I Want To Work For You But You Won't Let Me

An international survey of more than 500 HR executives by global talent management firm, Bernard Hodes, found that the quality or reputation of products and services, the corporate culture and the work environment were a business's most important attributes when it came to bringing talent aboard.

Ethical reputation also scored highly. But benefits and compensation were, perhaps surprisingly, toward the bottom of the list.

What does it tell us? That job seekers have a keen idea about the kind of atmosphere in which they want to spend their work life and are savvy and discerning in their search. Discerning to the point that the Bernard Hodes people have a group dedicated to helping companies create a "brand" for recruiting. I think that's a worthwhile service. But consultants and their client companies have to pay more attention to what's actually happening: "the war for talent" can be hidden by a real life system-to-make-it-as-difficult-as-possible-to-get-through-the -door.

Is Anyone Else Experiencing This?

My daughter graduated from a well-known university four years ago. High GPA, two semesters of study abroad in two different countries, fluent in a second language and quite conversant in a third; leadership experiences during college, worked at a real job for a government agency in her junior and senior years and had additional work experience with a professional firm. Most of all she was motivated to work and clear about where she wanted to be.

Here's how the job search actually went:

1. All resumes had to be submitted online (not unusual or surprising). She understood the whole "keyword" deal in order to get through internal search machines.

    a. More often than not, there was no response indicating that the document was actually received.

    b. Many websites seemed to be designed by IT people for IT people. They were difficult for even the web-savvy to navigate.

    c. Frequently--very frequently--three quarters of the way through the process all of the information would disappear. On numerous occasions she had to enter the information multiple times before the site remained "up" long enough to complete the application.

2. Seldom did she ever receive any acknowledgment from a real human-being that the resume had been received. I understand that huge corporations receive many applications. If there is a "war for talent" and "company culture and reputation" are really important, then spending dollars on public  relations is wasted capital if no one is actually talking to the talent.

3. Career Fairs. My favorite. She figured that if the online application system wasn't yielding results,   then some face-to-face contact could move things along. So she registered for the Career Fair and  showed up with the requested twenty resumes. Please feel free to use the following dialog if you are a stand-up comedian and need some job-related material:

    Daughter: HI, I'm interested in talking with you about___________.

    Recruiter: HI, my name is_____________________.

    (Casual conversation, brochure distribution by Recruiters)

    Daughter: I think this might be an area where I'd like to contribute. Here is a copy of my resume.

    Recruiter: Go on our website and fill in an application.

    Daughter: Uh, I thought this was a place to talk about jobs and exchange information.

    Recruiter: We don't take resumes. Go on our website and fill in an application.

    Daughter's evil thought: (What are they paying you for if you don't handle resumes. I already knew there was a website. Maybe I should get a Recruiting job with your company so I wouldn't actually have to do Recruiting and could travel and turn in expense reports for meals and hotels.)

    Her target companies were well-known and in the Fortune 500 with some in the Fortune 50. Many tout their Talent Management initiatives. Experience tells me that the internal presentations may be more impressive than the practical execution.

Happy Ending: She started working at a global firm on a temporary assignment. She liked the company a lot. The relationship worked well and she was hired as a full-time professional.

If companies are waging a "War for Talent," then it would be useful to remember that wars are won by people on the front lines --not in the staff headquarters or the PR office. 

Carol Barber, Executive VP at Bernard Hodes Group, has offered some thoughts on this with a free Executive Summary for Recruiting in a Wired World.

Comments

[Karin H.]

Hi Steve

Congrats to the perseverance of your daughter, it would have driven me bonkers, specially at the Fair ;-)

In much the same way companies can benefit/prosper by tackling this when a prospect asks them this question:
I want to buy something from you, but you won't let me.
Clarity in procedures, clarity in process (by it sending in a resume or order online) clarity in next steps (sending confirmation - very simple to automate, specially online) = shortening the decision cycle: you make it so easy for me to.... (fill in any action) I love to work/order for you.
Websites and other online facilities should be build for the users, not the builders.

