Category Archives: Recruiting

The Venmo of Recruiting

Posted on by
3

I talked about this a few years ago, and I think it’s bound to catch on eventually.

So, Gen-X and older folks reading this, I probably need to explain what Venmo is. Venmo is an app that makes it super easy to send money to friends. It’s like PayPal but more social. When my three GenZ sons go out to eat, they don’t bother with cash. They just Venmo each other to split the bill. Got it?

In HR and recruiting, we often see tech companies calling themselves the “Tinder” or “Uber” of recruitment. But no one has claimed to be the “Venmo” of recruiting yet. So, I’m jumping on this idea before anyone else does!

Picture this: a mobile app that lets you see where your friends are interviewing, share information, contacts, questions, and reactions about your interview experiences.

Candidates can help each other find jobs, ask for connections at companies, and share insights about hiring managers.

To start, we’ll focus only on candidates, no employers. It will be free (backed by angel investors for the first three years duh!) aiming to hit 50 million users. Once we have a strong user base, we’ll add an employer section. Think of it like Glassdoor but better. Employers can see what people are saying about them and their jobs, but they can’t respond.

Employers will get a behind-the-scenes look at what candidates really think about their company, hiring managers, and the interview process. This info will be super useful for making improvements and highlighting what’s working well. Trust me! TA leaders will pay a lot for this kind of insider info and to see how things change over time.

For candidates, having a trusted network to share real information about interviews, jobs, and companies on a mobile app would be awesome. They can make better decisions and use their connections more effectively.

So, I’m excited to introduce the Venmo of Recruiting. We’re looking for angel investors! Immediately!

Give Me The Guac!

Posted on by
Reply

Think about ordering a burrito. Adding guacamole for just an extra dollar makes it so much better. That small addition turns a good meal into a great one.

Sure, I could enjoy the burrito without guacamole. It would still be tasty and satisfying. But with that extra touch, it becomes memorable.

So, give me the guacamole!

This idea works for candidate experience too. While you could spend a lot on fancy perks, sometimes a small, thoughtful addition can make a big difference. Just like the guacamole, a little effort in the right place can greatly improve the overall experience.

The key is to master the basics first. Candidates appreciate simple, effective communication. They care less about a branded pen or a bottle of water if they don’t get timely updates about their interview status.

When you handle the essentials well, small gestures stand out even more. Personal touches like a follow-up call or a thank-you note can leave a lasting impression. These small enhancements show candidates that you value their time and effort.

Candidates don’t need extravagant treatments to feel appreciated. What they really want is a thoughtful, well-executed experience – the guacamole on their burrito. By focusing on the basics and adding small, meaningful touches, you can create a standout candidate experience that doesn’t break the bank. And tastes good!

You are Overqualified!

Posted on by
1

Navigating the job market can be tough, especially when you hear things that don’t make sense. One common thing HR peeps say is: “You are Overqualified!” Respectfully – shut up! No, I am not!

The truth is, no one is ever really ‘overqualified’ for a job. You might have more skills and experience than the job needs, but that’s not the real issue. The real issue is that the interviewer might be scared because you’re better at the job than they are.

For a long time, HR and hiring managers have been taught to say candidates are overqualified to hide their own fears. They say, “We won’t hire you because you’re overqualified and might leave soon because you’ll be unhappy.” But the real fear is that your talent might make them look bad.

This idea has been around for ages and people just believed it without questioning it.

Having more qualifications should be seen as a good thing. Companies should be eager to hire highly skilled people. These days, expecting someone to stay in the same job for 40 years is unrealistic. Getting a talented person to stay around for even 3 or 4 years is great.

Companies should try to hire the best people for every job and let them do their best work. Worrying about whether they’ll stay for a long time shouldn’t be a big concern. Just focus on using their skills and letting them make a difference.

The real problem is that some hiring managers are afraid to hire people who are better than them. This fear is bad for the company. To get better, companies need to hire better people.

