What does the future of talent acquisition look like? Sara Dalsfelt and I discussed on a LinkedIn Live this week. Check it out!
What does the future of talent acquisition look like? Sara Dalsfelt and I discussed on a LinkedIn Live this week. Check it out!
A lot of folks are currently out of job and looking for work. Not many jobs open. Too many candidates lead to a lot of rejections, black holes, no feedback, and very few “interviews”.
You and I (TA Leaders and Pros) don’t consider a twenty-minute phone screen to be an interview. Candidates definitely believe it’s an interview. They prepare for your phone screen at the same level they prepare for an in-person interview with the hiring manager. First impressions and all.
Here’s the problem, that twenty-minute phone screen, one of many you will have during the week, isn’t even in your top 25 most important things you’ll be doing this week. So, how do we address this variance in importance with how the candidate will ultimately view your employment brand, you, your hiring manager, and the job?
That’s a tricky question.
I think the first thing we need to do in talent acquisition is simply to recognize this reality. We are going to be talking with scheduled candidates about who we are, who they are, and what we have, and this is extremely important to them, especially for those out of job. To have some empathy and understanding of the situation. To provide something of value, even as we look to gain some value of information ourselves.
It’s a powerful thing to know you’ll be talking with a number of people in a week, all of whom this could be their most important conversation of the week, month, year. That we (all recruiters) have a major impact on this event in their lives. We can create an amazing experience, or we can do something less than amazing.
I have this naive belief that all of us humans actually want to do things that make other people happy and satisfied. Isn’t that a great little fuzzy, cute world I live in!?! If we knew we had the power to make someone’s life just a little better, we would use that power for good. That if given the choice to make someone’s day brighter, we would always make the right choice.
Well, we do.
Do Good. Be Kind. As Chris Kurtz would say.
This week, as you go out into the world and phone screen your brands out. Try and make someone’s week. You are worth it. They are worth it.
I heard about a very cool way that some schools are beginning to select student governments. Think about how the normal student government is selected. Some student government advisor, usually the school’s government teacher, makes an announcement for student government elections. Any student interested can throw their name into the hat, and start campaigning.
Then, reality hits.
The most popular girl decides she wants to run, and then the star quarterback decides he will also run, and the drum major of the student marching band puts her name in, it becomes a whos-who of the student body, all looking to butter-up their college applications. If you’re not popular or have a built-in voting base (school marching bands have a way of swinging elections if they elect in mass), you have zero shot at getting elected.
Now, if we changed from elections to a lottery system, every single person who has an interest in being a part of the student government now has an equal chance of being a part of the student government. Do you like this idea or not? (Listen to Gladwell’s podcast to see how this really plays out, it’s fascinating!)
Most people’s initial reaction is not positive about a lottery. We want to have our vote. Our say! A lottery seems random. The very worst person might win the lottery and then we are stuck! Truth be told, we are awful at selection! We are bad at selecting politicians. We are bad at selecting employees. Humans are just bad at knowing what’s best for them.
Think about how we select our President. If we had used a lottery to select the President all these years, half of the U.S. Presidents would have been female! A good portion would have been African American, way before Obama! We probably would have had a Hispanic President!
What Hundred.org found is that selecting student governments via lottery actually has produced a ton of leaders that school teachers/administrators, and students didn’t even realize could be great. We never gave them a chance, and they lived ‘down’ to our expectations. But, when chosen via lottery, they rose to the occasion. Also, just because we ‘elected’ the Prom Queen to be Student Class President, doesn’t mean they’ll be good, in fact, just as many that are good, suck!
Now, let’s take this in another direction. What would happen if we did a “Hiring Lottery”? Instead of going through all the interviews and such, we just have people show interest, and then we pull a name out of a hat? Do you think it would work?
Let’s add one thing. What if we had AI go through each person who showed interest and made sure they met our qualifications to do the job? Would you have buy-in then? We had 100 applicants who meet the criteria of the job, we spin the ping pong balls and pick one, and Welcome to ACME Inc., Mary! You won the job lottery!
