Category Archives: Recruiting

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.

    I Want You To Want Me

    Posted on by
    Reply

    We make talent acquisition much harder than it needs to be. We talk about employment branding, candidate experience, and recruitment analytics—all important, but sometimes we overlook the basics of attracting great talent.

    At its core, the most powerful talent attractor is simple: it’s about being wanted.

    I want you to want me.

    Imagine getting a call from a recruiter who wants you to join their team. Doesn’t that make you feel good? It’s like a validation of your skills and worth. We all love to feel wanted—it’s a basic, natural emotion.

    The key to successful talent acquisition is helping your team and organization understand this. Imagine if recruitment felt more like trying to impress someone you like, rather than assuming candidates should naturally be drawn to us.

    Unfortunately, that’s often not the case. We tend to act as though candidates should be eager to join us, rather than recognizing our own desire to have them on board.

    Now, flip the scenario. Imagine that same call from a recruiter, but this time they’re not interested in you personally; instead, they’re seeking referrals. How would that make you feel? Dismissed and unimportant, right?

    We want to be wanted. We want to be desired.

    If you can shift your recruiters’ mindset to embrace this concept, you’ll notice a remarkable change in how you approach candidate interactions. Understanding that candidates are just like us—yearning to feel wanted—makes recruiting feel effortless.

    “So, I shouldn’t act like I’m doing them a favor by talking to them?”

    Exactly! Treat every interaction like you’re hoping they’ll agree to a date—with enthusiasm and genuine interest, but without the direct proposal. Consider your communication with candidates as a reflection of how you’d want to be approached yourself.

    Staying True to Your Game

    Posted on by
    Reply

    The saying “Stay true to the game” pops up all the time. It’s been around in sports and pop culture for ages. Basketball especially! (Side note: who do you have winning tonight?) Anyway, I feel like I keep hearing it more and more.

    “The game” stands for your thing, whether it’s sales, accounting, basketball, you name it. For me, it’s recruiting. Whether third-party, corporate, or RPO, we’re all in the same boat.

    Being true to recruiting is kind of subjective. What does it even mean?

    If you zoom out from recruiting and think about staying true to something you’re passionate about, how do you do it? How do you make sure it’s a priority? What do you do to show you’re committed?

    This way of thinking sets the stage for understanding what it means to stay true to recruiting.

    Recruiting is my thing. To keep it real, I stick to a few key things:

    1. I soak up as much recruitment info as I can.
    2. I connect with top-notch recruiters.
    3. I swap stories and tips with fellow recruiters.
    4. I’m always looking for ways to improve my skills.
    5. I know that staying loyal to recruiting is a choice I make.

    Staying true to recruiting means always aiming higher, personally and professionally.

    Sure, it’s not always easy, but it’s about staying true to the game.

    So, here’s the deal this Monday. Share what your thing is in the comments below. Then, let us know how you’re staying true to it this week. Go for it.

    Common Pitfalls in Contract Staffing

    Posted on by
    Reply

    I work in contract technical staffing, and I’ve seen its drawbacks firsthand. Despite promoting its benefits daily, it’s rare for anyone to ask about its downsides in my 20+ years in this field. Surprisingly, most corporate HR and Recruiting Pros dislike contract staffing, yet few can say why, with only about 1% explaining their reasons (I made that number up, but it’s super low).

    Many think contract staffing threatens their job security. They worry that if they use our services, they’ll become expendable. But that’s not entirely true. Contract staffing fills temporary talent gaps and handles project work, while corporate staffing focuses on permanent hires.

    However, it’s important to admit that contract staffing isn’t perfect. Here are three common reasons why contract staffing may not be the best fit:

    1. Falling in Love with Contractors: Sometimes clients fall in love with contractors who deliver exceptional work. However, assuming they’ll just seamlessly transition into permanent roles can lead to disappointment. Many contractors thrive on variety and project-based work, lacking the desire for long-term commitments. Contract staffing succeeds when both parties align on project objectives, deliverables, and timelines.
    2. Competing for Top Talent without Competitive Compensation: It’s tempting to believe that contract staffing can lure top talent away from direct roles, even when compensation isn’t competitive. However, attracting top-tier professionals requires more than just a tempting offer. If your compensation package trails behind the market, expecting top talent to make the leap is unrealistic. Contract staffing excels when it fills temporary talent gaps or project needs, not when it attempts to poach talent with subpar offerings.
    3. The Myth of Magic: Despite common misconceptions, contract staffing doesn’t come with a ready-made pool of candidates. While we excel at sourcing technical talent, I don’t have a magical roster of candidates awaiting their deployment. Instead, I identify and engage with suitable candidates, tailored to your specific needs, and we both go from there.

    I get it—you want to see results fast once you’ve hired us. But for a successful partnership, it’s crucial to match your expectations with what we can deliver. Just like you manage your hiring manager’s expectations, I make sure our capabilities meet your needs, so we can work together effectively.

