Previous month:
February 2017
Next month:
April 2017

Conversations: Referral Hiring Tells A Story You Don't Want To Hear

Conversationslogo

 

 

 

 

 

(Overheard in the halls of a recruiting technology conference)

Human Resources Business Partner: That was such a good presentation. 

Recruiting Consultant: Yeah? What did you like about it?

HRBP: He used so much data. This will be great to bolster the case for more budget next year. 

RC: You have your own data. How is this going to help you get more budget for what I can only assume is 10 more LinkedIn Recruiter licenses with some vague promise of a chat bot down the road? 

HRBP: You're too cynical. Fighting for budget is hard, but if we can show how other large companies are doing, we can make the case that we're looking for parity. That's the important word - not in the business case, but as my first rebuttal. 

RC: So, you go in prepared for them to shoot it down, and you have your rebuttals ready? I imagine some 1970's science fiction movie with the execs in white robes, sitting on giant chairs with blinding lights behind them. 

HRBP: It can feel that way, but it's not that bad. We simply go through a budget review, with everyone encouraged to test out weak arguments. Going for parity works well in the pitch because no executive wants to be average. They want to be exceptional. 

RC: So you've done this? 

HRBP: Oh yeah. Not at this company. You can't reuse the same word every year - that's too obvious. The first year you say you're simplifying the budget. The second year is parity. The third year is managed growth. And the fourth year you start talking about the impact on the broader market.

RC: And the fifth year?

HRBP: I won't be in this job in the fifth year. I'll be in the white robes with the bright lights.

RC: That's pretty well thought out.

HRBP: I got the idea from one of your columns, actually.

RC: You got it from me? I don't remember writing about that. 

HRBP: It was a while ago. You talked about a CMO and their firing event. 

RC: Oh yeah. I get it. It's all in the timing.

HRBP: Exactly. This shows progress in the department, regardless of the data.

RC: Pretty clever. But I have to ask - are you sure you want to use this data?

HRBP: What do you mean?

RC: Well - data-driven is great, but the data he presented on stage tells a story he might not want to spread around. 

HRBP: What could you possibly mean by that?

RC: He just insulted the entire audience, his profession, and all of corporate America. 

HRBP: That makes no sense. 

RC: Sure it does. Right from the beginning. He shoots himself in the foot and says he and his team are incompetent. 

HRBP: Okay. How exactly, did he shoot himself in the foot?

RC: What's the number one source of hire?

HRBP: Referrals

RC: There you go. 

HRBP: I'm not tracking with you.

RC: If referrals are the number one source of hire, there is no point in having a recruiting department. 

HRBP: Sure there is.

RC: Oh - you need HR, so your job is safe. But why would you spend money on sourcing, technology matching, or any interviewing if you already know that 50% of your hires are referrals?

HRBP: That's just being smart. You fish in the local ponds, and then you pay to fish in other ponds.

RC: Great point! But you undercut the idea of quality in recruiting if you mostly hire from referrals.

HRBP: That's not what we're saying at all.

RC: Sure it is. I get what you're saying, but for you to be accurate, you have to have the best employees who already know the best people to hire.

HRBP: We do have the best employees.

RC: You have absolutely no data to prove that, and I'm not sure there would be any way to prove it even if it was true. But you know what? I'll play along. Let's assume that you really do have the best employees. What is the number one source of hires at your company?

HRBP: Referrals. 

RB: What is the number one source for the speaker's company?

HRBP: Referrals.

RB: What is the number one source for every company that tracks their hiring.

HRBP: I'm going to guess referrals. 

RB: They can't all have the best employees, all of who just happen to know the best fits for the company.

HRBP: Employees do their job every day. They know the culture. They are our best ambassadors.

RB: If they are your best ambassadors, why do you pay recruiters and sourcers?

HRBP:  One, because our employees have other jobs to do, and two, to find people we don't know. 

RB: So - the best ambassadors are too busy, so you hire second-rate ambassadors to do the job.

HRBP: It's a different skillset. Our employees can't do everything, and they can't find people they don't know.

RC: But if you could, you're hire 100% referrals because your employees are better at matching and filtering than your recruiters are.

HRBP: That's not true. There are referrals who don't get hired.

RC: But there are far more sourced candidates that don't get hired. Clearly, your referred candidates are higher quality, which suggests that your employees are better recruiters than your recruiters, but you can't afford to have them do a low-level job like recruiting.

HRBP: That's twisting my words.

