Search Results - increasing

Topic: The Truth About Hiring Recruiters …….At Least.... My Version Of The Truth: …the question is…How do you separate yourself from the sea of competition? AND for the record…there is a SEA of competition. I recently posted a contract recruiter position and within 4 days I got over 400 submittals. Ugggggh. Now I know how my clients used to feel before they met me Unfortunately, here is a look into what I saw….typos and misspellings on resumes, zero mention of accountability, inconsistent information, absent information from previous jobs, half completed resumes and 6-1 resumes were from recruiter wan-na -bees. The sad part is, some of the wan-na-bees took more time to position themselves than some of the veterans. If you are a serious player, and you want to separate your candidacy from the sea of competition I suggest you take your job search seriously, even if it is for a contract recruiter role. You may be asking yourself, what does she mean take it seriously? First of all, to me seriously means…..take your time; who you are being in your job search IS a reflection of who you will be on the job. First and foremost, Read the ad or job posting in full. If asked, answer the questions concisely and accurately, in recruiting; time is money, get to the point. If there are instructions to follow, this is not the time to demonstrate what a rogue you are, these days recruiting has lots of processes and the bigger the company the more risk involved, if you cannot follow the application instructions, you are sending a message that you can’t assimilate to their ways of doing things. On the other hand if you follow the instructions verbatim and don’t do anything above and beyond, like using some creativity in your communication or application you may be sending a message that you give just what is asked and nothing more. If you are applying to me, look me up, find me on google, face book, linked in, talk to me in my language; don’t address me by Dear Sirs when my name is Margaret. When I get resumes like that I can them immediately, first of all I have never met a dude named Margaret and second of all it tells me you don’t care. After all, typically a person hiring a recruiter is someone who has done the job before, and done it well, so they are expecting you to blow them away with knowledge, pizzazz, terminology, technology, etc. If you are applying with me and I am a recruiter and we both share a common recruiter language and use the same type of vernacular, I expect you to use that to your advantage. Recruiting is a form of sales..show you know that by positioning yourself in the right manner. Seriously also means doing your homework. Find out what company you are applying with, go to your browser and type in www.whotheheckamiapplyingfor.com and look at who is requesting your services and tailor your application and response to the buyer. Job searching is a sales process; YOU are SELLING me on WHY I should INVEST in YOU. That takes positioning, discernment, listening, questioning/probing and salesmanship. Remember, who you are being in your own search process IS indicative of how you will conduct your searches for your new client, or if you are a rookie, who you are being in your job search is an indicator of how you will function in this role for others….seems easy enough to understand, however sometimes when we are too close to something we catch a case of running on automatic, or worse, a case of entitlement and we forget the game we are playing. We also forget that in THIS game, it is always about winning. Winning the game means working. Losing the game means keep looking, or keep on trucking to the next gig, until that gig runs out. A real recruiter in 2008 lists accomplishments, numbers of jobs filled, time to fill measurements submittals or interviews to hire. Great recruiters know their retention rates and their percentage of good hires. In 3rd party recruiting, a real recruiter knows their billings, per month, per quarter, if not per week. They also know their send out to placement ratio and their job order to fill ratio. In Staffing a solid recruiter knows their fill ratios and their (fall off ratio)misery index. The name of THIS game is numbers, the numbers tell the story. No numbers always means NO results and no results are simply put ….zeros and zeros indicate a performance issue....and anything else is JUST a STORY. As with every profession, people are evaluated by their performance; our performance in this industry is about quality of hires within a given time frame. There are a few other important metrics yet none as important as, did this person fill the jobs with good people and did the hiring manager/new employee get served within an acceptable time frame. Another element of taking