Creating a culture that values and welcomes top talent is important. This not only improves the company but also makes it a place where people want to work. Avoiding the mistake of hiring less qualified people ensures that your company stays competitive.

In the end, the idea of being ‘overqualified’ is just a myth. Hire great talent, let them do their thing, and watch your company grow.

Hiring your first employee is a big deal!

Posted on by
Reply

Do you remember your first hire? It’s normal to have felt nervous because you definitely didn’t want to make a mistake. You wanted your first hire to be amazing!

All of our new recruiters and hiring managers face the same issues when hiring for the first time. They’re not quite sure what to do. It’s kind of like bringing your first baby home from the hospital. Remember that? You get to the lobby with your baby in the car seat, and you’re waiting for someone to stop you like “Are you sure you’re ready for this?” They might as well put a sticky note on your forehead that says Hey I’m new to this!

That’s exactly how our managers feel when they hire for the first time. You’re letting me make this decision? Are you sure?

To help out, I’ve put together a list of the Top 7 Rookie Hiring Mistakes to avoid. Here they are:

  1. Letting HR Control the Process
    This is your hire. You’ll probably be working with this person every day, so get involved from the start. Don’t just sit back and let HR handle everything.
  2. Looking for the Perfect Candidate
    No one is perfect, not even you. Find someone who can do the job well and fit into your team, rather than holding out for perfection.
  3. Hiring Someone Just Like You
    You might think someone like you would be great, but it’s often better to hire someone who complements your skills and brings something different to the team.
  4. Moving Too Slowly
    If you find a great candidate, don’t wait too long to make an offer. Good candidates are often snapped up quickly by other companies.
  5. Taking Too Long to Fire a Bad Hire
    First-time managers often think they can fix a bad hire. Don’t drag it out—if it’s not working, let them go quickly.
  6. Thinking Recruiting Isn’t Your Job
    As a manager, finding the right people is part of your job. Take ownership of the hiring process and work with HR, but remember that you know your team’s needs best.
  7. Worrying About Leadership Judging You
    Leadership isn’t going to judge you on one hire. They look at your overall hiring track record. One mistake won’t define you, so don’t stress too much about it.

What do you think? What are some of the biggest hiring mistakes you see new hiring managers making? Share your thoughts in the comments!

Can Your Team Handle It?

Posted on by
1

Ever heard of Capacity Modeling?

It’s all about figuring out how much work your organization can handle to meet the changing demands for its products or services. When it comes to recruiting, it’s about determining how much hiring your team can manage to meet the company’s talent needs.

Imagine this: Your talent acquisition team is working hard every day, making progress bit by bit, but just barely keeping up. Then, one day, the CEO walks into your office and says, “We need to hire 300 more employees in the next 12 months because of a new investment. Can we do it?” A smart talent acquisition leader would say, “Let’s see if we can.” Unfortunately, many would quickly agree without knowing if it’s possible. That’s where things can go wrong.

If you don’t know your team’s capacity, promising to hire that many people is risky. If it already feels like you’re at your limit, adding 300 more hires might seem impossible. Capacity Modeling helps you give a well-informed answer.

You could show your CEO something like this: “We’re currently at 87% capacity. The best practice is to be at 85% so we have some flexibility for unexpected needs. If we need to hire 300 more people, we’ll exceed our capacity, so we’ll need more time and resources.”

This approach lets you have a straightforward, data-based conversation with your CEO. It shows your value and prevents you from making promises you can’t keep. While it might seem complicated, Capacity Modeling is doable and very useful. It helps you understand how much hiring your team can handle, plan better, allocate resources wisely, and set realistic hiring goals. Have you used it or tried it? Let me know in the comments!

Should Companies Pay for Interviews?

Posted on by
3

It’s Re-Run Friday! This post originally ran in May 2014.

Would You Pay A Candidate To Interview?