RC: Okay - let's try it from a different angle. If referred candidates are the best, do they show up in your matching algorithm?


HRBP: I don't understand. 

RC: If your recruiters are good at their jobs, they should be able to find the total pool of candidates that could do the job, and that includes the referred candidates. Your matching algorithm should turn up referred candidates prior to them being referred by an employee.

HRBP: That happens.

RC: It would have to happen every time. If referred candidates are better than sourced candidates, they should be turning up at the top of any matching algorithm you use. In essence, if referred candidates are actually the best people, you don't need to have them referred. They would still be the first people your sourcers identify. 

HRBP: I'm sure there is overlap.

RC: If sourcing, your ATS, that fancy matching algorithm, or your custom search engine had any value, your referrals would show up at the top of every search without a referral flag on their application

HRBP: But you have to treat referrals differently. 

RC: I agree. But in doing so, you're proving that your technology, your sourcing, and your interviewing are incompetent. You can't have it both ways. Either you suck at hiring, or you suck at sourcing. The #1 source of hire in any company is actually a negative performance review of the internal recruiting department.

HRBP: That doesn't make sense. What are we supposed to do, not hire referrals? Referrals cost less, are hired quicker, stay longer, and regularly are rated as better employees.

RB: Maybe you treat them better. Maybe the ones who take the job already have the internal scoop on what it's like to work for the company. If that's the case, then once again, you're failing to provide that kind of candidate experience to jobseekers who are not referrals. Again, if your referral candidates are not the top-ranked candidates in a blind taste test, you can't turn around and claim they are the top candidates once they've been given the red carpet.

HRBP: Referred candidates have an advantage because someone has already seen them work.

RC: If that's true, then your interviewing techniques for non-referred candidates have no value. If the fuzzy memories of working with someone at your last company is the best way to vet candidates, then there is no need for recruiters to interview candidates. 

HRBP: You're just trying to stir up trouble here. You know this won't fly.

RC: I'm just trying to be helpful. If it's apparent to me, it's going to be apparent to an executive one day. And if you indict the industry by showing that everyone agrees that referrals are the number one source and the best source, you'll have only yourself to blame.

HRBP: So what's your solution?

RC: Stop calling them your best source of hire. Treat referral hiring as a useful way to cut time to hire, but look for ways to contrast the performance of your sourced candidates. 

HRBP: hmmm.

RC: I can't help but notice that you got free consulting out of me there.

HRBP: It's not consulting if I can't sue you for E & O. And I'm sure there's an O there somewhere.

RC: Are we not using phrasing anymore? I really think we ought to get that back into the rotation.


Interview With Bob Bishop, The Marketing Recruiter

Bob Bishop is a marketing recruiter from St Louis, Missouri. Many years ago, we sat down and worked on how to use a blog to generate candidates and business - and Bob took to it like a fish to, well - he liked it and has kept it up. It's called the Perfect Fit, and Bob has been running it since August of 2008.  

At the time, local recruiting firm blogs were growing, but most recruiters gave them up or passed them off to someone else to write. There are only a handful left, poeple like Paul in Minneapolis, Will Thomson in Austin, and of course, Harry Joiner in Atlanta

Bob was not a trained recruiter when he started. He was a photographer and a marketer, and one day picked up the phone and started making placements with his deep knowledge of the industry. He does that most feared placement - the agency, and he does it well (for those not in marketing, it's feared because agencies try to hire based on prospective clients, which they aren't sure they need until the client is signed, and then they need a talented person immediately). 
 
Here's Bob, explaining in much better words what he does. 

Bishop Partners is an executive search firm specializing in marketing/advertising and Digital Media.  We consistently succeed in conducting searches from executive leaders to premier performers at virtually any level.  We're proud of 100% success with retained searches over the past 11 years.  75% of candidates are still at our client after three years. 

And now on to the interview:

1) Bob, I guess the first question, is just how hot is the market? Locally for you in St Louis, and then nationally?
 
The hiring market is the strongest it’s been since 2008.  Most in the recruiting business are optimistic that the hiring trend is going to continue and possibly accelerate!  My firm is seeing consistent new business opportunities from both the advertising/marketing agency side as well as the Corporate Brand side.
 

One other good indicator of the employment market (including the marketing community) heating up is that we’re hearing from new client prospects all over the Midwest and the South.  That’s a pleasant trend that I certainly hope continues!

2) Is that translating into higher salary requests? Or is it harder to get people to move? 