your search seriously is the level of effort you have put forth in personal /job/competency development. What have you done to increase your awareness of the marketplace? What have you done to improve and expand your capacity to identify passive talent? If your biggest claim to fame is running an ad on Career Builder, scanning the resume and forwarding it to your client, you are in a bit of a pickle. While that might work, sometimes; that is nothing to be all that proud of, unless you are spending a significant amount of time screening, assessing, and evaluating that talent, with considerably more tools than your gut instinct. Also, consider if that IS your claim to fame, charging 30% or $100.00 per hour for that will soon become a distant memory; frankly companies have more than 25 different alternatives to find candidates THAT way. Also, to add a little more rub to the wound….that is not really considered recruiting in my book, sourcing resumes, is sourcing resumes and whether I like it, believe in it or not, I CAN get that done through the Philippines for $2100.00 per search through Velocity resources, or $2500 per month through PSG. When more and more companies realize that there are alternatives, the easy way will become someone else’s cheaper way. On the other hand, if you know how to and enjoy (well forget about like, you need to be good at it, if not great) sourcing passive talent through using social networks and internet mining tools, like broadlook or jigsaw then that is something to brag about, and I recommend you brag loud and clear. Include your percentages of hires using passive candidate streams and social networks. If you are a farmer of people and you use your personal and business community to continually generate passive candidate flow and you have your very own ‘affinity network’ then brag about that as well. If you have a list, a data base of candidates, live and usable candidates, hell that is something to brag about, you come armed and prepared to generate maximum results in a minimal amount of time. Taking your job search and your career seriously means continually upping your level of service offering and depth of service. As I have mentioned if your thing is sourcing, do it fabulously. Invest in your own development, learn the systems, learn the technology and apply it. After all, you buy clothing, fine wine, jewelry, so go buy a new way to source candidates, sign up for that $500.00 training, and then learn everything you can and apply it the second you get out of training, then brag about the results you produced. Tell the world. If your bag is full life cycle recruiting, take that seriously and learn about the new wave of candidate selection tools that are being adopted into many company’s hiring processes. At the On-Rec conference a group of English business folks told me that 85% of all companies in their countries use behavioral interviewing, as well as competency and personality assessments to validate their hiring choices and create new employee development programs. I do not think the US is there yet, and due to the financial and business strategy consequences of poor hiring practices, I believe many more are on that path. An excellent way to differentiate you from the sea of recruiters looking for work is to capitalize on ANY training you have taken and applied successfully. Leverage that through personal career positioning. Lastly, no matter what your age, unless you create a cure for some major problem and land a plentiful sum of millions, you and I are probably going to be working for a living, if we like this type of work, we all need to be getting better all the time. We all need to be deepening our capacity and competency level to do more and better in less time, it is the way people do business. A good or bad example of doing more for less is this ‘bounty’ jobs types of site. It is a place where companies name the price for the candidate, and recruiters…out bid each other to get the work/placement. If that is not the industries response to our industry commoditizing ourselves and our service, than I am from another planet. The reality of being in the recruiting job market in 2008 is…. if you are not getting better, you ought to think about getting out, because before you know it you will be replaced by someone who is a lot more willing to do the same job for a lot, and I mean a lot less. If you like the business, live like you will be engaging in a job search and stay ahead of the curve. Keep track of your results, operate with integrity, don’t make placements you know won’t work out, create solid contacts and networks and learn everything you can, and always be positioning yourself the way you want to be perceived.…; Added by Margaret Graziano at 1:57am on September 18, 2008

