What Is Your Pettiest Reason For Being Lukewarm On A Candidate?

I'm asking. You know you have some type of petty thing - that's caused you to rank a candidate lower than they should have been.

I'm not talking about bias with a capital "B".  I'm talking about bias with a smaller than lower case "b".   It's so petty that the "b" in bias is actual two font sizes smaller than the rest of the word.  

Mine?  I have a hard time with candidates who take me out of my normal messaging environment.  Namely, the ability to use iMessage across different devices and communicate with team members is a preference - not a necessity.  I've hired people that I can't message on the iMessage platform before, and will in the future.  Best candidate wins. 

But when I pick up my phone to SMS a candidate rather than iMessage from my mac, I need to remind myself best candidate wins.  Twice.

What's your pettiest reason for being lukewarm on a candidate?  Hit me in the comments, or message me.  Unless you're not IOS - if that's the case, definitely hit me in the comments.


VIDEO HANGOUT THURSDAY - The Psychology of Recruitment: Brain Hacking to Get Agreement...

If you’re a client or follower of Jobvite, you know the Recruiter Nation Live series.  It started with the Recruiter Nation Live Conference in San Francisco last June, and continued with the Recruiter Nation Live Roadshow that brought real recruiter talk to 9 cities in North America over the last three months of 2017. 
 
The feedback was great – you loved it, so we’re back with the latest in the series – the Recruiter Nation Live Hangout Series, hosted by Fistful of Talent and me.  Once a month, FOT will host a live Hangout designed to keep the conversation among HR pros and recruiters going – focused on things you can use, like the best-kept secrets of today’s smartest and most efficient recruiters, Jedi-mind tricks proven to make you more persuasive/get great candidate response and strategies to hold your hiring managers accountable for their choices–so everyone wins.

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

Our next hangout is at 1pm ET on January 25th (Thursday!).  It's an informal thing - we fire up the video and a few slides (emphasis on "few") and run through a few things in 20-25 minutes...

Topic - GETTING READY FOR THE JANUARY 2018 HIRING RUSH!! (WITH FOTers DAWN BURKE AND KRIS DUNN)

REGISTER FOR THE HANGOUT BY CLICKING THIS LINK!!!

TOPICS/THE GOOD STUFF - 

The Psychology of Recruitment: Brain Hacking to Get Agreement
 
While technology continues to have greater importance in our day-to-day lives and jobs, knowing the things that make us uniquely human is just as critical. How you use social psychology, and our decision biases to help connect, engage and influence a job candidates is where you can make a huge difference. 

Join Paul Hebert and Dawn Burke of FOT for this 25 minute video hangout as they riff on:

1--How you can use aversion to your advantage - even when the person doesn't have a job to lose.

2--Understanding how getting small commitments can drive even bigger ones.

3--Leveraging "framing" when you talk to candidates to help you lock in salary and other things you might normally have difficulty discussing with candidates


It will be fun and fast. You'll want to join us because it will turn your recruiting game up to 11.  Or if it's already an 11, it will turn it up to 12.

(Hint - one of the weirdest influence techniques is included in this session. Listen in and Paul will explain it.)

REGISTER FOR THE HANGOUT BY CLICKING THIS LINK!!! 


ASK THE CAPITALIST: Are HR Pros with MBAs Special Anymore?

Kris- 

Would love to know your opinion on a trend I am seeing as I'm screening HR Director candidates... DOCTOR IS IN 

I used to encourage HR undergrads to pursue their MBA instead of a Masters in HR. I felt it held more value for businesses and was a tough program that would advance them in ways a specialized degree couldn't. 

I am shocked at the number of candidates I am seeing with an MBA and MA in HR. 

The result for me is I am losing respect for the MBA! I mean, if sooo many people can get one, is it really a tough program? Does it really demonstrate anything special anymore? 

What do you think? Am I way off track with my line of thinking? 

-AW

---

AW - 

I obviously have to lead with a Groucho Marx quote here - "I'd never belong to any club that would have me as a member".