It’s safe to say that it’s not the same “employers’ market” that it used to be.  Employers now have to be very realistic about compensation when hiring someone.  For years, employees might be very happy with a lateral move, at the same level compensation.  Employers felt that they could get away with less comp, because there were so few Companies hiring at all.  
 
That’s not the case anymore.  Candidates are in a much stronger position to negotiate the compensation package.  Many are willing to stay where they are, without a bump in comp.  So, in that sense, yes it’s a bit more difficult because the candidates have higher expectations (which seems entirely reasonable to me!).

 

3) Do you see a shift in what candidates are looking for in the last four years? Is that a generational thing, or a normal market correction?

I think it’s all normal, in the sense that different generations have different values and goals.  We’ve all heard plenty about the Millenial ‘differences’.  I think much of what that generation likes, is valued by every other generation as well.  Things like being told they’re doing a good job, providing a clear career path for advancement, more realistic work/life balance all make a lot of sense.
 
 
4) Net migration from California to Missouri from 2001-2010 was something like 10,000 people, almost all families or couples looking to start families in their middle careers. How do you find new talent that moves to a market?
 
I talk with a lot of former Midwesterners who want to move back (from one of the coasts) to take care of aging parents or to raise their young family.  I find that talent to generally be very smart, ambitious and balanced.  They have a fundamental value system that seems to lead to reliability and stability in the longer term

We haven't figured that out in Dallas at all - so many people have moved, are moving, and you don't know it because they were internal transfers or posted their resumes in their old cities.  I do find people from St Louis here, but the KC-Dallas connection is much closer. But on to other questions.

5) You work in an office. Do you find that you can turn it off at the end of the day and go home? 

Generally, yes.  There are times when a candidate is interviewing after hours, or it’s the only time I can really have a longer phone conversation with them.  I try to shut “normal”  business off around 6:00.  I think there’s an advantage to being balanced and actually having a family life that one cares about.  You know what they say about “all work and no play . . . “
 
6) How much phone time do you clock in a regular day? 

Not as much as I used to.  It seems much harder to get a candidate on the phone.  In fact, I’m struck by the fact that so few people answer their phone anymore.  I still have a lot of in person meetings.  I probably send more than 100 emails and texts in a day.  Those same candidates who will not answer their phone (and in fact, have their voicemail boxes full!) will respond instantly to a text.  


7) How successful has blogging been for you. Is it useful to the business (do you know how much money you make from it yearly on average), or is it useful to you? 

Blogging has been very good for my business.  I know that candidates find it a valuable tool.  I’ve heard the same thing from clients.  I think it helps my credibility with both candidates and clients.  I like the feeling of trying to give back, with what I hope are valuable tips and advice about navigating around new career opportunities.  I’m glad I’m doing it.  Sometimes it’s hard to post as regularly as I’d like, but I believe it’s worth the effort.


8) What two positions are you masterful at placing? 

Roles of Leadership, whether agency or client, those senior executives who effectively lead teams.  
 
Bob - thank you - for being a friend, for carrying the banner of recruiter blogging, and for your time today.

Conversations: Should I Stay Or Should I Go Now?

Conversationslogo

 

(Do you take the job? A Planning Player is one of the candidate personas I've developed over the years, has an opportunity. The Planning Player is marked by their steady career progression. They're good at their job, and are always thinking about how it impacts the Next Step. In this conversation, we talk through a potential opportunity)

Planning Player: Hey! Long time no talk.

Headhunter: It's good to hear from you. I'm glad you called. 

PP: Yeah - I was talking with a mentor about this opportunity, and I thought you'd be a great sounding board as well. 

H: Always here to help. What did you get into? 

PP: Well - a mutual friend of ours has a position opening in a pretty exciting company. It's a move up, a title change, and more money.

H: That's pretty cool. So what are you thinking about?

PP: I'm just... it's going really well here. I'm in a great position, my work/balance is fantastic...

H: You're stable. There's a lot to be said for that.

PP: Yeah. But it's a good opportunity, and it's not one I'll have here for some time.

H: Okay. Here's what we're going to do. I'm going to ask you a few questions, and we'll figure out what you want to do.

PP: That sounds great.

H: Okay. First. How are you finances?

PP: My what?

H: Do you have any debt? Are you saving money? How long could you go right now if your job went away?

PP: It's good.

H: You're saving? It moves up every month?

PP: Yeah. We have a good mortgage, investments, and I could go a year without a paycheck. 