What do you think Mary’s chances of being successful are? 50/50? Lazlo Bock, in Work Rules, says Google was only 1% better than 50/50 in their selection, so it would seem like 50/50 would be a really strong success rate for your hires!
I have a strong belief that with many of our roles, especially those that are low-skill, no-skill jobs, a hiring lottery would actually be considerably more efficient and eliminate all bias, and would probably produce more applicants for organizations. Also, when considering lower-skilled jobs, “job interest” might be the most important criteria to consider!
Could it work in skilled professions? I think it would probably work exactly the same, it’s just a harder sell to executives since they have skills and want to desperately believe those skills matter over someone with similar skills!
Tell me what you think! Would you be willing to hire via a Job Lottery!?
I heard this quote recently, it was used by an old football coach to his players:
“It’s hard, but it’s fair.”
He wasn’t the first to use this and probably won’t be the last – but the line stuck with me because of how I don’t think many people in today’s age really think this way. Many want to talk about what’s fair, few want to discuss the ‘hard’ part. The football coach’s son described the meaning of what he feels the phrase means:
“It’s about sacrifice,” Toler Jr. said of the quote. “It means that if you work hard that when it’s all said and done at the end of the day, it will be fair based on your body of work. It’s about putting in the time, making sure that you’re ready for the opportunity.”
I think we all think our parents are hard on us growing up. I recall stories I tell to my own sons of my Dad waking me up on a Saturday morning at 7 am, after I was out too late the night before, and ‘making’ me help him with something, like chopping wood or cleaning the garage out. He didn’t really need my help, he was trying to teach me a lesson about choices. If I chose to stay out late at night, it was going to suck getting up early to go to school.
He shared with me stories of his father doing the same thing, one night my Dad had gotten home late, so late, he didn’t even go to bed, just started a pot of coffee and waited for my grandfather to get up, figuring that was easier than getting a couple of hours of sleep and then hearing it from my grandfather the rest of the day.
As an HR Pro, we see this every day in our workforce. There are some who work their tails off, not outwardly expecting anything additional, they’re just hard workers. Others will put in the minimum, then expect a cookie. It’s a tough life lesson for those folks. Most usually end up leaving your organization, believing they were treated unfairly, so they’ll go bounce around a few more times.
Eventually, they’ll learn to put in the work, put in the time, and more times than not, things work out pretty well. Sometimes it won’t, so you go back to work even harder. It’s been very rare in my 20 year HR career that I’ve truly seen a really hard worker get screwed over. Very rare! Now I know a ton of people who think they work hard, but they don’t, and they’ll say they get screwed. But the reality is they don’t work hard, they do the same as everyone else.
Do some idiots who don’t deserve a promotion or raise sometimes get it? Yep, they sure do, but that doesn’t happen as much as you think. The hard workers tend to get the better end of the deal almost always.
I hope I can teach my sons this lesson: Life is going to be hard, but if you keep at it and put in the work, it’s going to be fair. I think that is all we can really hope for.
I’m on vacation this week so my friends are taking over the Project! Enjoy their content, connect with them, and share the content with new people! Some amazing voices coming to you this week!
Enjoy this post by Micole Garatti
6 seconds. You spend 6 seconds reading a resume. In those 6 seconds, what do you learn? You’ll likely find out what your candidates have done in the past. But, what about all the things a candidate could do? Or would love to do?
The truth is 82% of Fortune 500 executives don’t believe their companies recruit highly talented people. So perhaps our approach to hiring is all wrong?
With that said, what can we do to hire the best – highly talented – people?
Strategic Hiring Planning: Know Who You Are Looking For
The first part of hiring great people is strategic planning. When you’re reviewing resumes, how do you know what you’re looking for if you don’t know who you’re looking for? Doing the research and having the conversations required to understand what job you need done, who you need to do it, what skills your team already has, and what skills you need to add is critical.
Once you understand who you’re looking for, you can start doing the work to find them.
