WEBINAR: I GOT YOUR TEXT: 5 Ways Smart HR Pros & Recruiters Use Technology and Communication Style to Close More Candidates

OK, stay with me here HR friends...

It’s never been harder to gain the attention of the best candidates on the recruiting trail. After all, we are in peak economic cycle, the best candidates are gainfully/happily employed, and it’s easy for them to ignore your pitch for the open positions you’re working.

Never fear, the gang at Fistful of Talent (my other blog) is here to help. If you’re not getting FOTcanvasthe response rate you’d like on your initial candidate outreach, join us April 24th at 1pm ET/Noon CT, 10am PT for “I GOT YOUR TEXT: 5 Ways Smart HR Pros and Recruiters Use Technology and Communication Style to Close More Candidates,” and we’ll hit you with the following goodies:

A rundown on how the smartest HR pros and recruiters are bringing Text/SMS and other tech platforms to their game to provide the immediacy every candidate, generation, and recruiting department craves.

How the best HR pros and recruiters take it a step further and maximize their image by letting technology take care of early stage process and screenings.

How world-class HR pros and recruiters use recruitment marketing elements (from their company and under their individual brand) to show candidates they are a “recruiter of choice”

Why the best HR pros and recruiters never forgot to spend time looking great on more analog tools – voice mail, email – and a plan to stay connected with candidates between offer acceptance and start date.

The hot economy we’re living in means it’s hard to get the attention of the candidates you need. Join us on April 24th for “I GOT YOUR TEXT: 5 Ways Smart HR Pros and Recruiters Use Technology and Communication Style to Close More Candidates” and we’ll show you how to interrupt the pattern and get the talent you need for your open reqs.

REGISTER NOW BY CLICKING THIS LINK!!!


POOL OR THE POND: When Candidates Insist On Coming To The Office - But You Just Want a Phone Call...

You've been there if you recruit for a living or as part of your role.

You make contact with a candidate to set up a conversation.  The candidate is really friendly, maybe even a little too frisky.  He/she wants to come into the office to have a conversation - it's like they just got out of a sales/career seminar and have been told they need face to face conversations to break through the slump they're in related to finding a job.

You have more experience than that. You know that having them in before you determine whether they are a potential fit over the phone is a sucker's play.

Still they push to come in.  You deflect and encourage them to take the phone call without dismissing them entirely.

I call this the "Pool or the Pond" moment from a classic scene with Billy Murray and Chevy Chase in Caddyshack (note, the aggressive candidate would be Carl, you are Ty - see diaglog below):

Carl: But, seriously, no b.s...if you ever want to rap or just get weird with somebody...You know...buddies.
Ty: I'll drop by. You drop by my place any time.
Carl: What's your address? You're on Briar, right?
Ty: Briar, yeah. Number 2.
Carl: Do you have a pool?
Ty: A pool and a pond. A pond would be good for you. Natural spring water.
Carl: Anything would be good.

The pool is what the candidate wants - a live visit to your office.  The pond is what you want - a phone call to make sure you're not dealing with someone that can't do the job or fit what you need - before you have to offer them a Fresca and an hour of your life.

The pond would be good for you - Natural spring water and all... 

Classic video below - email subscribers click through for the video.


PODCAST: Recruiter Confessions from FOT and Canvas...

Joined Tim Sackett from FOT for the podcast below - enjoy!!

--------------------

Welcome to Recruiter Confessions! Sponsored by Canvas (gocanvas.io) and brought to you by the talent pros at Fistful of Talent (fistfuloftalent.com), this podcast is made for recruiters, by recruiters. Every month, host Tim Sackett will bring on a different recruiter co-host to share:

--Hiring horror stories
--The secrets recruiters keep to themselves during the hiring process
--Silver bullets you can take back with you to your recruiting shop

For our premiere episode, Tim Sackett sits down with Kris Dunn, founder of Fistful of Talent. Kris shares a recruiting story for the books, involving a Christmas Eve offer and unbudging hiring manager. Together they discuss the judgments passed on candidates' social profiles and the ways recruiters can use things like email marketing and texting to increase their applicant pool and boost their candidate experience.


Jobvite 2018 Recruiting Benchmark Report: How Do Your Funnels Look?

If there's one ATS that does a nice job reporting trends, it's Jobvite

Every year they release a Recruiting Benchmark Report offering a unique combination of data and guidance: summary and analysis of industry benchmark data, along with strategic advice to help you measure, improve and optimize every step of the recruiting funnel.