H: And the kids are still a decade away from college, which may or may not be a thing the way online learning is growing. So you're stable, which is what you like, but this is an opportunity for an upgrade. It's a pay bump, which is important, but it's a title change, which is that move we've been looking at for years.

PP: Yeah. And it also comes with options. 

H: Never count those. Those are gravy. If they hit, great, but if it's not your company, that's just the price of business. You never count on them for your decision. 

PP: I've done well in the past with them. 

H: That's a fluke. Look - they're important, and you negotiate for as many as possible, but at this stage, cash is still king. But you're getting that. So let's move on. Here's a second question. Have you entertained any other offers or interviews?

PP: Not really. I mean - I get the requests, but nothing of interest. 

H: Now that's important. When a recruiter calls, it triggers something in you - if you're open to it, it's because you're ready to leave. You start thinking about why you're staying, and even if you don't take the job, you're now looking. That's why you talk to recruiters, but you don't take an interview unless you're ready to move. So you have this opportunity - it's moving pretty quick, and it's the only one you have. So are you just flattered? 

PP: It's more than that...

H: Are you flattered?

PP: Am I supposed to answer these fully?

H: Just - first thing to come up. Are you flattered? 

PP: I mean - I'm glad she called, but it's not going to my head. 

H: Good. Now to answer your question - yes and no. You should think about the answers, but they aren't for me. If I let you go too far, you'll start selling me to justify a decision. 

PP: Okay - then fire away. 

H: What would make you stay?

PP: Hmm. I was going to talk to John about that. He's been a great boss, and he literally plucked me out of that other company, but we've have discussions about our future, and he's not tied to the company either. We've known each other for several years, so we can have a good discussion.

H: What would make you stay?

PP: Right. Um. Well, I'd want to get into the inner circle. A real career path that leads to senior executive status. And no promises. I'd have to get real connections. 

{long pause}

H: That. That was fascinating.

PP: What was?

H: You just got a little temper up. Your voice changed, and you actually got a little bitter and angry. Do not, let me repeat that, Do not talk to your boss with that tone. 

PP: Was it that bad?

H: it just uncovered something important. You're emotionally tied to this opportunity, and if, well, let me ask you one more question. 

PP: Yeah.

H: Three years from now, I'm in Chicago for a conference, and we meet downtown for a drink. I walk in, say hello. We catch up. You're eating chips with a medium salsa and talking about your latest racquetball injury. I ask you how you're doing at your job. You say you're doing great. And then I say, "how do you feel about not taking that job at the start-up?" 

PP: I'm disappointed.

H: And there it is. You want this job, and nothing your current company can do will solve it for you, which is why you're so emotional talking about what it takes to stay.

PP: I think you're right. 

H: It's what you just told me. Now - the other details are important, and we should talk through those, but you want this job. 

PP: I do. I do.

H: And you called me to make sure you weren't making a mistake. For what it's worth, I think it's a good move, and an important one. 

PP: So what do I tell John? 

H: That's always a tough one. The rules are that you never tell anyone until it's done. You don't have an offer yet. If you tell him, and the offer doesn't come, bad things can happen. But the rules aren't necessarily right. Great people don't leave great bosses in the lurch. 

PP: I've been promised a long ramp if I need it. 

H: 30 days is as long as you can do, and even that is too long. 

PP: Really? 

H: Two weeks creates urgency. 30 days, and your current company won't really start looking. It just prolongs the pain because you're still doing the job. And you'll hate it after two weeks. It's just a bad idea overall.

PP: So, two weeks? 

H: You get the offer. Then you talk to your boss. You don't ask for a negotiation. You ask how to ease the transition. If they really need 30 days, it's because you're documenting or training someone to fill your position. It's not work.

PP: Okay. Well, I'm glad I called. 

H: I am too. This is awesome for you, but really, it's not that surprising. 

PP: We'll grab that drink the next time you fly into O'Hare. 

H: That's a promise. 

 


Conversations: Hamburger Menu Of Choices And The Tale Of The Fermi Squirmies

Conversationslogo

 

Setting: Two interviewers meet in a small conference room to discuss a recent candidate interview.

 

 


Hiring Manager: That was different. 

Hiring Executive: Yeah, I'm not sure what to think. Different doesn't begin to sum it up. Just out of curiosity, did the term, "Fermi Squirmies" come up?

M: It did. He spelled it out for me. F-e-r-m-i. So do you think we even need to do this? I mean - I couldn't tell if he was just like the world's smartest person or if he was just doing this as a lark, messing with us like some kind of prank he'll post in Reddit later.

