Let's electrify recruiting

At a conference recently, while quietly schmoozing the room (I’m an introvert by nature), it confirmed for me that the traditional recruiting process is a truly artificial way to get to know people. The way I meet a new person is to have a little something in common to generate an interesting two minute conversation. We break apart, speak to others, and maybe come back and continue the conversation with many smiles, nods, and handling of tea cups bridging the space in between. It's a dance to slowly build trust - moving from stranger to friend through unfolding stages of self-disclosure. 

It should come as no surprise that personal networking is considered the most successful way to land a job. So how can we mimic real life in the recruiting process? And please don’t say “job fair.” If you are not convinced you should shake things up, let's set up the argument. I would like you to become aware of systemic bias that may be hiding in your recruiting processes, limiting your company's ability to build competitive advantage. 

Company side

·    We know that qualified candidates are not being interviewed, thanks to ubiquitous automation - you don't know who you are missing. (Lengthy personal aside: I was electronically turned down for a knowledge manager position without so much as an email inquiry despite 17 years of living and breathing KM at the poster child company for KM.)

• Cultural fit is impossible to assess on paper.
• Some companies are not very experienced at the recruiting process and may not be describing the job accurately, nor understanding the skills and behaviours needed to succeed. Have you evaluated your top performers and captured their success factors?
• Does an external recruiter really know your company's culture? The ones I’ve talked to barely understand the job, let alone the company.
• You need to diversify your team. You have to get past the "looks like me" bias. Homogeneity prevents successful innovation. Since you aren’t sure from where the new talent might hail, let's invest in serendipity and cast a wider net.
• People are your IP, your future, the reason the company exists. That's why they call it human capital – attracting new talent has to be a priority to get right.

Candidate side

• The candidate wants to know that you are the best employer - you have to sell your culture, service/product, future career growth. The best candidates won't work for just anyone.
• Different personalities perform better or worse under intense interviewing. How can we help everyone shine?
• Resumes come in all shapes and sizes - some candidates sell themselves well, others not so much. Have we proven that the paper persona directly correlates with success on the job? Lots of people don’t even write their own resumes anyway.
• People seeking new challenges do not want another job where they've been there, done that. Yet, companies look for a track record of having done the exact same job with the same titles. Yaaawn. Do you want a bored employee who will leave for something better?

All these points above are about being aware of systemic bias that may be hiding in your recruiting processes, limiting your company's ability to build competitive advantage. 

Let's throw a recruiting party

I would like to propose a different approach to recruiting next time you are in urgent need of new blood to grow the company.

My friend is a VP for an awesome international marketing consulting company, but can’t get more than 10 people to respond to her job postings. She needs to hire to stay on top of the growing Toronto office, but since the company is new to Canada, people have never heard of the company, don’t know it’s growing, nor that it has a kickass fun culture.  She needs a new approach to recruiting - the traditional methods are not working.

I know you realize you can't carry on short-staffed, but you dread the time it’s going to take to find and integrate new people. You are risking your long-term growth outlook if you don’t get more hands on deck. Overloading existing staff will lead to disengagement, burnout, and departures of top talent. If yours is a fun and daring company, why don't you throw a recruiting party? I have thought through the process to help get you started. I'm sure once I have you thinking about these steps, you will be able to customize my suggestions easily. 

Strategize and prepare

• Advertise the party internally and assemble a small team - 2 to 4 people - to strategize on the party arrangements.
• Be clear that this is not a job fair. It's a party. So get everyone energized.
• Interview your top performers to develop a solid candidate and job profile for writing the ad. 
• Place a job posting in as many places you can afford to or think of (yes, I know, that sentence ended with a preposition). 
• Take all the resumes and review every one in original physical or electronic form, remove only the most egregiously unqualified people. Or maybe don't - keep everyone - they applied for some reason, you just don't know it yet.
• Arrange the date and time that fits with your culture. If everyone rolls in at 10 am, then don't try an 8 am meet and greet. If traffic is brutal before 10 am, schedule it closer to lunch.
• Engage your current employees in the hiring party, they have a vested interest in hiring competent and amiable co-workers.
• Your existing team will be the party ambassadors, so have it in the office - no more than 2 hours needed. 