Our Focus on our Candidates’ Past
Prior to the 1980s, hiring was focused on finding people who could learn and grow with the organization. Since then, organizations have designed hiring processes based on what candidates have done in the past and not who they are as a person or what they can do. That past-focused is highly visible in outdated resume and interview processes.
You might think that you’ll get a glimpse of potential in interviews. Believe it or not, however, research shows that interviews are pretty useless. Psychologist Ron Friedman suggests that interviews don’t help organizations hire great people because “80% of people lie during interviews.” Further, interviews include a lot of subjective and incorrect judgments like that leadership abilities, trustworthiness, and credibility are based on dumb things like attractiveness, height, and pitch of voice.
This subjective, judgemental, and past-focused approach has led to bad hires, toxic cultures, as well as a lack of growth, employee disengagement, and turnover. Again, the past only talks about what someone has already done – not what they can or want to do.
Moving Forward & Candidate Potential
With the basic understanding that our past-focused hiring approach hasn’t been working, here are some solutions that may help us become more future-oriented. To understand someone’s potential, things like “job auditions” and pre-hire assessments can help.
Assessments offer what many experts call an alternative to a job interview, what they call a job “audition.” These auditions put people in job preview scenarios and observe the behaviors and competencies. For example, if you need web developers, you can set up a coding test to test a candidate’s coding skills in certain languages. Or, if you’re looking for great customer success folks, finding out how a person can handle difficult or upset customers can be telling.
Now you might be thinking, “well what’s stopping candidates from just Googling all the answers or making stuff up about their personality?” Many assessment solutions, like Talview, offer cheat-detecting and preventing features that secure a candidate’s browser, prevent copying and pasting, and even watermark tests so people don’t take pictures of questions and float them online. Even more, the system can tell when someone else comes into the frame, talks to the candidate, and sends a detailed report to your recruiting team to review.
Assessment technology aside, if we want to hire better people, we need a better way to assess the skills, motivations, desires, and capabilities of our candidates. Maybe a new approach – one focused on not the past, but potential – can help.
Micole Garatti is the Marketing Manager at Talview, Author of “The Most Inclusive HR Influencer List,” and Host of the #HRforAll Twitter chat. She is passionate about improving HR and talent acquisition through diversifying voices of influence within the profession and technology. She’s appeared or been featured as an HR and marketing expert on ERE, DriveThruHR, Workology, Carnival of HR, #HRSocialHour, the SHRM blog, and more. Find her on Twitter at @socialmicole or at www.socialmicole.com.
I was out walking with my wife recently (that’s what middle-aged suburban people do, we walk, it makes us feel like we are less lazy and it gets us away from the kids so we can talk grown-up) and she made this statement in a perfectly innocent way:
“It’s really hard to judge people.”
She said this to ‘me’! I start laughing. She realized what she said and started laughing.
It’s actually really, really easy to judge people! I’m in HR and Recruiting, I’ve made a career out of judging people.
A candidate comes in with a tattoo on their face and immediately we think: prison, drugs, poor decision making, etc. We instantly judge. It’s not that face-tattoo candidate can’t surprise us and be engaging and brilliant, etc. But before we even get to that point, we judge. I know, I know, you don’t judge, it’s just me. Sorry for lumping you in with ‘me’!
What my wife was saying was correct. It’s really hard to judge someone based on how little we actually know them.
People judge me all the time on my poor grammar skills. I actually met a woman recently at a conference who said she knew me, use to read my stuff, but stopped because of my poor grammar in my writing. We got to spend some time talking and she said she would begin reading again, that she had judged me too harshly, and because I made errors in my writing assumed I wasn’t that intelligent.
I told her she was actually correct, I’m not intelligent, but that I have consciously not fixed my errors in writing (clearly at this point I could have hired an editor!). The errors are my face tattoo.
If you can’t see beyond my errors, we probably won’t be friends. I’m not ‘writing errors, poor grammar guy”. If you judge me like that, you’re missing out on some cool stuff and ideas I write about.