E: Just to clear my head after that - I kinda need too. Let's go through the interview questions and see if we can't make sense of this. 

M: Okay, first the technical questions. Those were filled out prior to the interview - I asked him about his use of json, how he integrates Swift, and his experience with mobile apps with more than a million downloads. All of those were good - matched what the recruiter told me. 

E: I asked him about his motivation - he said he was looking to fix complex problems with kinder code.

M: Kinder code? 

E: Yeah - he said it was simpler, easier to read, and better for younger programmers to pick up. 

M: How old is he? Like 25? How many younger people does he think there are?

E: Right? And if this is how expensive a good 25 year old is, I don't want to know what a 30 year old architect would cost.

M: So it was all good for me until the "how do you think questions."

E: We'll get to those in a second, but I noticed something weird when I asked him what we do. He said, "I've read what your recruiter sent me, and looked at two videos you say explain it, and I read the website and the profiles of two of your programmers, but that doesn't really give a good sense of what you're trying to do.

M: Wait - he said what? He doesn't know what we do? 

E: That's what it sound like. But then he went on. "So I went into your applications and some of your code base to see if I could understand it."

M: So he hacked us? Jesus this kid is a nut!

E: He might have. I asked him how he looked at our code base, and he sat there for a second. And then he shook his head, and said, "what do you mean? It's there on the internet."

M: It's not on the internet. Maybe for someone like him.

E: He said he pulled a number of sites down verbatim and looked at their code. And then he said, "not the queries, of course, but I could see your architecture, and ran that against basic sites to test your images and scaling and load times."

M: We should have brought the VP in. I don't know what any of that means. 

E: Well, it gets worse. He told us the dual site efforts we were working on are a mistake, as in the next six months, Angular 2 would probably replace all of our efforts to run 2 platforms, which would require a code base similar  - I can't really follow. He started talking about hamburgers and cards and quirks.

M: Are we missing something here? I mean - I can't tell if this is the regular mumbo-jumbo or if he's onto something new. It's a lot different than the code I used to work on. 

E: He seemed competent, and tested off the charts, but I can't see him on any of our teams. How do you manage someone like that? 

M: You don't. You stick them in a room and hire a translator who's half Vulcan. 

E: He finished explaining what he did, and then he sat back. I didn't say anything for a moment, and then he looked across the table at the interview form. He says, "I guess it's time for me to play the Fermi Squirmy." 

M: He didn't tell me that until after the questions, but let's get to them. So I started with the bathrooms in Cowboy Stadium...

E: Bathrooms? That's where they're supposed to guess how many you need of each, right?

M: Yeah. So he says, "I'd call three stadium owners in the league and ask them how many bathrooms they built. And then I'd ask them if they would have added more or less if they were starting over, than I would have added 25% for both men and women." 

E: Really? That actually sounds like a really good answer.

M: Wait until you hear the reasoning. He said, the fastest way was to call people who did it before. You ask them how they would correct it to see if their lines are too long. And then he said you add 25% more because bathrooms are cheap over the long-run, but the cost of 10 minutes in line for a game could cost you as much as $500 a bathroom per concessions for every half-hour of the game. And then he said you add as many bathrooms for men as women, because women will have a longer line, but the average ticket concession for men is twice what it is for women.

E: Why?

M: People standing in line buy less, but they tend to go at the same time. Men have a higher concession ticket because they eat and drink more and they also buy for others. While most stadiums want to cut the lines for women, his point was that the concessions people want equal amounts so men have more time to buy more.

E: I can already see this as an article on Medium from one of our female managers. 

M: I see where he was going - but no one has really answered it like that before. 

E: Aren't we supposed to use those to figure out how they think? It sounds like he just wants to copy other people.

M: I asked him that. He laughed and that's when he promised he wasn't one of the Fermi Squirmies.

E: That's when he spelled it for you.

M: Yeah. He said, the question is a Fermi estimate, and the four ways to answer it include estimate with 3-4 variables, calling in expertise, questioning the interviewer for more details, and claiming it was impossible. 

E: Son of a bitch. That's what he did to me. 

M: He told you all four? 

E: No, he started asking me questions. 

M: Which one did you ask? 

E: He knew the question was coming, so I asked him how many basketballs would fit in the room.

M: That's good - he can't call someone and ask that one.