They've got the data - the report is based on quantitative and qualitative analysis of 2017 data from Jobvite’s massive database of more than 55 million job seekers and 17 million applications and includes year-over-year benchmark data by company size, by revenue, by source of applicants and hires, and by industry. The report is objective, it’s free, and it’s your guide on how to improve your recruiting process.

Go download the Jobvite 2018 Recruiting Benchmark Report by clicking here!!!!

--------

Now onto my analysis form the report.  Based on companies that use their system, here's what Jobvite shows as the benchmarked state of the Recruiting Funnel - namely, how many applicants companies are getting and how many they interview to get a hire on average.  

Here's the 3 year tracking data from Jobvite (email subscribers click through if you don't see the image below):

Jobvite2018funnel

What's it all mean?  Here's what I see:

--Applicants per job are down, which makes sense given the hot economy.

--Companies are interviewing an average of 3.5 candidates per job to get a hire, and 90% of the offers are being accepted. 

--Time to fill is down slightly even as the economy continues to heat up, which may mean companies are settling for less than stellar talent at times.

This data matches what we saw at Kinetix (my recruiting company) across 4500 hires for clients last year.  At Kinetix, our data follows our Show/Screen/Hire model, which goes something like this:

Need an overview/executive summary metric that makes sense?  Here's a metric you can provide that's part metric, part statement and part "please look at the big picture."  I call it "The Screen/Show/Hire Statement", and it's designed to take all the noise out of your recruiting metrics.  Here's a real life example of how that plays out at Kinetix (my recruiting company):

Screen Shot 2015-02-23 at 3.17.43 PM

So that's the recruiting funnel for a single department in an RPO relationship, and it could also be an annual report overall for a smaller RPO engagement.

There's a lot of info in that picture, but the lead is what you see in box at top - "We screen 49 candidates, show you 7 to 8, you hire 1."

That's The Screen/Show/Hire Statement, and it's designed to show you how healthy a search process is.  Those numbers mean for this client we would make 7 submittals, and out of those 7 submittals, the hiring manager would make 1 hire.  

The Screen/Show/Hire Statement is more of a headline than a metric, but it belongs in the metric family because I haven't seen it.  It's designed to report the number and say, "how do you feel about that?"

The recruiting funnel we show for one of our clients is pretty average - we generally show 6-7 candidates via submittal, our clients interview 3 and hire one.

So the missing link to the Jobvite data - and a question you should ask from a recruiting service level perspective - is how many resumes/submittals are your recruiters providing to your hiring managers?  If it's more than our number (6 to 7), odds are your recruiters are asking the hiring managers to do the real work of recruiting, which isn't great from branding perspective for your HR/recruiting team.

Great data in this report -go check it out now!  Download here!

 


Lesson #3 From #MarchMadness: Unique Talent Helps Cinderella Hang With The Big Boys...

Capitalist Note: Throwing a couple of talent/business lessons I was reminded of as I watched the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament this year.  March Madness has something for all of us.  I think this is the last one - enjoy!

My job would be great if it weren't for the people.

I kid.  HR people think that from time to time, but actually, people are our most valuable resource.  Who just groaned?  I heard that! Cinderella-bracket

I'm going to change that last quote a little bit.  The right people are our most valuable resource.  Which brings me to the third lesson I heard loud and clear from the first weekend of March Madness:

Talent Lesson #3 from March Madness - Great individual talent can overcome huge disadvantages in company size and resources when it comes to your competitors.  If you ever find yourself going up against Microsoft, Google or whoever the 800-pound gorilla is inside your industry, never forget that a key hire with high talent can help you win more than your share regardless of the product or service you're providing.  This is shown to be true time and time again in March Madness as well.  Whether it's UMBC beating Virginia or Buffalo taking down Arizona, once you step onto the court, only five players can play. Get yourself some great talent and unbelievable things can happen.

The right time to pay more for talent isn't when someone asks for more money.  The right time to pay more for talent is when that talent allows you to play above your weight as a company.

Make the right hire, and all the sudden you can hang on a limited basis with Microsoft, Google or whoever the 800-pound gorilla is inside your industry.  Of course, paying more doesn't mean the candidate in question is going to help you do that.  You might find the most powerful candidate at a level below what you're looking for, just waiting for the promotion that gives them the opportunity to shine.

How good are you at evaluating talent?  Do you know the difference between the candidate who will help you take on the world vs the candidate who wants more money but doesn't help you transcend ###t?

That's why talent selection is part art and part science.  Every low seed left in the NCAA Basketball Tournament has a player that they didn't deserve on paper, but ended up at the school in question.

The more of this type of talent you find and sign, the more you win.  The more you hang with the big boys and girls. 