Your advice is still relevant, and if it's any consolation, lots of young HR pros took your advice, right?  Now they're pissed off that people like you won't get out of the way fast enough, and in a cocktail of following AW's advice and having time on their hands - they've got more degrees than they've had jobs.  I say this as someone with 3 degrees, including a MBA.  But I'm Gen X - now a veteran of all this we call HR.

You're obviously seeing the explosion related to accessibility and availability of the MBA.  Distance learning and lots of options has made the MBA tag a bit easy to gather, which I think means you've got to evaluate what the candidates are actually presenting in a couple of different ways:

1. Where did they pick up the MBA and did they actually have to work hard to achieve it? Traditional programs where you have to spend time in class still rule in my eyes - that commitment, along with the interaction that occurs when you have to work in groups with other humans is still the most important thing.  That being said, there's a lot of online MBA programs that work the hell out of people, with University of Phoenix coming to mind.  Of course, there are a lot of diploma mills as well, which is why you feel the way you do.  

Good rule of thumb - any school with a directional name without reference to a state or city is a problem.  Southeast Missouri?  Says legit to me.  Southeastern University?  Wait, Southeastern where?  Oh, university... <shudder>

2. The most important thing related to the MBA is what they learned and how it's changed them.  With that in mind, some of your interview process has to go after what they learned from the MBA program and how they applied it.  Additionally, how has it changed them?  If someone really took the MBA and ran with it, when you ask them for a portfolio of their work at their job, you'd like to think they could provide that to you.

No portfolio means they checked off a box.  Existence of a portfolio means it changed their worldview a bit and now are looking to create work product that helps them in the future.

I still like the MBA.  I just think you'll have to do a little work to figure out what Steve Martin learned in The Jerk - what's S*** and what's Shinola.  


Forcing Managers to Interview Minority Candidates - Necessary or Pure Bureaucracy?

Capitalist Note - If you follow sports, you may have heard that the Oakland Raiders (soon to be the Las Vegas Raiders) are set to hire Jon Gruden, current ABC/ESPN commentator, past head coach in the NFL and yes, a white guy.  It's said at this writing to be a done deal, but the Raiders have to interview other candidates as required by the NFL's Rooney Rule.  I'm re-running this post to explore the merits of forcing managers to interview minority candidates in searches.

If you follow sports, you're probably aware that Pete Carroll, head football coach at the University of Southern California (USC), is leaving USC to become the head coach of the NFL's Seattle Seahawks.  On the surface, this is pretty pedestrian stuff - head coach wins national titles in college, gets a chance at a big payday in the NFL.  Yawn...

What you probably don't know is this: before the Seahawks and Carroll could sign an contract that had already been agreed to verbally, the Seahawks had to interview at least one minority candidate as part of their process.  It's required in the NFL, and here's how the rule (known as the Rooney Rule) is positioned:

"Under the NFL's Rooney Rule, any team in the National Football League offering a head coaching position must interview at least one minority candidate. Named after the Pittsburgh Steelers' owner Dan Rooney, chairman of theMike_tomlin league's diversity committee, the rule was created in the hopes of increasing the number of minority head coaches in the league.  

How do you feel about that?  Here's how I feel about that.  Stop talking about Affirmative Action and start talking about how the world works as you consider this one. On many occasions, hiring managers have a candidate in mind that they think they want to plug into a job.  When this happens, they're usually so set on the decision that they think any other interviews may be a waste of time.  The tough part about that is that your company still has a process, and the hiring manager needs to put forth a little more effort.  So, let's take the focus off of minorities and plug another group of candidates in to discuss the wisdom of forcing your hiring managers to interview candidates they don't think have a chance - internal applicants.

Let's say your hiring manager has an external candidate they think would be great for the job, but you've also got 3 internal candidates for the position who have applied.  Your company has a process that says all internal candidates are, at the very least, going to get a brief conversation/interview with the hiring manager in question.  Your hiring manager doesn't want to do it, and he's bitching about it.  You're faced with the classic catch-22 - you either force the process and risk looking like a bureaucrat, or you let the hiring manager do his thing without interviewing the internals, which is decidedly bad for your culture and employee relations environment.

