year award for the 2009-10 season. He is well familiar with Jeff Weltman, the recently appointed Orlando Magic president of basketball operations, whom he worked with in Milwaukee. Mr. Hammond was the architect of the Milwaukee team, where he landed top draft picks Giannis Antetokounmpo, Kris Middleton and Malcom Brogdon, hired head coach Jason Kidd and reached the NBA playoffs two of the past three seasons.

Korn Ferry’s sports practice has conducted a number of prominent searches, including for the commissioner for the National Football League as well as the CEO of the U.S. Olympic Committee. The recruiter has also been active filling head coaching and general manger roles for both professional and collegiate sports teams. The search firm recently placed former Magic executive Patrick Ewing as the new head basketball coach of Georgetown University. Mr. Ewing was assistant head coach of the Magic from 2007 to 2012.

In the sports world, the need for the search firm happens for different reasons. Instead of candidates being scared of losing favor with their current organizations, sports teams/athletic programs deploy search agencies to provide a layer of PR to the process.  In the sports world, teams/athletic programs are more concerned about being declined by candidates multiple times - which leads to the perception that their programs are less than desirable by their fan bases, which theoretically leads to lower ticket sales, booster donations, etc.

I've done the high level search where every candidate is known.  The first time I did it, I went in thinking it was going to be easy.  

I was wrong - it turns out that the organizations in question had some unique pain that required search.

Hit me up at Kinetix if you've got a search you need help with - whether the all the candidates are known - but especially if they aren't...


Anyone Can Be a Recruiter, Right? (#RNL17)

It's a profession with limited barriers to entry and literally a million agency/corporate positions available.

It's a profession where the hardest workers and the most entrepreneurial usually get the best results.

It's a profession looked at with disdain by many candidates who are sick of hearing from members of said profession.

SO - Anyone can be a recruiter, right? Ari

I bring this up for the following reasons.  I'm just coming off a couple of days at Recruiter Nation Live 2017, a conference put on by the good folks at Jobvite.  Great show and good people, glad I went.

Speaking of good people - I heard no less than three times - in different ways - people talking about the fact they had told friends, family members and complete strangers that they should get into the recruiting game.  The common factor in all of this advice was that anyone could be a recruiter.

Career a little slow?  Not finding the right path for you?  Just got out of prison?

You should be a recruiter. Seems like anyone can do it.

My favorite story was one where a guy was in an Uber and struck up a conversation with the driver, and ended up giving him the advice to become a recruiter.  The guy messaged him two weeks later and told my friend that he landed his first recruiting job - at a place I'll call TereoTech - which means he'll either be unemployed in a month or become one of the greatest recruiters of all time - because that's what TereoTech does.

Which is the point of this post.  Yeah friends, anyone can probably be a recruiter.  Present yourself in the right way and appear scrappy as a youngster, and you can probably find a job.  If you're older, you can parlay your subject matter/functional area expertise into a gig recruiting people who do what you've done in the past.  We call that a specialty recruiter in the biz, and your experience in any specialty probably can give you a shot as a recruiter.

A lot of people can get a job as a recruiter.  

But just because you can get the job doesn't mean you'll be successful, or even like it. What dictates whether someone can actually do the job of a recruiter?

Recruiting in it's purest form is sales.  Behavioral traits that equate into success for recruiters are as follows:

High Assertiveness - you're going to have to ask for things without shame.

Low or mid-range Sensitivity - rejection is a part of the gig.  If you're a diva every time you get rejected, it's probably not going to work.

Low Team - doesn't mean you're a bad teammate.  The low Team designation simply means you're driven for high performance via individual scoreboards - you like to win.  YOU, not us.  Us is nice.  But unless you're motivated by seeing your name at the top of a list, you probably won't be satisfied.

There's more, but I'll stop there.  The same things that make a great salesperson also make for a great recruiter.

Lots of people can get a recruiting job.  Few can be good to great at it.  

Shout out to the Uber driver now at TereoTech - you'll know whether it's for you if you can tolerate the good folks at TT requiring you to make 120 calls a day and the rejection that comes with that.

Get a year in at TereoTech and then give me a call - we've got a great team you'll love at Kinetix one you figure out it's for you.


A Comprehensive List of Work Roles White People Should Never Be Selected For...

Of course, I'm kidding with that title.  I'm not the authority on the PC-ness of white people in roles that are typically exclusively held by non-whites.  

But I gotta tell you, I have some opinions.  First, I think there's a lot of roles that white people don't belong in.  Here's a taste of Closedduetocolonialsimsome of those roles:

--Any leadership position at a HBCU...

--Leadership positions with Diversity titles in Corporate America...