As a hiring manager and HR Pro, if you can’t see beyond someone’s errors, you’re woefully inept at your job. We all have ‘opportunities’ but apparently, if you’re a candidate you don’t, you have to be perfect. I run into hiring managers and HR Pros who will constantly tell me, “we’re selective”, “we’re picky”, etc.
No, you’re not. What you are is unclear about what and who it is that is successful in your environment. No one working for you now is perfect. So, why do you look for perfection in a candidate? Because it’s natural to judge against your internal norm.
The problem with selection isn’t that it is too hard to judge, the problem is that it’s way too easy to judge. The next time you sit down in front of a candidate try and determine what you’ve already judged them on. It’s a fun exercise. Before they even say a word. Have the hiring managers interviewing them send you their judgments before the interview.
We all do it. Then, flip the script, and have your hiring managers show up for an interview ‘blind’. No resume beforehand, just them and a candidate face-to-face. It’s fun to see how they react and what they ask them without a resume, and how they judge them after. It’s so easy to judge, and those judgments shape our decision making, even before we know it!
A bunch of folks have been doing some work at home or furloughed at home, or some laid off at home over the past few months. Depending on your situation I’ve been hearing more and more from people who are out interviewing for the first time in a long time and looking for advice.
JDP did a survey recently and found out that the average candidate preps for 7 hours to prepare for an interview! I’m not sure I buy into that piece of data, it seems like there might be a bit of exaggeration going on from candidates who want to make you believe they actually did way more than they actually do.
Let’s be honest, you looking at a companies website and reading reviews on Glassdoor doesn’t take you seven hours. It probably takes you about 30 minutes, and I would bet my career on the fact that is about 99% prep that happens for most candidates.
How should you prepare for an interview?
There are two types of candidates I see in an interview. The first type just lets the interview happen to them. They basically react. I’m here, you have questions, let’s see how this turns out.
The second type of candidate, which is much rarer, come prepared to put on a show. I’ll call it the “You” Show! This candidate comes in and has prepared to show you why they are the person for this position. They risk that you might be the type of person who won’t like this, but more times than not I find leaders are actually impressed by these candidates.
What does the “You” Show script include?
It starts off with an introduction that includes a good story that will instantly get those in the room on your side. It might be funny, might be inspirational, but it was definitely planned and prepared. Anywhere from three to five minutes of this is who I am and why I’m unique, and why you should like me.
The You Show candidates have also prepped by doing research on those who will interview them. They probably know more about the people interviewing them, then the people interviewing know about you as the candidate. They’ll stalk your LinkedIn profile, your social footprint, Google name search, people from my school who work there, etc. I want to know my audience if I’m putting on a show, so I at least have a chance to producing a show they’ll like.
If I have one hour, planned, for the interview, I want them to hear 55 minutes of me, and very little from them. I want them leaving that room, call, video conference being wowed! Being of the mindset that we really don’t need to interview any longer, since we just found the person.
The “You” Show is probably an exaggeration of your true self. Kind of like, “Hey, this is the best me” and while I might not be this person every minute of every day, when you get the best of me, this is what you can expect. The “You” Show is high-energy, fully caffeinated, I’m going to energize you and when I leave you’ll feel better about yourself.
As you get ready for your next interview ask yourself if you would want to watch you do that interview. If your answer is “no”, it will probably be “no” from those interviewing you as well.
The world quickly turned from a candidate-driven market to a company driven market, meaning for the first time in about a decade Recruiters will have the power. Now, as a candidate, you might have always felt that recruiters had the power, but you haven’t seen anything until you’ve seen a recruiter in full “I’ve got the power” mode!
I was thinking about this and wanted to share some of the top Recruiter Lies so candidates could spot them, and while you probably can’t call them out, spotting a recruiter lie will help you strategically begin to work on another way to get the response you need:
Send Us Your Resume, Even Though We Don’t Have a Job Lie – I would say this is a ‘semi-lie’. While the recruiter might not have the opening currently, they’re asking for a resume because they frequently have those openings and they never know when one is coming. The recruiter, though, is wrong by not telling you this upfront, so you know what to expect.
