Viewing All Posts Tagged ‘recruiter’

Recruiter Match Race

Since Thoroughbreds were first brought to the American colonies more than 300 years ago, match racing — featuring one man’s horse against another man’s horse — has been an important part of the sport of racing. In the 1800s, match races took place with regularity.

None was bigger than Seabiscuit vs. War Admiral (you may have seen the movie).

So I just read the “Recruiting’s Smart Experiment with Social Media” article on ERE and in it one of the quoted Recruiters said;

“As the only recruiter, it’s hard for me to sit there and Tweet all day (something she says often goes on with independent recruiters). I’m not a beginner with Twitter. I think I know more than a lot of people out there. But it’s time-consuming. I am glad I work really fast. I’m glad I can multitask. My cell phone is loaded up on tweets. Some people just Tweet all the time.”

I also read a great article by Seth Godin about what people really want out of social media and other “connections”;

…….the fact that what people really want is the ability to connect to each other, not to companies. So the permission is used to build a tribe, to build people who want to hear from the company because it helps them connect, it helps them find each other, it gives them a story to tell and something to talk about.

So I got to thinking; if I put together a “Recruiter Match Race”between a modern, Social Networking Recruiter vs. an old fashioned “smile and dial Recruiter”, who would win?

I believe Seth, that people connect with people not with companies.  Maybe the hardcore Apple fans will argue that they hang on every word the mother ship utters but few people will argue that they really enjoy connecting with a company.  Even employees don’t necessarily connect with a company!  Heck, that’s why employee engagement is such an illusive subject for HR folks!

So if you are a recruiter who believes the size of your facebook “Tribe” or the number of people following you on Twitter make you a better recruiter (better than my headhunter with a research list) PLEASE send me an email or comment on this post and tell me why you think that.

By the way, Seabiscuit was a 4 year old (ancient in horse racing) and War Admiral was the new, innovative favorite.  Here’s how the result was written at the race track:

“When they were at the last furlong pole, it was evident that the race was over. Both jockeys put up their whips and Seabiscuit, going strongly, the Admiral a very tired colt, the bay won by three open lengths.”

Monster.com – Wrong end of the Moose

Many of you are aware that, for the second time in 18 months, Monster’s database was compromised.  This time the personal information of 1.2 million job seekers was stolen, in 2007 it was the username and passwords of legitimate Recruiters. 

According to the dictionary;

Hack; to damage or injure by crude, harsh, or insensitive treatment; mutilate; mangle:

Using this definition of HACK; we can safely say that Monster’s inability to secure the sensitive data of jobs seekers and paying customers has created the “follow on” hacks below: 

They hacked the confidence of millions of job seekers and paying customers world wide

They hacked the job board industry by creating distrust in eRecruitment

They hacked the hopes and dreams of millions of job seekers who will now get phishing emails instead of bona fide communications for employment

They hacked a percentage of these job seekers lives because they will naively give personal information to criminals who call or email them based on this stolen data

They hacked  customers in 2007 when they used the breach of their database as the reason to squeeze hundreds of thousands of additional license revenue out of us, saying that it was OUR fault for sharing passwords!

 And finally, another definition of HACK from the dictionary – this time in reference to the person who made the decision to spend $3 Million on a Superbowl ad instead of on additional security measures:

Hack
Noun;
1. A person who engages in an activity without talent or skills

Enjoy the humor, marvel at the irony!

Job Seekers are from Venus; Recruiters are from Mars

As a Headhunter or Corporate Recruiter I always felt my job was to create matches.  Long before eHarmony, Match.com or any other “matchmaking” service, Recruiters have been bringing together candidates and hiring managers in what one of my early mentors described as “having two hands full of jello and trying to get them together before one flops off”.

So today I take up the Matchmaker role again and try to patch a misuderstanding between Job Seekers and Corporate Recruiters.

It seems these two groups don’t understand each other: Venus and Mars.  I’ll explain.

Job Seekers want a job, first and foremost.  Many are quite persistent and most are quite professional.

Recruiters want to fill jobs, first and foremost.  Many are thorough in their search and most are quite professional.

On the surface, this is a match made in heaven – both have virtually the same goal.

Where the relationship breaks down is when the decision not to hire (or interview) someone is made.  This creates several misunderstandings on both the Job Seeker and the Recruiter sides of the equation:

Job Seeker:

You were not selected for hire or interview because there are better qualified people out there who want the job too.  Millions of job seekers, one job – the chances that you are the most qualified are not in your favor.

The decision not to hire/interview is not made in a vacuum; Recruiters and Hiring Managers collaborate to choose the best pool of available candidates.

This decision is subjective and not worth arguing or complaining about.  As a BMW owner, you don’t try to convince the Mercedes owner of the mistake they made in car selection, don’t try to convince Recruiters that they’ve made a mistake in NOT hiring/interviewing you. 

The more you argue and fight with a Recruiter, the less and less chance you have of EVER working for that company.  Recruiters talk to each other and if you find doors closing faster than opening at certain companies, you probably chose to argue a decision at one time a little to persistently.

Remember that timing plays a KEY ROLE in this decision.  If you applied for the role anytime after it has been open 30+ days, chances are you won’t get to interview.  The reason is simple but never explained to you – Cost of Vacancy.  This is a calculation of the cost to the company for each day that position is open and once a viable pool of candidates is moved into the inteview process the clock is ticking on getting it filled.  Understand that, as in life, in recruiting timing can be everything.

Recruiter: 

Job Seekers are frustrated.  Why?  Go to any job board, search for jobs, post for jobs, hear nothing and get spammed to death. 

Job Seekers are frustrated.  Why? Go apply for one of YOUR OWN jobs.  Fill out a complex profile and hit apply.  Then be told you’ve created your “account” (did I really want an account? No, I want a job.  See #1under Job Seeker above) and NOW you need to actually apply for the job.  Be told “Thank you” but never hear from anyone about anything again. 

Job Seekers DO want to be told what happened to their application.  If Job Seekers can live with 3 and 4 in the Job Seeker list above, you OWE it to them to tell them what’s going on.  Let them move on, let them get closure.  Do the right thing.

More is more.  I know Legal and HR tell you to be very tight lipped about the reasons people didn’t get interviewed or hired but c’mon – common sense says that there is information you can provide a job seeker that may actually HELP them get the next job they apply for.  Don’t be callous, it could be YOU.  Treat job seekers the way you want to be treated.  Don’t be too busy, don’t be too cold, don’t be put out by their need for information.

I’m not writing a book or going on Oprah but I am simply saying that the Recruiter can do his/her job without aggravating the frustration of the job seeker and that the job seeker can seek jobs without causing Recuiters to withhold information and be non communicative.

Job Seeker, meet Recruiter; Recruiter, meet Job Seeker.