Invite candidates

• Write a great party invitation that reflects your culture - be sure to explain this concept clearly in your email. 
• Social media the heck out of it. Build buzz. Build energy. 
• Ask attendees to sum up their personal brand in 3 words and include it their name tags.
• Set a shortish acceptance deadline to ensure you have only candidates who are highly motivated. Have a plan to deal with people who cannot attend.
• Use a survey feedback form to gather registrations and close the form when the deadline arrives. This helps if the volume is high.

Figure out the format

• I know I said it was a party, but in this case, skip the booze. Substitute a pot luck, each dish labeled with fun description of the contributor.
• Make sure you have plenty of chairs to sit and chose a cozy space, not cavernous. Err on the side of too small, not too big. 
• Assign a small cluster of candidates to ambassadors - say 1:3 or 1:5 (accounting for inevitable 10% attrition). Their job is to meet, greet, answer questions, and create a safe, personable environment.
• Use name tags creatively to group people via colour codes or personal statements. MAKE SURE I CAN READ IT AT 20 PACES. (Personal aside: at the network roundtable event, the surname and company were in a 10 point font in light orange on white.)
• Sprinkle in conversation starters everywhere possible - what things can people notice and chatter about BESIDES THE WEATHER? Posters, costumes, roles, brands, keep thinking.
• Have a formal presentation component - I suggest company history, examples of client successes, future growth plans, work highlights from ambassadors holding the position on offer, and a perspective on the culture. 
• Don't forget a Q&A portion.
• Create fun exercises to get the crowd interacting. Number name tags and raffle off your company's product. If ball bearings are not really useful to the average person unless installed, perhaps a gift certificate, event tickets, tech widget, or book. 
• Wind up the party explaining the next steps for followup and deeper interviews.

Follow up with interested candidates

• Debrief quickly after the party with your ambassadors - who would they like to see again? Pull out the resumes and schedule the interviews. 
• Include the ambassador in the interviews to increase comfort levels. I love 2 on 1 interviews - it takes the pressure off and feels more like a conversation rather than an inquisition.
• Schedule a full day to interview as many people as possible and debrief as a team to see who should continue on to final round interviews.
• Don't forget to email everyone who applied or attended to let them know when the position is filled. 
• Followup with a candidate satisfaction survey to learn how you can make your next party event better.

I hope you find this idea electrifying. Imagine the buzz you will begin to create. Make sure you chronicle it on your company's blog. 

Hey ATS - Do you know what you're missing?

It occurred to me as I wrote about the flaws of applicant tracking systems earlier that I was unconsciously comparing my recent experience to McKinsey's recruiting model. While the bar is extremely high and the criteria for entry is not for faint of heart, it is also clear that candidates (and alumni for that matter) are treated with a different mindset than the traditional screen-out, weed-down, and fend-off mindset that I have in encountered in many large Toronto companies. Indeed, it is very personal:

• McKinsey's ATS is best characterized as a CRM tool to engage potential recruits rather than screen them out 
• A real person reviews every resume searching for that special sauce that only a human brain can interpret
• Our recruiters will actually talk to potential candidates - we call it cultivation
• Candidates have multiple rounds of interviews and are assigned a buddy who will provide them with feedback and coaching so that they can put their best foot forward in the interview
• Interviews are conducted by peers - would I like to work with this person?

This is a tremendous effort to find the best of the best. They are not paying lip service to the aspiration, but are actually using methods that back it up. In contrast, when a resume is submitted to a Taleo ATS, keywords are king. In a blog article, The Dirty Secret Behind Applicant Tracking Systems: Qualified Candidates Need Not Apply, the author observes: 

When I read about the so called “skills gap” that employers complain about and the millions of open jobs that aren't getting filled because of it, I have to wonder. Maybe the skills gap lies with the employers relying on a flawed talent sourcing process. 

