Anyone who has spent a reasonable amount of time in the HR/recruiting industry invariably will have been on the wrong end of candidate opting out of an application process. There are of course a multitude of reasons why this might happen, a lot of which are outside of our control, but sadly in a large amount of cases, accountability rests on the shoulders of the agent/HR pro and in a lot of cases this can have significant ramifications. For example, in agency-land the client can quickly lose faith in an agent’s ability to close the recruitment loop. In internal talent acquisition you will be held accountable for the cost associated with the time spent resulting in a no-hire etc. Not to mention the pounding your reputation could take from the candidate or client perspective if it a regular occurrence. Sadly in HR and recruitment the candidate opt-out is an evil that will always play a part in our role but if we ensure adequate focus on the quality of our communication and efficiency of our processes, the risk will be largely minimized. It’s not rocket science by any means, but it’s good to not lose sight of the basics as our experience grows.
Clarity is King: Grey areas are the mortal enemy of any recruiter. When talking to a candidate, the more details that go undiscussed or the more inaccurate the information you give the applicant, the higher the no-hire’o’meter will rise. When talking to a candidate, if you get the impression that any details you’ve divulged about the remit, remuneration package, location or pertinent skills managed to raise the candidate’s eyebrows and perhaps caused un-easiness, DRILL DOWN!. Don’t be happy with getting a half-hearted approval to flick a CV to a client/hiring manager. Ultimately all you will be doing is facilitating the beginning of a fact finding mission for the candidate (which they will opt out of as soon as any facts they don’t like arise) as opposed to offering up all the facts and ascertaining that they are your/clients next superstar. Yes, your CV submittal rate will be higher but your conversion rate will stink.
Recruit in a timely manner, without lacking substance. Anyone who has read my previous blog post (Why the long……process) will know my thoughts on drawn out, lengthy recruitment processes. IMO, if a recruiter or HR pro must ask a candidate to go through a 6 stage process in order for them to ascertain suitability, or if they lack the ability to consult properly with their clients/hiring managers around why this is not needed, then there is some serious training required. Personally, I’m a fan of a robust phone screening process followed by a panel interview or a well put together 2 stage interview process. Keeping in mind the candidate experience, neither option would be arduous but will give more than adequate time to ensure a full screening process.
As I said, by no means rocket science but I’d suggest just keeping these two things in mind will largely contribute to overall recruitment success rate and conversion ratios.
So as most already know, this year Linkedin changed their InMail policy. Instead of getting back all the InMails that didn’t get a response, Linkedin now only credit back InMails that are replied to. They also implemented their new policy around a commercial search limit in which in any given month you can only run a limited amount of searches as beyond a certain number they deem that it is being used for commercial purposes. I’ve seen a number of posts for and against the changes and for what it’s worth, I say bring it on!
Sometimes, just sometimes, I shudder when I see some of the activities that are being passed off as “recruiting”. In the last month I have received a number of batch messages that not only are not personalised to me, but have zero relevance to me at all. E.g. I’m an IT/software development sourcing specialist/recruiter and therefore, I have a few technologies listed on my profile. In the greater context of my profile, this is clearly in reference to positions I regularly find myself recruiting and not related to my personal IT experience, YET – I still get messages asking about my interest levels in an exciting and fantabulous open position as a Developer. I’m all for looking at ways to find efficiencies but sending a batch message to anyone with a specific technology(ies) listed on their profile (due to a standard keyword search) is just plain lazy and is certainly not what the vast majority of the recruitment world would identify as effective, solid recruitment/sourcing practice. To date, given the limited InMails available per month on different subscriptions, recruiters were almost incentivised to not be engaging in their InMails and just throw buzzwords in the hope of either a) Quickly engaging a professional who might be actively on the market; or b) being completely ignored, as opposed to opening up conversations with candidates who are not “active” but may be open to discussing other opportunities. If by LinkedIn changing its policies it encourages the careful and more considered use of InMails as a tool of value and as the medium that could be used to open doors to new networks/candidates/business partners/leads, then I’m all for it and can only see it having a positive effect on the industry.
Link to info on new InMail policy: http://sales.linkedin.com/blog/linkedin-changes-inmail-policy-to-improve-quality-of-messages-and-response-rates/
On commercial search limits. I believe that the impact on this will be minimal to any recruiter who considers themselves to be somewhat social media savvy as most will be well versed in other online sourcing techniques and know e.g. know how to run x-ray searches via search engines, should they reach their search threshold. The knock-on effect of this is that recruiter who is perhaps not quite as used to other online search methods will have to begin to increase their knowledge of online sourcing methods which surely can only positively affect the recruitment industry?.