Karin H. (Keep It Simple Sweetheart, specially in business)

[Beth Robinson]

All the computerized systems make me very wary of the design for the keyword filters. I understand their necessity and know that they are not going away, but to make it an effective system I would think that HR needs to take into account the current employees understanding, the jargon being used in education over the years, and the jargon in current workplace philosophies. That's a lot to ask.

I know that when I was first looking for a job out of school (8-9 years ago) I talked to some companies at the career fairs and knew my resume would never see the light of day because I was a materials engineer and not a chemical engineer. My training was actually closer to the knowledge base and approach that their entry level positions would actually use but the word was wrong. And you can't exactly change the key word of your degree. The job I did get actually already had two materials engineers working in their R&D department, but we were, and are, all still called chemists. Thankfully for new students, the discipline has continued to gain in familiarity.

The recuiter wouldn't take resumes? Sure, the company increased its brand presence with some candidate awareness, but all that face to face time is just GONE. Maybe most candidates would be average, but having no way to notice the excellent ones, or at least to flag them in the system, just doesn't seem to be the best way to use the opportunity.

[Carol Barber]

Steve, a colleague sent me your post regarding your daughter's challenging job search. I wish I could say that her experience was unusual, but sadly it is not. In fact, I wrote a piece entitled, Quicksand, which deals with how the gaps in online recruiting processes are preventing companies from ever reviewing resumes of the most qualified candidates.

Quicksand was based on Hodes' mystery shop research, which involves submitting "walk-on-water" resumes and then waiting to see what happens. While most receive an obligatory auto bounceback, after that the silence is deafening! More than 70% of our "ideal candidates" never even get an email from a recruiter, let alone a phone call. The human aspect of recruiting is all but gone....way too much dependence on technology for a process that needs PEOPLE front and center.

These results beg the question: why would companies make such huge investments in online hiring systems? The short answer is to reduce mountains of paper resumes and provide recruiters with quick search capabilities to ferret out top talent in their candidate databases. But the reality is, based on what we've seen, now resumes just sit somewhere that's out of sight...and out of mind.

Your readers can download a free copy of Quicksand from www.hodes.com. Sincerely, Carol Barber, EVP, Bernard Hodes Group

[peter vajda]

Hi, Steve, you say, "If companies are waging a "War for Talent," then it would be useful to remember that wars are won by people on the front lines --not in the staff headquarters or the PR office."

It's probably just me, but I know of no "war" where folks on the front lines are caring, concerned, compassionate, respectful, and the like. For many folks in the talent "war", it's the same in these very, very stressful times -- where folks on one side (those seeking) are frustrated, scared, at their wit's end, often feeling hopeless, abandoned, frustrated, betrayed, angry, even broke and broken...and those on the other side (front-line recruiting staff) are feeling overwhelmed with the inundation of people, paper, pleadings, and bosses who tell them to "follow the party line" with no exceptions (practically, personally, emotionally, psychologically...). So, a standoff...war...on the front lines.

Perhaps staff headquarters (like in most wars) are the place where "diplomacy" --- all the niceties and smooth epithets about their humane and caring ways, about their making the recruiting process mutually respectful and rewarding, are bandied about to impress the "other side", but, today, it's not so on the front lines.

War is hell...always has been...and it seems no different from where I work in, sit and observe today's unsteady and unhealthy economic and corporate climate. While I certainly do not condone and agree with this front-line (war-like)behavior, I can certainly understand it's genesis and how it's playing out.

The recruting war and its attendant behaviors are but a microcosm of what's happening on a larger scale in very tough times where larger-scale, sea-change types of movements are afoot in our country.

[Steve Roesler]

Karin,

Since you are always customer-focused in your writing and retail dealings, you see the issue clearly.

It's difficult to determine whether the digital screening is designed to somehow find the best or avoid dealing with people--some of whom may actually be "the best".

So we have to ask: "Who is the real customer?"

[Tom Haskins]

Thanks for the this Steve. I've been wondering how and when the "bad karma" from the "War for Talent" would come back to haunt the war mongers. Perhaps a "Garden for Talent Cultivation" will emerge from the spoils of this war. Your daughter's experience is a clear indication to me that the war is being fought in a way that does more harm to the aggressor who does not know the enemy or itself. The "War for Talent" cannot be won by making enemies, commodities or stereotypes of the talent. The war can be won "without a battle" by strategists wise enough to not wage a war to deplete their war chests, trash their reputations, throw good money after bad and alienate their allies.