Katherine Hansen has recently released a report, Have Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) Ruined Recruiting, Hiring, and Job Search? She reports examples of qualified individuals not meeting the selection criteria of the ATS. "Recruiters never read more than the top 20 resumes." How can that ever be a valid approach to finding the best person for a job? The report includes observations from many experts: 

• A purely cold, technological approach results in missing out on good candidates, some hiring decision-makers say. You need a human touch at all levels.
• An ATS should make the process smoother and not prevent companies from looking at the best prospective employees. 
• Fail to meet one the [preset criteria] and your application gets tossed, even if a good HR director might have spotted your potential. 
• Sadly, I have seen many well-qualified candidates discarded because the ATS failed to capture nuanced information. It still takes a human to read between the lines and to knit together the mosaic that represents a candidate's true value.

This is indeed a sad state of affairs. Let's think about a situation: tech savvy candidates who figure out how to get to the top of the list may share a capability such as search engine optimization or a staccato writing style. What if the ideal candidate is not comfortable with technology or writes creatively and has honed a different set of skills that would be more suited to the job. In the psychological world, we call this systemic bias. You don't know it's there, but it is embedded in the approach. Now isn't that interesting.

The challenge: I love technology and all it can do for us. Every company should be testing their systems to ensure their automated approach to selection is actually working. What if I could get my hands on a project to review a company's ATS with fresh eyes. It might go something like this.

• Review current state of the front and back end usability and design
• Create test profiles to feed into and track through the system to see how they score
• Interview recruiters and hiring managers to understand their end-to-end processes and needs
• Analyze hiring statistics and correlate with different sourcing approaches
• Research other approaches to sourcing candidates like social media
• Connect the dots with the resulting findings and make recommendations 
• Pull a great team together to build something awesome that works for everyone and increases the employer's brand

Am I missing something? 

Off I go now to form some more creature connections with fun colleagues.

Applicant tracking systems pretend to do the job

I was thinking about an article from Lou Adler.  He made two critical points about hiring qualified people.

• In the first 5-10 years of a person’s career, people who get promoted more rapidly or assigned to the toughest projects tend to have less experience than those who don’t. Yet when we hire someone from the outside we want more experience.
• Most managers would hire a top achiever who is a little light on skills and experience and modify the job accordingly, but their hiring systems prevent them from ever seeing these people.

Addressing the first point, I have found a number of loftily written job descriptions that, at their core, are jobs in which I could excel. Yet I know that I will not get a call because I don't necessarily have the requisite experience. Personally, I don't want to do what I did before - there are many activities that I classify as "been there, done that, now for something new." Jobs that I would be perfectly qualified would not be of interest to me. I am looking for challenges- not effortlessly phoning it in. And I imagine there are many people who strictly qualify for a role and have the exact set of credentials requested in a similar position. 

And the second point requires deeper exploration. I don't know much about ATSs (applicant tracking systems), but judging from the front end experience of sites powered by Oracle's Taleo, it ain't about the applicant. They are brutally clunky with terrible visual experiences and sport unreadable boxes of guidelines. What do you expect from a company that builds the most powerful and obtuse databases in the world. And really, the name says it all, "tracking" - it helps people follow a person through the lifecycle of the application process. It doesn't purport to "discover" talent. I have been reading Guerrilla Marketing for Job Hunters 3.0 by Canadian David Perry. He recommends doing an end-run around ATSs by approaching the hiring managers directly. Great idea. 

Here's an interesting article - Secrets for beating ATSs - 75% of candidates are killed before they even reach human eyes. The thing is that large companies need these systems to deal with the sheer volume of interested folks. I get it. But at what cost. 

In a test conducted last year, Bersin & Associates created a perfect resume for an ideal candidate for a clinical scientist position. The research firm matched the resume to the job description and submitted the resume to an applicant tracking system from Taleo, arguably the leading maker of these systems. The end result: The resume Bersin & Associates submitted only scored a 43 percent relevance ranking to the job because the applicant tracking system misread it.

Companies are working so hard to improve their recruiting "brand" to attract the very best candidates, yet it seems that a part of the system is sabotaging their efforts. 

My resume, by the way, is a reflection of my creative skills and ability to visualize words and data. I did mine in PowerPoint (as you might expect from a McKinsey trained employee). I also told a story about how social network analysis can have great impact in talent management and performance transformation. What do you think the ATS has to say about that?  At this point, I have no idea. There is no one to call to ask. 