I'm tagged as a capitalist.  You might think I would allow the hiring manager to skip the internal interviews with a name like that, right?  But I don't, and here's why.  I've learned that for every 10 internal interviews you make a hiring manager do against their will, they are going to get 2-3 pleasant surprises, meaning they're impressed enough by the candidate in question that they'll change their mind and offer them the job, or they'll put the memory on reserve and as a result, hire them for a future role.

My stance on internal interviews is easily carried over to the Rooney Rule. By forcing interviews of minority candidates, you've got a shot to make the hiring managers go HMMMMM....

Need proof? That logic is documented when Mike Tomlin became the head coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers at the young age of 34 (and later led them to a NFL Championship):

"Mike Tomlin wouldn't have gotten this opportunity without this rule," said Shell, the first modern black NFL head coach. "He never would have sat down with Dan Rooney."

Said Rooney: "To be honest with you, before the interview he was just another guy who was an assistant coach. Once we interviewed him the first time, he just came through and we thought it was great. And we brought him back and talked to him on the phone and went through the process that we do, and he ended up winning the job."

The Rooney Rule is the same thing as your rules regarding how internal candidates are handled. You don't put rules on interviewing minorities or internal candidates in place because it's the right thing to do.  You do it because the exposure gives strong talent an opportunity to surprise hiring managers who wouldn't otherwise be exposed. 

And that, my friends, should be our main objective in the Talent game.


Indeed Is Preparing to Shift Your Spend from PPC to Resume Database...

Price increases and changes from Indeed have been reported elsewhere - for good reporting on Indeed changes, check out this article and others from Joel Cheesman.

Thought I would weigh in with what I know from my own life in Talent Acquistion and the team that I work with.  Here's what we know and what it feels like: Indeed-

What We Know:

--It used to be that if you spend on Pay Per Click (PPC) with Indeed up to a certain threshold, you got Featured Employer status.  That status came with one important featured - unlimited use of the Indeed Resume Database, which by all accounts, is pretty damn good.

--Most of what Indeed has focused on in the past is PPC via the featured jobs model.

--Conventional wisdom says that the advent of Google for Jobs will and has hurt Indeed's PPC model.

--Indeed reps are currently forwarding proposals to clients with changes in the Indeed Featured Employer/Resume Database model.  Basically it goes like this - in addition to whatever PPC spend you want to make on featured jobs, you're going to have to buy "seats" to access the Resume database.

--Indeed reps are pushing for commits by the end of the year, but when pushed are saying nothing will change related to Featured Employer providing access to the Resume Database until Q2 of 2018.

--Quick math for one recruiting firm suggests to get what the team has grown accustomed to related to access to the Indeed Resume Database, the spend would equal the company's current budget for PPC via Indeed Featured Jobs.

What All That Tells Me:

--Indeed sees the damage/downside to the current PPC model and is wisely monetizing another product stream they previously haven't charged for - The resume database.

--The quick math calculated by the recruiting firm referenced above suggest that Indeed is being pretty aggressive with Resume Database pricing, attempting to fully replace the revenue that might ultimately be lost if the PPC model fails from firms who use the resume database often as part of their core business.

--If your recruiting team doesn't hunt (meaning they just take what comes in off the PPC model and don't use the database much), Indeed still has a problem related to replacing the revenue that might be lost from you if the PPC model ultimately fails and you take your budget dollars elsewhere.

Keep your eye on the efficiency of your Indeed PPC spend as it related to impressions, clicks and applies.  We're seeing some clients way down, but others are holding tight.

If you use Indeed's resume database, our math says that Indeed wants to replace potential lost revenue in PPC with Resume Database seats.  If you don't use the database?  Well, Indeed is still working on how to replace your spend if the PPC model fails and you leave.

 


Let's Hangout and Talk - Getting Ready to Staff Up at the Start of 2018...