#survive_and_advance 

 

 

 


HBR Research on Complexity of Promoting High-Performers to Management Roles...

The best widget-maker becomes the widget-maker manager.  Which means we promote the people who are best in the functional area role, right?

And sometimes it's an absolute disaster.  We've all been there.  We promoted someone because they were strong as an individual contributor, then they became a manager and it turned into an absolute dumpster fire.  That's when we pledge to look at manager competencies differently.  Then we get busy and forget about it.

It's widely accepted that we promote strong individual performers into manager roles.  But there's little data to actual prove it - but HBR recently took a look and the results are interesting.

More data on the Peter Principle from the Harvard Business Review:

While the Peter Principle may sound intuitively plausible, it has never been empirically tested using data from many firms. To test whether firms really are passing over the 220px-Horrible_Bossesbest potential managers by promoting the top performers in their old roles, we examined data on the performance of salespeople and their managers at 214 firms. Sales is an ideal setting to test for the Peter Principle because, unlike other professional settings, it’s easy to identify high performing salespeople and managers—for salespeople, we know their sales records, and for the sales managers, we can measure their managerial ability as the extent to which they help improve the performance of their subordinates. The data, which come from a company that administers sales performance management software over the cloud, allow us to track the sales performance of a large number of salespeople and managers in a large number of firms. Armed with these data, we asked: Do organizations really pass over the best potential managers by promoting the best individual contributors? And if so, how do organizations manage around the Peter Principle?

First, we found that sales performance is highly correlated with promotion to management. For salespeople, each higher sales rank corresponds to about a 15% higher probability of being promoted to sales management.

Second, sales performance is actually negatively correlated with performance as a sales manager: when a salesperson is promoted, each higher sales rank is correlated with a 7.5% decline in the performance of each of the manager’s subordinates following the promotion. We found similar results regardless of whether salespeople were promoted to their own team or to new teams. In other words, firms tend to promote top sales workers into management, even though they become the worst managers.

 Does that mean we are promoting the wrong people?  Maybe.  Or maybe the performance of the team comes up as a new manager gains experience and understands what's required in the role.  

In our data, among people who were actually promoted, better salespeople ended up being worse managers. But if we could observe the managerial potential of all salespeople, and not just those who were promoted, would we still find a negative correlation between sales performance and managerial performance?

Answering this question is difficult because the promoted managers we observed in the data weren’t promoted at random. For example, if firms promoted by flipping a coin, then poor salespeople could get promoted because they were lucky, rather than being promoted because their employer observed qualities that overcame their deficiencies as salespeople. Although people aren’t getting promoted by coin flips, they are more likely to be promoted if they happen to be in the right place at the right time: using variation in the promotion rates across industry over time to act as our coin flips, we still find that better salespeople tend to be worse managers.

We also found that firms underweight other indicators that a salesperson would be a good manager. In particular, we found that salespeople whose sales credits were shared among a large number of collaborators become very effective managers. Credit sharing for enterprise sales is typically a mark that the salesperson was involved in large, complex deals requiring collaboration. This type of collaboration experience positively predicts managerial quality.

What do you do with all that?  I think the choices are pretty simple.  You can:

1--Do a better job assessing who in your company has the DNA of a manager.  There's a set of skills - much like the collaboration element cited above - that can tell you who is naturally inclined to the do the job.  Find a great provider like Caliper to help you dive in.

2--You can actual train your managers of people to get better in the most important conversations that drive business results.  If you're looking for that type of training series, don't forget about the BOSS Leadership Series I've put together at Kinetix.

3--You can keep doing what you're doing.  Godspeed.

Hit me in the comments with what you think about the research from HBR.

 


Age Bias and the PricewaterhouseCoopers Case...

Hey companies filling your employment coffers with low priced talent!  You might want to take a look at the numbers...

In case you missed it, PricewaterhouseCoopers took an Age Discrimination case in 2016.  Some legal details from the site that's inviting others to join the class action: Old school

On April 27, 2016, Steve Rabin, an older CPA who was denied employment at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”), filed an age discrimination class and collective action on behalf of himself and all other unsuccessful PwC accountant applicants aged 40 and over from 2013 to the present.  The lawsuit is titled Rabin v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Case No. 3:16-cv-02276, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The class and collective action complaint alleges that PwC has engaged in systemic discrimination against older applicants for accounting positions.  For instance, PwC primarily hires entry-level accountants through campus recruiting, does not post entry-level accountant positions on its website, and provides no ready mechanism for individuals no longer affiliated with a college to apply for these positions.  Moreover, PwC prides itself on maintaining a young workforce, focusing on attracting and maintaining “Millennials,” and requiring partners to retire by age 60.  The ageism that pervades PwC’s recruitment system and corporate culture has resulted in older accountant applicants being almost completely shut out of accounting positions at PwC. 