E: No, but he asked questions.  I wrote them down. 1) Do I have a ruler or a yardstick? Do we want this in meters or feet? Is it for the volume of the room, or just the length and width? Is it allowed to have structures, like bamboo shelves? Is the goal to get as many in as possible? Can we deflate the basketballs, or are they fully inflated? What do you call inflated? Can we move out all of the furniture and take everything off the walls?

M: He said all of those.

E: Yeah. And then he looked me in the eye and said, 3,176.

M: He said 3,176. Someone must have given him the questions. 

E: They must have. He said, the room is 20 feet by 10 feet, and the ceiling is 16 feet. If the radius if each fully inflated ball is 6 inches, that's one square foot each ball can fit inside, which means 3200 balls, but you have to deduct some. You could fill the room if you have bamboo to hold each ball in place and took off the door, but the last few balls wouldn't fit because you wouldn't have a way to fill in the balls just above the door without them spilling out. You could fit that with wood hammered over the door at each level but the last twenty four wouldn't fit unless you could glue them to the ceiling, in which case you could probably get to 3196 or 3197. 

M: That is a batshit crazy answer. 

E: I know. But it's also, I guess, accurate? And we ask them to see how people think. 

M: I just can't see him on any team. That's so disrespectful. And childish. He says our questions turn programmers into Fermi Squirmies - and until we told him which answer we'd like, it makes him look bad. How about just answer the question, dude?

E: Yeah. But I think I may stop asking these. I only get weird answers or stupid answers. 

M: So this one goes into the discard pile. I'll pass it on to the recruiter. 

E: Make sure to let him down easy, and tell him I'm connecting to him on LinkedIn. I wouldn't hire him, but I could see bringing him in on a project to see if we can think differently. 

M: Are you sure? That seems - the guy was just a nut.

E: Yeah. You should think about this one. It's weird when you get answers you don't expect. I'll take those over someone who starts painfully walking through how many times they went to the bathroom during a game, or the one who gets offended and says it's not professional to talk about the toilet during an interview.  

M: I can't stand how unprofessional people are. It's like, it's a work place here. Answer some questions and here's your paycheck. 


Candidate Persona: The Dependable Deliverer

This is Part III of the series on Candidate Personas in Recruiting. Here is the Introduction, Part I, and Part II

These are intended to be archetypes of candidates. We discuss them because we want to think through how to identify, speak with, sell, and eventually close as candidates. 

Today, we move on to another  distinct kind of candidate. The Dependable Deliverer is one of my favorite people.


Dependable Deliverer: 
This worker is the kind of person they'd refer to as "salt of the earth" in days past. They are loyal to their boss, the company, and the community. Their main desire is to be steadily employed and know on a day to day basis that as long as they are doing their job, that job will be there. Accountants, warehouse workers, executive assistants, middle management, and production assistants are all jobs that have a lot of these candidates. 

Here's the fun part. They're not leaving their job willingly. The company treats them badly, underpays (or doesn't pay them), or is facing big layoffs and it means nothing. A single word that they are needed, appreciated, or that times will eventually get better is all they need to stay. 

When it really gets bad - the Dependable Deliverer is really in shock. They function best believing that hard work has a reward, and that reward is employment. That means they're stubborn when you're recruiting them, and scary when they've just been fired. When I say scary, what I mean is that they have lots of unresolved anger issues, and that comes across in the interview. It's not fair to them - the truth is they're looking for loyalty are much better workers than most types - but they'll blow a couple of interviews until an employer comes along that doesn't probe to deep into their work. 

How to identify them: 
You're pursuing them, and they never follow up. They don't call back, don't email, but will politely tell you they are open to more information. They may come straight out and tell you that they aren't looking, but unlike the Happy Hard Sell, they mean they don't want to think about it because it feels disloyal. 

Best time to recruit:
The day a boss leaves, or the day a new boss appears. 

Best language: 
"You seem like a very hard working, loyal, employee. What could we do to find more people like you?"
Also, ask them questions about the company, focusing in on what was promised. Don't tear down the company - don't sympathize - state that what the current company promised is what you're trying to do. 
And last - keep in mind these are great people for referrals. In fact, asking for referrals is a great way to get them to apply. The kind of role you fill with Deliverers is usually a volume role. Get a few referrals, treat them well, and you might be surprised to find a new application in your inbox. 

Just remember to be personal. Ask them to apply, because you "think they would do well here." 


Conversations: SXSW Doesn't Feel The Same

Lgo_conversations_nt

 

 

 



Digital Marketer: Is this your last day here?