If you’re a client or follower of Jobvite, you know the Recruiter Nation Live series.  It started with the Recruiter Nation Live Conference in San Francisco last June, and continued with the Recruiter Nation Live Roadshow that brought real recruiter talk to 9 cities in North America over the last three months. 
 
The feedback was great – you loved it, so we’re back with the latest in the series – the Recruiter Nation Live Hangout Series, hosted by Fistful of Talent and me.  Once a month, FOT will host a live Hangout designed to keep the conversation among recruiters going – focused on things you can use, like the best-kept secrets of today’s smartest and most efficient recruiters, Jedi-mind tricks proven to make you more persuasive/get great candidate response and strategies to hold your hiring managers accountable for their choices–so everyone wins.

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

Our next hangout is at 1pm ET on December 14th (this Thursday!).  It's an informal thing - we fire up the video and a few slides (emphasis on "few") and run through a few things in 20-25 minutes...

Topic - GETTING READY FOR THE JANUARY 2018 HIRING RUSH!! (WITH FOTers DAWN BURKE AND KRIS DUNN)

REGISTER FOR THE HANGOUT BY CLICKING THIS LINK!!!

TOPICS/THE GOOD STUFF -
 
--How to build your internal and external recruiting “posse” for 2018. 

--What year-end “house-cleaning” (especially within your technology platforms/ATS) must be done to start 2018 with a clean slate. 

--How to partner with your executives and hiring managers to get great results - together. 

--What reporting would help you manage expectations and influence your internal clients to recognize the great work you're doing?

REGISTER FOR THE HANGOUT BY CLICKING THIS LINK!!! 

 


Google For Jobs Launches "Job Board of Choice Apply", Throws Job Boards Big Bone...

Tracking the looming giant in the recruiting industry that is Google For Jobs can be a full-time job.  The latest is a biggie - GFJ rolled out 4 pretty important features last week, including auto-loading of salary data, bookmarking and better geographic search.  But one feature dwarfs them all - something called "Job Board of Choice Apply", described here by industry insider Joel Cheesman over at ERE:

"This update is by far the most interesting and unique to Google. Basically, if the job you’re viewing is located on multiple job boards, you can select which one you want to use when applying for a job. So, if you already have a Monster account, and have built a resume there, you can select to apply to that job via your Monster account and not, for example, through CareerBuilder or a site where you don’t have an account.

You can also opt to apply directly through a company’s ATS and bypass job boards entirely. Google doesn’t say how it decides the order, but in the screenshot, the company site comes before the job sites. (Again, it’s worth noting Indeed won’t be an option, as long as it chooses not to participate in Google for Jobs.) It’ll be interesting to see if Google will release data around the percentage of people who choose a company website versus a job site." (Capitalist note - Joel follows these trends better than anyone, so go follow him)

Job Board of Choice Apply is a big feature launch on Google For Jobs for a couple of different reasons in my eyes:

1--If you're a job board it would seem easy to wonder when Google's going to screw you and just remove you from the process.  "Job Board Choice of Apply" doesn't prevent that in the future, but Google is throwing a big bone to participating Job Boards (Indeed is the only major one not included at this point) by encouraging candidates to smoothly apply via their profile of choice on an existing platform.

2--This clutters the direct relationship you're used to with Indeed, where the traffic gets pushed directly to your careers site.  As an employer, that doesn't feel great, but at Google, it's not about you, Mr/Mrs. Employer - it's about the end user, which is the candidate.

3--You'd think as a casual observer that a candidate bypassing some of the employer careers site could save themselves time by going with the streamlined apply via a profile they have set up on a job board included on GFJ.  You might be right, you might be wrong.  I searched for jobs at at HeathSouth, then tested the job board apply to an RN position (I'd be a great nurse) via LinkedIn, only to get bogged down by a customized apply via LinkedIN process which walked me through 10+ screens and asked for analog info like my street address and home phone number.

Capitalist note - Do people still have home phone numbers?  I thought the only thing that matter was your gmail email address these days.

4--Google will eventually look at this cluster#### of bad user experience in applying for jobs (even on those job boards) and decide to take over that process for everyone.  Trust me, they'll be there. You can't be for user experience and then look at what I described on the LinkedIn auto-apply (which is not auto at all) without fixing it.  Unless it's about money, at which time all bets are off.