When a recruiter clicks on the name of a candidate whom the applicant tracking system has ranked as a good match for a job, the recruiter doesn't see the resume the candidate submitted. The recruiter sees the information the applicant tracking system pulled from the candidate's resume into a database.

This article has a telling screenshot of what the ATS provides the recruiter when a match is made. All my hard work is for naught. It'll look like a dog's breakfast - or more like what comes out the other end. 

It is very important to note that you cannot get a job if you don't apply for a job. Despite the limitations of Taleo-type systems for interpreting my career, I have to continue to play along. 

Do you have any secret tips?

Off I go now to form some more creature connections at piano lessons.

Referrals as a conflict of interest?

As I wander around the internet, researching everything, looking for a new career, this recent attempt at outreach struck me as requiring a good airing out.

Yesterday, I participated in an interchange with a young woman just 2 years out of school with a wonderful position at a great company. 

Me (yes a bit clunky, but full of heart): 
hi, I noticed that you hold the [title] role and that there is a posting for the same job. It looks like it was written with you in mind. Congratulations. I just applied for the position and am very excited - hoping to get a call back.

Her (this should have been my first clue to back off): 
written with me in mind - how so? congrats for what exactly? 

Me (still all heart you notice): 
I noticed that your profile is very reminiscent of the job posting with the same title. The kudos go to doing a such good job that your employer wishes to clone you - it's a wonderful compliment. Cheers.

Her (uh oh here it comes, verbatim by the way):
In true McKinsey tradition, I have sanitized this message to protect both her identity and her blameless employer's

I'm not looking to be difficult, but I must correct your inaccurate assumptions and advise you to be cognizent that in an organization employing XXXXX+ there are potentially 100s if not 1000s of people who hold a given job title. 

This position is in no way related to me or reflective of my performance. 

1. It's a standard job description 
2. The position is in a completly different dept. As stated on the job description, the position you refer to is with the [xx] Team - I work for [xx team]

I realize you are being complimentary and you seem like a nice person, however I'm left wondering why you choose to disregard my “ADVICE TO PEOPLE WHO ARE CONTACTING YOU” note, which states “Please be advised: I am unable to respond to any inquiry requesting action or guidance regarding employment opportunities due to a conflict of interested with my current role.”?

Given that I took the time to outline my communication preferences you must have known that there was a possibility I would see your message as inappropriate. I acknowledge that you did not directly "request advise/ guidance" but the intention could be seen as 'thinly masked'. 

I know the job market is tough and in one way I commend your effort to make a personal connection - which is probably why i'm writing this - but I am not a recruiter and i'm getting frusterated with the continual stream of similar msgs. 

My suggestion for dealing with people like me. 
As it is most likely that the person you are contacting has no relation to the currently advertised position. 
1. Don't mention your application / job opportunities - unless they bring it up 1st or after several messages of 'friendly' / 'information sharing' dialogue. 
2. Be more general - Using a tone more like 
"I'm researching" 
"I find the duties of an __ (intert job title)__ to be exciting" 
"I've worked in complementary roles and i'm wondering about your experience with the culture / work environement of __(Insert company name)__ " 

Hope you are receptive to my message. 


_____________________________________

What to do, what to do, I mull it over. Now I'm worried that employees of this company are not trusting and getting work done in this environment would be painfully political.

The big question is how can job referrals be a conflict of interest? McKinsey had a reward program for people who refer their friends (not that I would, it's a pressure-cooker environment). Lots of companies do the same thing - the thought process is along the lines "if you are good, you must have friends that are good too." I have friends who are great hard workers and the odd pleasant layabout, so the rule shouldn't be applied strictly.

I did not, as an aside, get as far as the bottom of her profile, so I didn't see the stated rules of engagement. I did see the shameless self-promotion video and awards and was duly impressed, hence my enthusiasm for reaching out.

I shall leave it as it stands. Responding seems fruitless. Perhaps you have some advice to share.

Off I go now to form some more creature connections with less defensive individuals.