Agency Creative: Yeah, I have a plane at 4:00 p.m.

DM: What did you think?

AC: I'm glad to be going home. 

DM: You don't seem that excited. 

AC: Excited? I'm not excited at all. 

DM: It's Southby. It's Austin. Sure it's been a little gloomy, but it's still a huge rocking party. And the panels get some really, really focused people on them. It actually feels less corporate to me than past years. 

AC: You didn't notice? 

DM: Notice what?

AC: When we say corporate, we mean boring. It's like the point of the session is to be there, and not say anything, or do some handwaving that ends with, "we worked really hard and finished with this great campaign."

DM: Exactly. This year was a lot more authentic - with more people actually talking about their work. 

AC: But that's the thing. The details all came in the beginning - like a, like proof that they deserved to be up on stage. And once they got there, they just wanted to push some thought they had out to the crowd that is magically going to turn into a business launch. 

DM: I did not get any of that. 

AC: Check out the session titles. It's like everyone is trying to save the world.  

DM: It's Austin. They're always trying to save the world. 

AC: Most of those people aren't from Austin.

DM: Yeah, but it's SXSW. Shouldn't we be trying to do good? 

AC: I think that's what bugs me. I feel like this year's sessions were all about the titles. It's like - well, Facebook. The content seemed to be about trying to get people to share your idea, instead of showing what you created. 

DM: I thought the details were great, at least for the panels I was in. And even the parties had people sharing their results and not just the normal hype from someone trying to spend investor money. 

AC: But where was the creative? Maybe I want something different. I like design. I like pride in the work. I didn't hear any pride this weekend. It was all about what they're going to do, and now what they did. Ugh. It sounded liked LA.

DM: Ouch. 

AC: Right? Somehow - SXSW turned into LA, with everyone telling you what they're going to do instead of what they did. 

DM: Well - I'm sorry we couldn't entertain you more.

AC: I didn't even get any good tacos. 


Conversations: Agency Versus Corporate Recruiter

Conversationslogo

 

 

 

 


Agency (Third Party)Recruiter: One of these days, you're going to have to pick up a check. Your company doesn't use us, which means that I'm paying you to drink with me.

Corporate (Internal) Recruiter: I'll be happy to pick up the check. Don't I make more than you?

A: Depends on the month. 

C: I think the benefits make up for it. We have a gym and free lunch. 

A: You need to use the gym more and the lunch line less. 

C: I hope we change our policy on using recruiters so I can give my jobs to someone I like. 

A: Says the recruiter who has never heard of a well drink. 

C: You drink Coors. It's not my fault that you're not even cool enough to drink PBR, like a genuine hipster. 

A: You're mad because I wear skinny jeans. No need to bring my beer into it. 

C: Okay. Truce. So honestly, how is it going? 

A: The market is tough, but we're busy. My biggest problem isn't finding contracts or candidates, it's finding companies that hire quickly enough. 

C: We struggle with finding candidates, but don't tend to lose them once they're in the process. 

A: You don't? 

C: No. I can't think of the last time that we didn't win an offer or had someone drop out that we wanted.

A: That's curious. 

C: Curious? Why?

A: I hadn't thought of it before, but I was talking to this guy at a conference that said if your ratio of offer to acceptance is 100%, you're a terrible recruiter. 

C: What? That's crazy. You close an offer and that makes you a bad recruiter?

A: His point was that no one turns down your offer, it's because you don't hire people who have multiple offers.

C: It sounds like he doesn't know how to treat candidates well. We spend a lot of time nurturing our relationship with candidates. It's honestly why I like being inside. I spend more time with my candidates.

A: My candidates hate that. They only want to talk to me if they didn't get the job. 

C: That can't be true. They also want to talk to you when you buy them well drinks. 

A: You laugh, but I'm shocked when a candidate talks to me after they've received the offer. 

C: I get some of that, but they're joining our team - so they know I helped bring them onboard.

A: I think he might be right. Check out the other stuff he says. He says that if your HR Executive goes to SHRM and says that they only hire the top 1% of the people who apply, they should be fired.

C: Now I know he's delusional. 

A: His point is that if you have 100 people apply for a job, and you hire 1, you're hiring 1% of your applications. Considering how easy it is to get applications, his point is that unless you reject 99 people who are qualified, you're deluding yourself.

C: That's just not even accurate. Lots of people apply for a job, and we hire them later, or for another position. 

A: What's lots?

C: What?

A: Well, you said lots.