Last week I got my ass handed to me for daring to consider that those who interview with a company, should pay for interview feedback.  Not just normal interview feedback, like thanks, but no thanks, but something really good and developmental.  Most people think that idea is bad.  Interview feedback should be free.  It’s not that I really want to charge people who interview a fee to get feedback, it’s just I think we could do so much better in terms of candidate experience, but we have to get out of our current mindset to shake things up a bit.

This all leads me to the next idea (hat tip to Orrin Konheim @okonhOwp) what if companies paid interviewees for their time?

Cool, right!?

We’ve built this entire industry on shared value.  Organizations have jobs, candidates want jobs, let’s all do this for free.  What happens when the equation isn’t equal?  What if candidates didn’t want your jobs?  Could you get more people to come out an interview if you paid them?  How much would it be worth?  It’s a really cool concept to play around with, if we can get out of our box for a bit.

Let’s say you’re having a really, really hard time getting Software Developer candidates to even consider your jobs and your organization.  It’s a super tough market, and you just don’t have a sexy brand.  You also don’t have the time to build a sexy brand, you need the talent now!  How much would it take to entice great candidates to give you an hour?  $100? $500? $1,000?  What if I told you I could have your CIO interviewing 5 top Software Developers tomorrow for 5 hours for $5,000?  Would you do it?

I hear the backlash of questions and concerns already forming in your head!

– People would just take the money, but not really want the job!

– How would you know these people were serious?

– Why would you pay to have someone interview when others will for free?

– Did you get hit on your head as a child?

– This might be the dumbest idea since your idea last week.

When we think about really having a great candidate experience, shouldn’t compensation be a apart of the conversation.  For most interviews you’re asking someone to take time off work, losing salary, time off, putting themselves at risk of their employer finding out, etc.  At the very least, you would think that we might offer up some kind of compensation for their time.  I’m not talking about interview expenses, but real cold hard cash, we appreciate your time and value it!

If you started paying candidates to interview, do you think you would get and have better or worse interviews?

When you put value to something, i.e., an interview, people tend to treat it as such.  Now that interview that they might go, might not go, becomes something they have to prepare for, because, well, someone is paying me to do this.  To interview.  I’m guessing if you paid your candidates to interview, you would get a higher level of candidate, and have a higher level of success in hiring.  It’s just a theory, wish I had the recruiting budget to test it out!

How Long Should Candidates Take

Posted on by
4

When it comes to candidates accepting job offers, how long should candidates take? Should they say yes right away or take some time? Let’s talk about why waiting might be a good idea.

In the past, it was common to expect an immediate answer. Just say yes or no. But things have changed. Now, it’s more about whether the candidate fits well with your company’s culture and values.

So, why suggest giving candidates 72 hours to decide? It’s like giving them time to think after the initial excitement wears off. This helps them consider all aspects of the job and compare it with other options they might have.

What’s meant to be will always be, right?!

What if they get another offer during those 72 hours? It’s not a big deal. If they accept another offer, it probably means your company wasn’t their first choice to begin with.

What about the fear of candidates changing their minds? In today’s job market, it’s understandable. But if a candidate hesitates because of a short wait, it might mean they were never really sure about the job.

In the end, there’s no one right answer to how long candidates should take. It depends on your company’s culture and what feels right. Whether it’s asking for an immediate response or giving candidates time, the important thing is to create a process that’s fair, respectful, and right.

What do you think? How long should candidates take to decide?

Is Anyone Really Fully Staffed?

Posted on by
1

If you’re in HR or talent acquisition, you know the frustration of never quite hitting that ‘fully staffed’ mark. Whether it’s in retail, manufacturing, healthcare, or any other industries, the constant struggle of hitting that ideal number of employees—like aiming for ’37 nurses’ but always hovering around 34 or 35—is all too familiar.

So, why does it seem impossible to reach full staffing capacity? There are three key factors:

Unrealistic Projections: The idea of being ‘fully staffed’ is based on a perfect scenario where everything aligns perfectly. But in reality, that never happens. Budgets set the numbers, breaking them down by the day or even the hour. But here’s the problem: these plans often don’t consider the actual staffing needs.