In February 2017, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs can pursue disparate impact claims against PwC under the ADEA.  PwC had argued that job applicants are not allowed to pursue such claims under federal law.  You can find more information about this recent ruling here.

In December 2017, the Plaintiffs asked the Court to allow all applicants covered by this case to proceed together on a collective basis rather than individually, in what is called a motion for conditional certification. A decision by the Court is likely this spring. Please check back in April of 2018 for updates.

The Goal of the Lawsuit
The class action seeks seeks to require PwC to hire accountants based on merit alone, without regard to their age, and to compensate accountants who might have been hired but for PwC’s discriminatory practices.

Yowza.  The Wall Street Journal reported some interesting numbers on Tuesday as a District Court Judge heard arguments from both sides on whether to allow 14,000 other older candidates who didn't get a job with PwC to join a class action on the same claim.  I can't share the exact text from the WSJ since it's behind a paywall, but here's a couple of tidbits:

--PwC hires less than 5% of the 300,000 applicants who apply annually in US.

--PwC hired 18% of the applicants who were under 40 to it's tax and assurance business, while only hiring 3% of the candidates over 40.

--Older workers claim that older workers are steered to part-time and seasonal roles are aren't considers for the entry level roles the company lists as full time opportunities.

For now, the judge is simply ruling on whether to allow the 14,000 older candidates who have raised their hand to join a class action suit.  An actual ruling on the matter could be years away.

Interesting legal battle.  Without question, companies like PwC prefer to hire young talent that's cheaper right out of college.  Is that bias? If so, will they be held accountable for it?

Going to be interesting to track this one.

 


Your City or County Probably Doesn't Break Even On Amazon Distribution Center Jobs...

With all the talk about Amazons's 2nd Headquarters campaign and where that project will land, it seems appropriate to examine the economic impact of the less lofty Amazon distribution center.  These smaller projects from Amazon are often highly contested, with counties and cities fighting to offer the best incentive package to land the included jobs as part of an economic development initiative.

A new study of publicly available data by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute has found that when Amazon opens a new warehouse, the county where it is located does not see an increase in employment during the Amazonfollowing two-year period. Warehouse jobs do increase by about 30%, but the county's overall employment stays steady.  More detail below:

Amazon has opened fulfillment centers in 25 states, often courting state or local tax incentives to build them. The study suggests that these localities are not getting a return on that investment, one of the study's authors, Ben Zipperer

In fact, the study found that if anything, employment actually decreases two years after Amazon opens a fulfillment center in a county, though not to a statistically significant degree.

EPI used data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that included warehousing employment figures in 1,161 counties around the US. That includes 54 Amazon warehouses in 34 counties, accounting for about 75% of all Amazon fulfillment centers.

The study also found that average warehouse wages, based on total wages, do not increase when Amazon opens a warehouse in a county. That could be because Amazon hires a mix of part-time or hourly and salaried employees, keeping overall wages down. A separate study released in January found that 700 Amazon employees in Ohio — about 10% of Amazon's workforce in the state — drew benefits from foot stamps.

As you would expect, Amazon disputed the findings of the EPI study in a statement:

In addition to the 200,000 Amazon employees in the US, we know from 2016 data, which is more current than the EPI data, Amazon's investments led to the creation of 200,000 additional non-Amazon jobs, ranging from construction jobs to healthcare industry positions. In fact, over the last five years, counties that have received Amazon investment have seen the unemployment rate drop by 4.8 percentage points on average, and in some areas, the rate has been lower than the state average.

The study, Amazon said, focused on a "misleading" section of time (2001 to 2015) that included both the recession and a time when Amazon was not building warehouses at the clip it is now.

Is anyone really surprised that counties and cities may overpay for an Amazon Distribution Center project?  You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.  Fail to secure the project and be positioned as the county commissioner who never brought a name project to your county.  Overpay, and wait for it - no one with the exception of the academics - really evaluates whether the project paid off or not.

Amazon continues to win.  Government officials in charge of economic development and job growth, take heed...

 


HR CAPITALIST DEFINITIONS: "Edge City" (with notes on Amazon Moving to ATL)...

With all the competition for Amazon's second headquarters (dubbed HQ2) and with Atlanta (home of Kinetix, the company I own part of) being in the mix, I thought I'd share one of my favorite books of all time and give you a Capitalist definition while we are at it.