C: Yeah. Lots. As in many. 

A: How many?

C: I don't know. Do you want me to look it up?

A: I'm just curious if anyone who has ever said that has ever actually looked at the numbers. Having sat down with HR Executives, I don't believe they have.

C: Now you're making the bold statement. 

A: It's pretty simple. If an HR Executive can't explain the value of a third party firm, they have no way to evaluate their internal team. Since I don't know any HR Execs who have ever done that, I don't trust their statistics. 

C: I don't think you could get hired with that attitude. We don't look at it as a profit motive. We're actually a team pulling together to get a job done. You guys don't look at recruiting the same way, because you sell candidates.

A: None of your answers addressed your internal metrics, and if you think all we do is sell candidates, then when you get promoted, you're going to go to a conference and tell people you only hire the top 1% of applicants. 

C: Ooh - so you think I'll be promoted?

A: Of course. But you really need to put some thought into why Third Party Firms exist.

C: They take up slack in the market, providing temporary workforces to companies, or finding hard to find candidates when the internal staff is unable to deal with  overwhelming demand. 

A: You're smart, I'll give you that. And if there were a recruiting professor, they would give you an A and you'd get that promotion. But that's not what we do.

C: I swear, if you start talking about sharing information and giving options to candidates that I can't offer, I'll laugh at you. Very few agencies and no independents actually have multiple jobs. It's why you're do stuck on saying "we find people for jobs, not jobs for people."

A: That's why we should exist, but it's also true that we no longer serve that function very well.

C: Then why do you exist?

A: Because we adapt. We test new technologies. We test new messages for companies. We train new recruiters and we train candidates as they go through their careers. As an industry, we are literally the quantity that creates quality.

C: That's not a coherent statement.

A: Third Party Recruiters test everything, and we do it faster and cheaper than anyone internally. We're not required to be right. We're required to be successful. And that means, that collectively, Third Party Recruiters are superior to Corporate Recruiters.

C: This is why I make you buy me the good drinks. 

A: There's a second part to that. 

C: What's that?

A: Third Party Recruiters individually are both more and less successful than internal recruiters, and they are both much better, and much worse.

C: Isn't that the intelligence argument they use for men and women? They're average IQ is the same, but the mean for women is a little higher, and the extremes for men have more variability? A few super genius men and a few incredibly dumb men, but women are slightly above the average. 

A: It's similar because it's about risk. A Third Party Firm fires a lot more people than an internal department. They take more chances in hiring. The fired ones make zero dollars and are bad recruiters. The good ones are million dollar billers. There is no one making a million dollars in Corporate America, and even if you add stock and compensation, agency owners sell their firms for far more than an executive will make in a lifetime.   

C: But I have a 401k, free lunch, a steady paycheck....

A: And a lot less stress. 

C: We have a lot of stress. 

A: You have work stress, but you don't have existential stress as long as your company is still solvent. Day-to-day, you don't worry about the future as much as I do. 

C: So, you admit that I'm better than you. 

A: Not at all. I admit if we put a bunch of names in two piles, one of internal recruiters and the other of agency recruiters, the odds are that the internal recruiter would be better than the agency recruiter in every draw.

C: I'm going to start telling agency recruiters that you think internal recruiters are better. 

A: You go ahead. Just realize that every agency recruiter you talk to that is still employed is by definition in the top half of their field. 

C: Present company excluded.

A: Yes, present company excluded. I can't even get a job from you, and you like me.

C: I like the idea of you out there toiling for me.

 

 


TalentNet Interactive In Austin: Speaking On AI, Automation, And Machine Learning

TNLAustin

I'll be speaking at Talentnet this Friday, presenting on the main stage with Phil Rodriguez of Hirevue on how Artificial Intelligence, Automation, and Machine Learning have arrived in the recruiting world. 

Hirevue, whose core product is a video interviewing and review system, has a unique window into what works because a recorded video is a source of data that never stops giving, and they have tens of thousands of samples to review. What they're learning and working on is understanding what makes a great interview question, and they can figure it out because they can measure facial signals, audio channels, body posture, and the actual words used by candidates (as opposed to that written down by an interviewer). 

My part of the presentation will focus on How to Create Your Own AI Bot, which I'm doing with the help of Roger Wilco, a startup agency in downtown Dallas.  Our robot will be called Roger, and it's focus will be improving the candidate experience with a Watson-enabled Chatbot and avatars created by Robokind, a robot company that helps teach autistic children.