Reluctance to Over-Hire: Many HR pros are hesitant to hire more than they think they need. They worry about what’ll happen if the demand suddenly drops after they’ve hired extra people. God forbid they be over-staffed! This caution makes them play it safe and avoid hiring more, even when it might help reach the right staffing levels.

Comfort with Understaffing: Some companies actually feel okay with not having enough staff. They use it as an excuse to keep average workers around and justify paying for overtime. It’s like they’re subconsciously avoiding the responsibility that comes with having a full staff, because it means they’d have to deal with performance issues and manage more closely.

In reality, managing 37 open nursing jobs, means you’ll need more than 37 hires due to turnover, varying levels of experience, future vacancies, etc, etc. Yet, we never hire 40 or 41 nurses.

Ultimately, the reluctance to fully staff comes from being too comfortable with having too few people. This leads to making excuses and not holding anyone accountable. But shifting to full staffing means facing performance issues head-on and striving for excellence.

You’ll never become fully staffed because deep down in places you don’t talk about at staffing meetings you like to be understaffed, you need to be understaffed.

Hiring is a Black Hole

Posted on by
1

Let’s be honest, the process of hiring is a black hole. Despite our best efforts (and all the fancy technologies we use), predicting how a candidate will perform within our organization will always be an unknown. We may think we have it all figured out until they fail, then we blame them, not our inept ability to select the right talent for our organizations.

I have two quotes from Seth Godin regarding expertise. 

1. “It’s easy to pretend expertise when there is no data to contradict you.”

    This rings true for many HR pros and hiring managers who boast of their hiring powers without evidence. We’re quick to dismiss inconvenient data that doesn’t align with the narrative we wish to make. “Well, Ted is one of our best managers, he’s been here a long time. Sure his 90-day turnover is twice as high as the next hiring manager, but that’s not Ted’s fault, he has high turnover positions.”

    2. “Relying on the ignorance of a motivated audience, isn’t a long-term strategy.”

    These two quotes align perfectly. Often, hiring decisions are made by people who are rushed and under pressure to find talent quickly. When these factors come together, it doesn’t cause an immediate disaster, but it can lead to problems in the long run.

    While many claim to be good at hiring, true expertise comes from listening to data and resisting pressure to make bad decisions. It’s not easy work. If you listened to me at SHRM Talent this month you heard me loud and clear… Recruiting is hard. There’s no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

    Mastering effective hiring isn’t just a goal; it’s essential for long-term success. Challenge the norm, use data wisely, and avoid the pitfalls of poor hiring decisions. Your organization’s future—and your career—depend on it.

    Zero-point-zero!

    Posted on by
    2

    Zero. Nada. Zip.

    In my decades of hiring experience, that’s the exact count of candidates willing to commit to a job without a phone call. Zero-point-zero!

    Chances are, your experience aligns closely with this. I swear it’s a universal benchmark across corporate, agency, and RPO sectors, spanning all job types—hourly, salaried, temporary, contract, and seasonal. The whole shabang. No one’s willing to just jump in.

    Let me ask you a couple of questions:

    1. Would you accept a job without talking with anyone from the company?
    2. Would you go for an interview without prior dialogue about the role?

    My guess is almost 100% will say no to number one, but some of you would actually say yes to number 2. Okay, I’ll buy some of you would go to an interview before ever speaking to anyone live about a job. I don’t think it’s many, but I’ll give you some people just want a job and a text or email communication is good enough for them. I’ll also assume the quality of those people will be questionable.

    The fact is that there’s a very strong correlation between engaging candidates through live conversations and their commitment to the hiring process. Like extremely strong.

    Recruiters who invest in meaningful phone outreach witness a surge in candidates eager to explore opportunities. This principle holds true in every recruitment setting—every single one.

    If you’re not picking up the phone every day, you’re likely missing out on candidates who are ready to navigate your hiring journey.