    When both sides have realistic expectations and are on the same page, contract staffing can be a great solution for temporary talent gaps and project needs. By recognizing its challenges and how it works, we can build a strong partnership based on honesty and understanding.

    What is a Passive Candidate anyway?

    Posted on by
    1

    Every hiring manager wants passive candidates – to stumble on those hidden talents just waiting to be discovered. But what exactly defines a passive candidate today? Let’s break it down without the frilly stuff.

    Traditionally, passive candidates were those who were not actively seeking jobs. But what does “actively searching” really mean? It used to include only the unemployed, those in irrelevant jobs, or on the verge of being fired. But that’s too narrow in today’s reality.

    Recruiters often boast about finding “passive” candidates like they’ve hit the jackpot. But let’s be real. Take Timmy, for example. He seems passive, but he’s quietly applying for jobs while stuck in a dead-end job. Anyone with an online profile is fair game – they may not hunt for jobs daily, but they’re definitely open to offers.

    So, here’s an updated definition:

    “A Passive Candidate is someone found through various channels, not actively seeking your job.”

    A passive candidate isn’t someone you found who hasn’t happened to think about applying to your job, yet. They actually might be the most active candidate on the planet, who you just happen to run into. Think of candidates buried in your database or referrals from employees.

    We know a truly passive candidate when we speak to one. They’re a bit nervous. A bit surprised. A bit flattered. You can tell they’re not used to talking to recruiters and feel guilty talking to you. This is the person you’re hiring managers are asking for when they say they want a passive candidate.

    This isn’t to say passive candidates are better. That’s an entire other post, but let’s not act like we are providing passive candidates when we aren’t.

    Driving Change

    Posted on by
    2

    What is the worst buying experience you’ve ever had?  For many, it’s buying a car.

    Whether it’s brand-new or a used one, the process often sucks. It kicks off with the salesperson, who accompanies you on a test drive, bombarding you with small talk because (duh) they can’t trust you to drive alone, when all you want is to assess the car in peace. Then comes the excruciating negotiation dance between you, the salesperson, and their “sales manager,” dragging on for what feels like an eternity. And either way you feel like you’re getting a raw deal. It’s all set up to benefit the dealerships, not the buyers.

    Recruiting can feel the same way for companies and job seekers. It’s uncomfortable, with both sides holding back information, or not asking certain questions. In the end, one side usually feels like they’ve won, while the other feels like they’ve missed out.

    So, how can we change this?

    It’s a tough question. If there were an easy answer, the car industry would’ve figured it out already. The problem is a lack of trust. Companies assume buyers don’t understand their need to turn a profit, so they play games with pricing. Similarly, recruiting tends to focus too much on skills and not enough on cultural fit. This leaves both parties unsatisfied in the long run.

    Recruiting should transition from a one-sided sales pitch to a matchmaking service. Contrary to popular belief, I’m not just seeking the best talent—I’m after the best talent that aligns with our culture and can seamlessly integrate into our existing team. These may not always be one and the same. Yet, traditional recruiting focuses predominantly on skill matches. The hiring manager needs a Java Developer, so recruiting delivers one—but if there’s no cultural fit, both parties end up unhappy. The issue lies in the time-consuming and subjective nature of this approach, which gives HR departments palpitations.

    While I don’t have a solution, I can’t wonder how recruiting might evolve if it took notes from Match.com rather than traditional job boards. Imagine a world where compatibility and cultural fit are most valued, where recruiting isn’t just about filling a position but forging meaningful connections between individuals and organizations. Give me Tinder For Recruiting, I don’t ask for much!

    Online Ghosts or Privacy Hosts

    Posted on by
    2

    Ever come across a candidate who seems to have almost no online presence? No LinkedIn profile, no Facebook or Instagram account, not even a trace on Google? It’s like they’re a digital ghost, right there in front of you with a resume in hand, but little else to go on.

    Let’s say you meet someone like this – let’s call her Karen (not her real name, of course, I’m in HR – her name is Jill). She shows up for the interview with a solid resume, work history, and references, but beyond that, she’s pretty much a mystery online.

    In today’s world, where social media is everywhere, this kind of absence can be scary. Usually they’re an Instagram story away and I know what you had for breakfast, how you like your steak, your husband’s name, cat’s name, the whole damn thing.

    It raises questions. Why the secrecy? Is it a deliberate choice for privacy reasons, or could there be something more to it?

    During the interview, ask about it. Karen might mumble something about valuing her privacy – a word that still holds a lot of weight to some. As an employer, it’s tricky. Privacy matters, but so does transparency. Trying to balance these can be tough.

    In the end, you might not get clear answers. But it’s a reminder that in today’s world, having no online presence can be a red flag when hiring. Or not. What do you think?