Link to info on new “commercial use limit”: https://help.linkedin.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/52950/~/commercial-use-limit-on-search
Are the multi-skilled, or the specialists among us, more future-proof & better equipped for organisational evolution?
I believe there are two trains of thought on this. These days with organisations advocating agile or iterative processes, we have witnessed a shift in not just how we meet deadlines and time restraints but in our professional mentalities. Everything is quicker, processes more streamlined and we are always looking for ways to create new efficiencies as we all deal with ever changing goalposts on a day to day basis. With this we of course become more than just what our defined position descriptions would have meant 5 to 10 years ago and instead we must be broader skilled, dynamic, out-of-the-box problem solvers who have to turn our hands daily to tasks which historically wouldn’t have been ours.
On the other hand, we have a growing trend of positions being broken up into several roles where in the past they may all have been taken care of by one position. An example of this could be the role of an internal recruiter. In years gone by, a recruiter would be responsible for the end to end process of finding candidates for any given role – engaging them, appropriately screening them, interviewing them, coordinating interviews with relevant hiring managers – and thereafter would also be responsible for “closing” or hiring. However these days, a large number of recruitment roles are broken up more distinctly into sourcing, recruiting and account managing.
There is merit in both methods but I will be interested to see moving forward whether it is the specialist or the broader-skilled that demonstrates more staying power.
What’s with the long, arduous multi-stage recruitment processes that seem to be increasingly common place these days? When chatting to job seekers I find that a 6 stage (or more) recruitment process that may incorporate psychometric testing, multiple technical tests, cultural evaluations, competency based screening (to name a few), is nothing out of the ordinary and I can’t help but wonder if it’s necessary?
Has the length, rigorousness or even quirkiness of a company’s recruitment process become a marketing tool to tell the world that what lies beyond this extensive screening must be worth all the work and effort put in?
I believe that in this day and age we should be striving to create efficiencies, thus not being on-board with what seems to me to be an in-efficient waste of time. The only thing I believe you can be certain of after a 6-8 stage process is just how keen the candidate is on the position/company given the willingness to stick around for that long. I don’t believe that you will gain any more of an in-sight into their suitability to the position, over a well put together 2 stage interview process where the questioning is intelligent, relevant to the role and type of person you are looking to hire, which may or may not include a specific skills based test. Specific preparation is key!
We recruiters and HR professionals are lucky enough to be able to interview and interact with all levels of professional, which I believe to be one of the most alluring and enjoyable parts of what we do. This also means that depending on your interview questioning, we are made privy almost on a daily basis to information pertaining to the hiring and firing habits of other organisations that many professionals have interviewed at or have been employed by before.
A few days ago I met with a candidate for a position we were looking to fill. We discussed his background, what got him into IT, a little about the role we were looking to fill and then we went on to discuss an experience he had during a recruitment process that resonated with me. I thought I’d share it as I’m curious to know how common it is. He described a scenario where he knew 100% that he was capable of doing everything required in a position he applied for. He ensured he knew as much as possible about the remit of the future successful candidate so as to be sure that he was prepared for the interview. He was so sure of this role being the position he wanted in order to take his career on is ideal career path and was even more convinced that he was more than capable of doing it, even if it was a step up. More-over, when he described the role to me and we discussed his skills, approach, style of working, style of management and stakeholder management ability, I was completely convinced too of his ability to bring great value to the position. He went to the interview, he had a well-structured and strong answer for each of the questions asked and realised that even after a discussion with the team from the prospective employer, he had exactly the right idea of what would have been expected of him. He didn’t get the job. The reason he was given is that he hadn’t been in a role at the same level in the past and therefore it was deemed that he was not the “right fit”.
Frankly, I find it quite worrying when thinking back over discussions with many people over the years, the amount of interviewers/organisations that are scared to make a hire based on the candidate not having had exact experience in a position, instead of going down a line of screening deep enough to find out if someone has all the necessary skills to do it. We work in an age where every organisation wants to use buzzwords of being “evolutionary”, “agile” and “dynamic” to describe themselves but when it comes to their recruitment practises, it seems many are still archaic and not willing to go the extra mile to dig deep and find the true gems of talent that cannot be found by reading interview questions off of a script. The professionals that are going to shape our tomorrow are the professionals that don’t think like the masses of today. How far you are from the outcomes that you are working towards or the goals you are looking to achieve will not change by looking back to the way things have been done before. To quote Einstein: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome”.