[Steve Roesler]

Beth,

You are sure on target when you noted that the recruiter increased the company's "brand presence." Unfortunately for the companies involved, the awareness wasn't favorable. In an age of Word of Mouth, IM, texting, etc., among recent grads and candidates, they didn't do themselves any favors in their recruiting efforts.

The whole "keyword" phenomenon is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it can be used to find specific information. On the other, it tends to eliminate the inclusion of uniqueness and diversity that companies say they are seeking.

We may be experiencing a good example of how the most fascinating and advanced technology simply cannot do what a human being can do.

[Steve Roesler]

Carol,

Thanks for the notation on the article. Am going to get to it and include it in the post.

[Steve Roesler]

Peter,

Here's a first-hand observation that may interest you.

Although the headlines in various media--public and professional--scream about a "War for Talent", I'm not seeing that phrase embraced by my client base. In fact, those few individuals who have come into meetings with that mantra have--literally--each disappeared from the employment rolls. Really. The cliche doesn't offer much to the people who have to build organizations.

What I do see is a concern to find the best fit candidates at all levels. To make that happen, managers are being very thoughtful and deliberate about their recruiting and hiring practices. That's a far cry from a declaration of war.

[Dan Schawbel]

This is a 5 star post. I'm not surprised by how important employer branding is these days in order to fight for talent (even more for gen-y).

[Steve Roesler]

Tom,

"War" seems to be a popular and easy-to-grab-onto analogy whenever a situation is painted as dire. It's commonly seen as "mobilizing" to declare that there is an enemy to be defeated. There's probably a lot of truth in that dynamic.

For me, the problem lies in an inaccurate assessment of an issue, which then leads to an inappropriate and unproductive response. In this instance, your focus on the right strategy would lead to ways to find, recruit, and develop the kind of talent an organization needs.

Isn't it fascinating how language and its use--even a single word--can color an image to the point of distortion when clarity is what's really needed?

[Steve Roesler]

Hi, Dan,

I was hoping a branding pro would jump on this, and here you are:-)

Maybe we should do a joint post that addresses the brand implications of certain recruiting practices.

I don't know any company with whom I've ever worked that would continue recruiting efforts in a way that would negatively impact their brand. I can only think that because some of these organizations are so large, the impact hasn't gotten to someone who has the juice to yell "Stop!" and then turn it around.

What do you think?

[Dan McCarthy]

Steve –
What a post! I love it, and it really hit home. We just switched to a new applicant tracking system. I heard it wasn’t very “user friendly”, so I tried it myself, and it was a nightmare!

I’ll present a perspective that I don’t believe has been mentioned yet. With apologies to all of the recruiters and software providers out there, I believe that the absolute best way to find and attract “A” candidates is for leaders to find them themselves. A leader these days needs to be constantly scouting for talent and building a “virtual bench”. The best ones are always prospecting, and when a position opens up, they have a slate of candidates – that they already know – ready to step in. The worst ones I’ve seen tend to over-rely on recruiters, job boards, and the internal systems. They end up whining about the lack of good resumes, they blame it on “the company”, and end up with the highest turnover.

And I'm glad it worked out for your daughter - congratulations, you must be very proud.

[Steve Roesler]

Dan,

It always makes me feel good to know that someone in the trenches is also seeing what's happening and then doing something to make a positive impact.

Your take on "leader as scout" is unbelievably timely. Have been working closely with a CEO client who does just that. The result is:

1. A virtual bench of pre-qualified candidates. The reason he knows about them is through previous personal contact or referrals from trusted associates.

2. Quicker hiring process. Because of #1, much of the uncertainty normally addressed by using multiple interviews and interviewers just isn't there. The same dynamic is true for candidates. The "common connection" is able to fill in a lot of the blanks before the candidate even agrees to move forward.

3. Huge savings in recruiter fees.

And yes, for sure: I am very proud of my daughter.