Screenshot of how the "Job Board Choice of Apply" options appear shown below.  Look at the row of options under the title in row marked "Apply"

"Will Jack Kevorkian please report to the ER? Consult with Mr. Indeed needed."

Google for jobs

 

 


Let's Hangout and Talk - Google Jobs and Recruitment Marketing Spend...

What's up, fellow HR Capitalists?  I had the chance to speak this fall for Jobvite at something called the Recruiter Nation Live Roadshow.  Had a great time and met some great Talent Acquisition leaders, HR pros and Recruiters as a result.  

The energy was so good, we decided to do a hangout series monthly with Jobvite at my other site (Fistful of Talent).  It's going to be an informal 20-30 minute thing, and I'm joined this month by Tim Sackett, topic is how to figure out Google for Jobs, what's up with your recruitment marketing spend as a result, etc.

Stay ahead of the curve and join us - click the link below.  It won't be too formal and if you're interested in coming on and asking a question, let me know that as well.

It all goes down next Tuesday, 11/14 at 1pm EST.  Click below, register and join us!!!

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

The Recruiter Nation Live Hangout Series - With Jobvite and Fistful of Talent!

Our first hangout is at 1pm ET on Tuesday, November 14th 

Google for Jobs/ROI of Recruitment Marketing Spend! What You Need to Know to Look Smart!!
 
REGISTER FOR THE HANGOUT BY CLICKING THIS LINK!!!

If you’re a client or follower of Jobvite, you know the Recruiter Nation Live series.  It started with the Recruiter Nation Live Conference in San Francisco last June, and continued with the Recruiter Nation Live Roadshow that brought real recruiter talk to 9 cities in North America over the last three months. 
 
The feedback was great – you loved it, so we’re back with the latest in the series – the Recruiter Nation Live Hangout Series.  Once a month, we’ll be hosting a Google Hangout designed to keep the conversation among recruiters going – focused on things you can use, like the best-kept secrets of today’s smartest and most efficient recruiters, Jedi-mind tricks proven to make you more persuasive/ get great candidate response and strategies to hold your hiring managers accountable for their choices–so everyone wins.
 
Our first hangout is at 1pm ET on Tuesday, November 14th and will be hosted by Kris Dunn and Tim Sackett, focused on the following juicy topic:
 
Google for Jobs/ROI of Recruitment Marketing Spend! What You Need to Know to Look Smart!!
 
REGISTER FOR THE HANGOUT BY CLICKING THIS LINK!!!

Let’s have some fun and learn from each other at the same time.  See you at 1pm ET on November 14th!!!


Dumb Device/Rich Cloud: Talent Philosophy in Apple Vs. Google Product Terms...

I saw this on the web recently and thought it had a lot of application beyond the way Apple and Google ideate and develop products:

"I’ve said before that Apple’s approach is about a dumb cloud enabling rich apps while Google’s is about dumb devices are endpoints of cloud services. That’s going to lead to rather different experiences, and to ever more complex discussions within companies as to what sort of features they create across the two platforms and where they place their priorities. It also changes somewhat the character of the narrative that the generic shift of computing from local devices to the cloud is a structural problem for Apple, since what we mean, exactly, when we say ‘cloud’ on smartphones needs to be unpicked rather more."

So, there's a lot there, but it basically means that Apple envisions great products and a dumb cloud, and Google dreams about dumb/basic products and smart cloud.

For me, I automatically thought about how we acquire talent, and in a competitive marketplace having a strategy about how you view the world.

Think about it this way - the device is the employee, and the cloud is your philosophy on developing that employee - what's available for them to plug into to make them better once they join you.

From a talent perspective, if you buy experienced, top dollar talent and don't have to train, you're more like Apple.  If your strategy is to buy early career talent that's not as developed, but you're committed to plugging them into development resources, you're more like Google.

Both approaches can be killer.  The biggest mistake you can make is to not have a philosophy.