Comment on: Topic 'Shally Steckerl - Discusses Tools, Social Media and more': oponent of pushing for more of a decision science within the Talent Acquisition function since first entering the field – even in my early days of recruiting inexperience, I knew that we were not leveraging any of the similar decision sciences I had seen or used among my previous marketing, sales, and/or operations background. Due to the potential complexity of your question, it’s important that we set a few guidelines up front. From a scientific standpoint, it’s important we state our assumptions before attempting to build a model. Let’s quickly do that: 1. First, your question involves web tools that enable ‘identifying and recruiting passive candidates’. Since your question revolves around the ‘passive’ candidate, we can eliminate any job boards and explicit advertising from our answer. In addition, we can also eliminate any non full-time direct-hire employees (as most are aware that short-term contractors usually fall into the ‘active-candidate’ category). 2. Secondly, your question involves the notion of ‘Return on Time Invested’ (ROTI). The notion of ‘Return’ originally derives from the Accounting and Finance function, and is stated quantitatively. As such, there must be a numerator and denominator, and depending on the circumstances, the quotient/product can be stated in one of the following manners: a. Ratio (i.e. x:x, 5:1, 7.3:1) b. Percentage (i.e. 200%, 0.98%) c. Index Score (this will take into account certain independent variables and sometimes allows for a better side-by-side comparison of values.) 3. Thirdly, it is important that we define ‘Effectiveness’ to properly answer this question. The best definition I was able to find is, “The extent to which actual outcomes are achieved, against the outcomes planned, via relevant outputs or administered expenses.” The reason I believe this to be the superior definition is because there is attention given to ‘impact’ as well (this is where well-intentioned HR and TA programs fail as the programs may be effective, however lack true impact on organizational performance). 4. Third-Party Recruitment is concerned with several metrics, however there are 3 true mother metrics that drive all others: a. Number of Placements b. Avg Placement Fee c. Annual Billings [See note below.] 5. Corporate Recruitment is concerned with several metrics, however there are 3 true mother metrics that drive all others: a. Cost-of-Hire b. Time-To-Fill c. Quality-Of-Hire [See note below.] [Note: Some may argue that there are several other important metrics to follow on the TPR side (such as Sendouts:Offer, Sendouts:Month, etc.), however the true mother metrics are listed above. Likewise, some may argue that there are several other important metrics to follow on the Corp Recruitment side as well (such as Interviews:Offer, Recruiter Efficiency, etc.), however the true mother metrics are listed above. The analogy is that we can follow numerous financial indicators for a firm and each metric offers independent value (such as ROE, ROA, Asset Turnover, etc.) . . . however the true mother metrics are Earnings-Per-Share (EPS), Market Capitalization, P/E Ratio, and Stock-Price. This is where the tricky part begins – time allocation in terms of identifying ROTI. For example, we may spend a total of 8 hours ‘sourcing’ for a given role, however only 1 of those hours may have been spent on the actual source/channel upon which we’ve identified the passive candidate. What compounds this is exactly what Shally mentions – the current notion of an ‘integrated’ desk which involves several applications and browser windows open. As such, we may quickly source 10 channels in an hour period, upon which we enter a ‘deeper dive’ depending on our initial results. I only mention this because it’s easy to see just how complex the answer to your question can become. The only ‘real way’ to note true ROTI would be to keep clicking a timer as you move from source to source and from channel to channel. Also, we must ask ourselves whether we are going to allocate the entire amount of time spent on the search itself into our ROTI number. Doing so will truly allow us to answer the question of how much our time was worth (for example, if we spend 40 total hours on a $40k fee, then we can identify that our time was worth $1k per hour on this individual search). However, although this will allow us to identify specifically how valuable our time was, there is no correlation back to the source itself. When I say that, I mean that we’re dealing with human beings and some take more emotional attention, persuasion, and closing than others. Another factor that may serve to greatly complicate our attempts to quantify source value is how many degrees away our placed candidate is from the original source that led us in the candidate’s direction. For example, let’s say we find an initial candidate on LinkedIn, who then refers us to the candidate we actually place. Would that mean LI was not of value to us? Obviously, the original source was of great value, but it’s not so easy to identify this if we’re looking at things with black-and-white ratios. In going through this process, I’ve given the concept of ‘waste’ considerable thought (in the Six Sigma and LEAN sense). I say that because some may say that although we spent 40 hours within a given search, 20 were spent on sources that did not yield a placement or hire. But were those hours technically waste? Not really, as sourcing is an overall process. An analogy would be an engineer that spends 40 hours trying to correct a problem, but spends the final 1 hour reconnecting a wire that was disconnected. Would this mean his prior 39 hours were waste? No, not at all. His previous 39 hours may have led him to the root cause of the problem. Based upon all these things, this is my recommendation: a. Group sources into categories. For example, LinkedIn may be in its own category due to its power as a source. Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace may also be in their own categories. Blog Searching may fall into a distinct category, as may several Boolean search strings using Google and MS Live. This would all be dependent on the individual organization and the differing external talent pools, etc. b. Block out your ‘Sourcing Time’ into 15-minute blocks. By doing so, you will allow yourself to remain committed to a given ‘Source Category’ without overdoing it. c. Source individual projects at a time. When I say this, I mean to focus on a given requisition or job family, etc. This is imperative for tracking purposes later. [Note: I would recommend against grouping too many sources into the same category as this will reduce the power of this technique. If you know certain sources are effective given your personal needs, ensure the source is in its own category for tracking purposes.] By engaging in categorizing out your different channels and sources, blocking out your time spent within each source/channel, and by sourcing individual projects or job families at a time, you’ll be able to track the entire time spent sourcing for a search. Upon doing so, this is how your tracking matrix may look per project or job family: a. Source A (LinkedIn) = 6 hours b. Source B (MySpace/Facebook) = 8 hours c. Source C (Blog Searching) = 2 hours d. Source D (Twittering) = 1 hour e. Source E (Boolean Search ‘xyz’) = 4 hours f. Source F (Direct Sourcing) = 16 hours At the end of a month, quarter, or year, you can return to review your sources and total time spent within them . . . in addition to the mother metrics given your role (TPR or Corp Recruitment). At this point, we can then overlay this time information onto our aforementioned mother metrics. Examples would include the following: Third-Party Recruitment (LinkedIn Annual Review) a. Time Spent Within Source = 240 hours b. # of Source Placements = 12 c. Source Avg Placement Fee = $25,000 d. ROTI = 240 hours / 12 placements = 20:1 (i.e. we make a placement for every 20 hours spent within this source). Third-Party Recruitment (Direct Sourcing) a. Time Spent Within Source = 800 hours b. # of Source Placements = 24 c. Source Avg Placement Fee = $28,500 d. ROTI = 800 hours / 12 placements = 66.7:1 (i.e. we make a placement for every 66.7 hours spent within this source). Third-Party Recruitment (OVERALL Source Review - Annual) a. Source A (LinkedIn) = 20:1 b. Source B (MySpace/Facebook) = 120:1 c. Source F (Direct Sourcing) = 66.7:1 [Note: Obviously, the lower the ratio, the more effective the source.] Corporate Recruitment (Facebook Annual Review) a. Time Spent Within Source = 110 hours b. # of Source Hires = 6 c. Source Cost-of-Hire = $5,500 d. Time-to-Fill = 45 days d. Quality-of-Hire = 3.5/5 Stars e. ROTI = 110 hours / 6 hires = 15.7:1 (i.e. we make a hire for every 15.7 hours spent within this source). Corporate Recruitment (Boolean Search ‘xyz’ Annual Review) a. Time Spent Within Source = 150 hours b. # of Source Hires = 15 c. Source Cost-of-Hire = $4,000 d. Time-to-Fill = 27 days e. Quality-of-Hire = 4.1/5 Stars f. ROTI = 150 hours / 15 hires = 10:1 (i.e. we make a hire for every 10 hours spent within this source). Corporate Recruitment (OVERALL Source Review - Annual) a. Source B (Facebook) = 15.7:1 b. Source E (Boolean Search ‘xyz’) = 10:1 c. Source F (Direct Sourcing) = 200:1 [Note: Obviously, the lower the ratio, the more effective the source.] To conclude, Bill, I would suggest that we look at our Source data in such a way as to accumulate knowledge for targeted use on future searches/requisitions. In this manner, we will be better able to increase performance by using forward-looking projections to formulate leading indicators (an example would be TPRs’ or Corp Recruitment using the knowledge that Pivotal Talent Pool ‘X’ is populated primarily with candidates from Source ‘A’). Our industry is in perfect position for a more intelligent decision framework to be architected and implemented, much as is being done by John Boudreau (Research Director of the Center for Organizational Effectiveness at USC Marshall School of Business) has done with the new notion of "Talentship". I would hope that some of the above answer adds to the growing field of opinions and research in our sector and I look forward to your thoughts and feedback.…; Added by Joshua Letourneau to BillVick.com at 9:15pm on April 25, 2008

Blog Post: PERSONALITY DEVELOPMENT - VIVEKANANDA - Flourishweb.com: 1. Every action or thought of ours leaves an impression in…; Added by Maheshg at 6:42am on May 29, 2008

Blog Post: How we increased traction by 10X - The story of Simplicity & Scalability

As we embarked upon 2018, we would like to take a moment to reflect on our journey in 2017.

In the beginning of 2017, we essentially aimed at making our 'Technical…

Added by Bangabdi Roy Chowdhury at 1:23am on February 1, 2018

Blog Post: A tale of social recruiting, employer branding and the candidate experience: Picture the scene. Its mid-December 2010. I’m happily minding my own until the mobile rings. “We’ve seen your profile on LinkedIn,” an in-house recruiter explains, “and we’re wondering if you’d…; Added by Ben at 4:43pm on July 20, 2011

Blog Post: In house recruiters: how to nurture the relationship with your recruitment agency

By…

Added by AdMore Recruitment at 8:43am on April 9, 2013

Blog Post: How to Recruit - The least you should do....: Employing people was never easy. Perversely, it's more difficult now because there are more candidates than jobs, but there are…; Added by Martin Ellis at 9:42am on May 20, 2013