Edge City is the term.  I picked up the book by the same name over 20 years ago at a bookstore when heading to the beach for a vacation.  The book became one of my all time ATLfavorites, and the definition changed how I viewed the business world forever.  Here's a description of the term, as well as details about the concept.  Take a look and we'll talk about Atlanta/Amazon after the jump.

"Edge city" is an American term for a concentration of business, shopping, and entertainment outside a traditional downtown (or central business district) in what had previously been a residential or rural area. The term was popularized by the 1991 book Edge City: Life on the New Frontier by Joel Garreau, who established its current meaning while working as a reporter for the Washington Post. Garreau argues that the edge city has become the standard form of urban growth worldwide, representing a 20th-century urban form unlike that of the 19th-century central downtown. Other terms for these areas include suburban activity centers, megacenters, and suburban business districts.

In 1991, Garreau established five rules for a place to be considered an edge city:

  • Has five million or more square feet (465,000 m²) of leasable office space.
  • Has 600,000 square feet (56,000 m²) or more of leasable retail space.
  • Has more jobs than bedrooms.
  • Is perceived by the population as one place.
  • Was nothing like a "city" as recently as 30 years ago. Then it was just bedrooms, if not cow pastures."

Most edge cities develop at or near existing or planned freeway intersections, and are especially likely to develop near major airports. They rarely include heavy industry. They often are not separate legal entities but are governed as part of surrounding counties (this is more often the case in the East than in the Midwest, South, or West). They are numerous—almost 200 in the United States, compared to 45 downtowns of comparable size—and are large geographically because they are built at automobile scale.

The book is organized by chapters that dig into various Edge Cities in America, including Tyson's Corner, Houston's Galleria area and more.  Because the book came out in 1991 - you can preview the whole book on Amazon (irony) without buying.

What's the big deal about Edge Cities for HR?  The biggest impact they have is what I call "recruiting center of gravity" - my term, not in the book.

Commute preferences change in metro areas as Edge Cities come online and continue to grow.  In Atlanta - home of Kinetix - Edge Cities like Buckhead, Perimeter and Galleria have pushed the employment center of gravity north, to the point where a study I did in 2009 showed that the location preferred by the greatest number of candidates across Atlanta was the Perimeter, located at 12 o'clock on I-285, the perimeter loop that surrounds downtown Atlanta.

But back to Amazon.  You might expect that given the northbound trend of Edge Cities in Atlanta, Amazon would be looking for a location in the north suburbs.  You'd be wrong, primarily because the airport is south of downtown.  As a result, the patch of land proposed for Amazon is connected to downtown near the old Georgia Dome location in an area called The Gulch.

Edge Cities apply to everyone but Amazon - because 50,000 jobs has its own gravity that transcends the Edge City formula.

Quick math - if the average office space formula calls for 170 feet of office space per employee/worker, the HQ2 project would stand at 8.5 million feet of leasable/owned real estate to support 50,000 employees.

You know - the equivalent of 14 Edge Cities described by Garreau.

As they said in Jaws - we're going to need a bigger boat.


WEBINAR: Social Media Ad Buys for Recruiting - The HR Pro's Guide...

Posting jobs on social media is the minimum — and in today’s competitive recruiting world the minimum isn’t enough. That’s why I put together this webinar comparing, contrasting, and ranking the top social media platforms for recruitment marketing advertising. We wanted to cut through the noise and help you make smart recruiting decisions with your recruitment marketing budget related to social.

Join me for “The Talent Acquisition/HR Leader’s Guide to Social Media Buys for Recruiting” on February 15th at 1pm ET/12Noon CT/10am PT and we’ll give you the following goodies:

--A primer on buying recruiting ads (in all their various forms) with the players you expect – Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and more.

--No-nonsense rankings of where to spend your money on social platforms based on your specific needs – with sub rankings related to reach, audience and more.

--Benchmarks on what others are doing related to their overall recruiting budget – in social, job boards, Indeed and more – to give you a sense for how you compare.

--The best way to run recruiting campaigns that don’t cost you anything – and are probably right under your nose.

--Some quick-start templates to use to get social ads rolling for that tough to fill job that’s currently crushing your soul.

We love recruiters and HR pros that have recruiting as part of their job. You’re busy and haven’t had time to dig into to social recruiting ads – we did it for you, so join us for “The Talent Acquisition/HR Leader’s Guide to Social Media Buys for Recruiting” on February 15th at 1pm ET/12Noon CT/10am PT. We have you covered!

REGISTER NOW BY CLICKING THIS LINK