--Matt Damon playing the lead in a movie set in Song dynasty China (I get it - he's a mercenary from Europe, but still.. Can we find a Chinese star for a movie about the Song years?) 

White people in certain roles is a non-starter. Many of you would/will argue the other way.  But common sense tells me there's more than enough talent in the world without a member of honkytown landing in these roles, even if you're arguing the tried and true "the best person should be selected" mantra.  

Turns out you might have bigger fish to fry related to what roles IT IS APPROPRIATE for white people to be in. 

From the school of "you can't make this up", the Washington Post reports there's a movement afoot in Portland, Oregon to stop white people from stealing culinary ideas from other cultures, which is called appropriation by those seeking to stop white folks from starting any type of restaurant that's not a Irish potato bar. Here you go:

Portland, Ore., has become the epicenter in a growing movement to call out white people who profit off the culinary ideas and dishes swiped from other cultures.

In the days since two white women were shamed into shutting down their pop-up burrito cart after telling a reporter that they had “picked the brains of every tortilla lady” in Puerto Nuevo, Mexico, Portland has become all but fed up with cultural appropriation within its city limits. One writer has stated, flat out, that “Portland has an appropriation problem,” going on to explain (the boldface emphasis is the writer’s):

Because of Portland’s underlying racism, the people who rightly own these traditions and cultures that exist are already treated poorly. These appropriating businesses are erasing and exploiting their already marginalized identities for the purpose of profit and praise.

Someone in the City of Roses has even created a Google doc, listing the white-owned restaurants that have appropriated cuisines outside their own culture. For each entry, the document suggests alternative restaurants owned by people of color. One “Appropriative Business” is Voodoo Doughnut, the small doughnut chain accused of profiting off a religion thought to combine African, Catholic and Native American traditions.

That's a lot, right?  As noted in the lead, I'm a believer in the fact that white people shouldn't be in certain types of diversity roles - there's enough talent in the world where the aforementioned roles shouldn't be filled by someone named Ricky Bobby.  But in the slippery slope of workplaces and what's appropriate, I'm drawing the line and saying that if a white person wants to risk some capital and sell mediocre fajitas and Corona Lights, they shouldn't draw the ire of the PC police.

HR Director of a HBCU?  No.  Owner of LaCocina?  Sure.

If someone wants to risk their capital, so be it.  The dirty little secret is that the owners of these businesses, white or otherwise, will likely employ an employer base that's majority non-white. 

Of course, the great thing about this argument is that the market will decide how far the appropriation movement can go, and if you click through to the WaPo article, you'll see that people are overwhelming bashing the appropriation crowd in the comments, even going so far as promising to patronize the white-owned establishments listed in the Google doc link above to show their support and ensure the owners aren't bullied.

Fire away in the comments.  Where can whites play in a non-white world from an employment perspective?


The Art of Timing Submission of Your Best Candidate to Difficult Hiring Managers...

And they ask you about the game you claim you got
Drop science now, why not?
You start to sweat and fret, it gets hot
How'd you get into this spot?
You played yourself...
Yo, yo, you played yourself...
 
--Ice-T

You know where I'm going with this if you clicked through, right?

Difficult hiring managers.  Not to be confused with those who suck.  Or maybe that's the same thing - I'll let you decide that...

There's an art to dealing with difficult hiring managers that pride themselves on only agreeing to interview candidates who are a direct match to the 15 things they gave you in the intake meeting.  You know how this goes, you work hard, have a decent slate of 3-5 candidates that represents what the market is in the first 7 days - then the difficult hiring manager won't talk to any of them.

That's why you might need to change your strategy with any hiring manager who fits this profile.

Instead of giving them the full slate, hold your best candidate back from your first set of submissions.

The hiring manager who rejects everything but the perfect candidate early usually becomes more flexible later.  Once the opening moves in the 30-60 day age range, pressure to get the position filled mounts.  The same candidates that were rejected at face value early suddenly become what I'll call "possibly viable" late (also know as grudgingly viable).

If you know specific hiring managers are going to hate everyone early, don't give them everyone.  Hold your best back.

Let them cycle through the superiority complex, including the following gems:

--"This is a great job - I need a great candidate"

--"This is a unique opportunity"

--"I think we can find someone who has X, Y, K and Z.  But I really need U, N, Q and E also.  Let's keep looking"

--"I need someone in the 60K range who has all those things. These people want 75k?  Let's keep looking"

If this feels nasty, I get that. But you''re working hard as the HR pro/recruiter on the case.  Your work is good. Don't allow it to be thrown in the trashcan if you know someone is going to do that 9 of 10 times with your first round of submissions.

Let the clock tick. Let the pressure mount. Manage the expectations of the candidate you're holding like the card that gives you the full house.

Then at the right moment, put the candidate/card down.

#winning