– The Hiring Manager Hasn’t Gotten Back To Me Lie – This is a lie and not a lie, potentially! For Corporate Recruiters this is a lie or lazy, I’ll let you pick. If you’re a corporate recruiter and tell the candidate that the hiring manager hasn’t gotten back to you get your butt up from your desk and walk over to the hiring manager’s desk! If they’re in a different location and won’t get back to you, then you have an influence problem you need to work on. Agency-wise it’s the one frustrating things recruiters have to deal with. Hiring Managers will get to ‘us’ when they feel like it, and usually after they’ve exhausted every other opportunity internally to fill the position.
– The Never Call Back the Candidate Lie – this really isn’t a lie but this happens all the time! For the sake of Recruiters everywhere if you do this please quit this profession! We (all Recruiters) Hate you as well. You give all of us a bad name. It takes 10 seconds to call back a candidate you spoke to a job about, and tell them “Sorry, you were not chosen and stay in touch, or don’t call me again, etc.” 10 seconds!
– The You Didn’t Score High Enough On The Assessment Lie – The company you’re trying to get into might actually have cut-off scores they’ve established and the lie comes into play when a hiring manager presents someone they’ve worked with previously and that person scores the same as you but they still get the job. If they really like you, the assessment wouldn’t stop them from hiring you.
– The We’ve Decided To Go Another Direction Lie – This comes along with the ‘We really liked you, but” Lie. This is Recruiter training 10, to not get yourself into trouble when telling a candidate they didn’t get the job we give them a reason that legally can never come back and bite you in the butt. “We really, really, really liked but have decided to not fill the position.” Two weeks later a job posting comes out that seems very similar but with a title change and a few description changes. They didn’t like you.
What’s the biggest reason Recruiters lie?
They have major conflict-avoidance and are not willing to tell you the truth, which is usually there is something wrong with you based on what they are looking for and don’t want to hurt your feelings. Unfortunately, many candidates would actually be helped by a little Recruiter honesty but recruiters are afraid of candidates who get told the truth and then get charges from the EEOC, other state or federal agencies, or just get flat out sued. Candidates have a hard time with feedback like, “you’re really creepy”, “you’re annoying” or “your personality is grating”. So, the lies come into play because Recruiters have found Lies are easier than the truth.
We all kind of know this fact. Once you get more than 30 minutes away from your job, no matter how you actually come into work, it starts to feel like a chore. You begin to hate the commute. Doesn’t matter if you drive, take a train, walk, etc. 30 minutes, one-way, is our max!
It’s called Marchetti’s Constant:
Marchetti’s constant is the average time spent by a person for commuting each day, which is approximately one hour. It is named after Italian physicist Cesare Marchetti, though Marchetti himself attributed the “one hour” finding to transportation analyst and engineer Yacov Zahavi. Marchetti posits that although forms of urban planning and transport may change, and although some live in villages and others in cities, people gradually adjust their lives to their conditions (including the location of their homes relative to their workplace) such that the average travel time stays approximately constant.
I can’t tell you how many times, as a Recruiter, I was talked into believing this wasn’t true by a candidate that then screwed me by ghosting on an interview after driving to the location and seeing it was too long, declining an offer late, started the job but then quickly left because the commute was too long, or we had to over-compensate to make up for the time the person spent on the commute.
Probably one out of one hundred people can actually take a longer commute and live with it. 99% of people will eventually crack if the commute is over thirty minutes. So, what does this mean for us trying to attract talent to our organizations? There are certain locations in the U.S. that are much easier to have a thirty-minute commute than others:
On average, large metro areas with the shortage commute time:
All of these metro areas have the majority of their citizens with a commute time under 30 minutes.
Who have the worst commute times? Think about the largest metro areas, even when you take into account their transit options: New York, San Francisco, D.C., Philly, Boston, Seattle, Chicago, etc.
So, it’s thirty minutes one-way or one hour per day, or five hours per week that the average person is willing to commute. I wonder if this plays itself out when you begin to factor in work from home options?
Let’s say you ask someone to commute one hour each way, two hours per day, but you let them work from home two days per week. Total commute time is still more at six hours per week, but would that make a difference enough to retrain and attract more talent to your organization? I have a feeling it would. It’s worth a test for those who have longer commutes at your work location.
Also, I have seen this done by any company, but I would love to see turnover data by commute time! I have seen data on hourly worker turnover and it’s amazing to see the differences by miles from a worksite in a radiant pattern. Every mile you get farther from the work site, the turnover increases exponentially until you get to about five miles where it skyrockets. So, we know if you hire hourly, low-skilled workers, your best bet for retention is less than five miles from your location (this also is about a 15-minute commute – car, public, walking, bike, etc.).
So often we want to focus on the stuff we control, versus stuff the candidate or employee can control, but we think it’s ‘their’ decision. The problem is, we allow people to make bad decisions and don’t think it will affect us, but it does in high turnover. All things being equal, or close to equal with candidates, take the one with the shorter total commute!
I’m on a holiday break. Boys are home, we’re going on a trip. So, I’ve put together a Best of 2019 post list for you to enjoy. I’ll be back after the holidays with new stuff and some cool announcements for 2020!
I recently applied for a position that I’m perfect for! A recruiter from the company contacted me and scheduled me for an interview with the manager. I went, the interview was a little over an hour and it went great! I immediately followed up with an email to the recruiter and the manager thanking them, but since then I’ve heard nothing and it’s been weeks. I’ve sent follow-up emails to both the recruiter and the manager and I’ve gotten no reply.
What should I do? Why do companies do this to candidates? I would rather they just tell me they aren’t interested than have them say nothing at all!
The Ghost Candidate
There are a number of reasons that recruiters and hiring managers ghost candidates and none of them are good! Here’s a short-list of some of these reasons:
– They hated you and hope you go away when they ghost you because conflict is uncomfortable.
– They like you, but not as much as another candidate they’re trying to talk into the job, but want to leave you on the back burner, but they’re idiots and don’t know how to do this properly.
– They decided to promote someone internally and they don’t care about candidate experience enough to tell you they went another direction.
– They have a completely broken recruitment process and might still be going through it believing you’re just as happy as a pig in shi…
– They think they communicated to you electronically to bug off through their ATS, but they haven’t audited the process to know this isn’t working.
– The recruiter got fired and no one picked up the process.
I would love to tell you that ghosting candidates are a rare thing, but it’s not! It happens all the time! There is never a reason to ghost a candidate, ever! Sometimes I believe candidates get ghosted by recruiters because hiring managers don’t give feedback, but that still isn’t an excuse I would accept, at least tell the candidate that!
Look, I’ve ghosted people. At conference cocktail parties, I’ve been known to ghost my way right back up to my room and go to sleep! When it comes to candidates, I don’t ghost! I would rather tell them the truth so they don’t keep coming back around unless I want them to come back around.
I think most recruiters ghost candidates because they’re over their heads in the amount of work they have, and they mean to get back to people, but just don’t have the time. When you’re in the firefighting mode you tend to only communicate with the candidates you want, not the ones you don’t. Is this good practice? Heck, no! But when you’re fighting fires, you do what you have to do to stay alive.
What would I do, if I was you?
Here are a few ideas to try if you really want to know the truth:
1. Send a handwritten letter to the CEO of the company briefly explaining your experience and what outcome you would like.
2. Go on Twitter and in 140 characters send a shot across the bow! “XYZ Co. I interviewed 2 weeks ago and still haven’t heard anything! Can you help me!?” (Will work on Facebook as well!)
3. Write a post about your experience on LinkedIn and tag the recruiter and the recruiter’s boss.
4. Take the hint and go find a company that truly values you and your talent! If the organization and this manager treat candidates like this, imagine how you’ll be treated as an employee?