endure...the example I used was from a 25 year top performing recruiter that I have known for years. His work was neither weak nor amateur in any way. What I am pointing out is that the tools at his disposal were weak...
For example, the mere act of screening out is one that is rife with inefficiency. The effort that goes into drilling down to the best looking resume is unproductive when tools exist today that add additional input criteria improving and speeding the decision making. You would probably agree with me that in a situation where there is a high degree of technical work and a very small pool of people that do it, the likelihood that on-target resumes are similar is very high. If a resume is the key tool being used to make a determination – in these situations and many others - something else is needed.
How about this - a scenario where hiring managers spend 1/3 the time on hiring activity as they do now? Using Networking Events (one hour session with no prep – they just show up) they create “short lists” of candidates for their next hires...well, call me a kook, but I know quite a few that would absolutely go for that...don't forget that 75% of all hiring is through networking - not by "going though" a Third Party recruiter (which only represents about 10-12% of hiring).
The potential candidates get to network directly with the hiring manager – it’s what they want Paul...no offense, but most candidates really would much rather go directly to the source...
I agree with much of what you say...in fact the story I describe is from a multibillion dollar global med device company whose recruiting staff was as frenzied as the tech company you describe. Within this context the type of result I describe is commonplace where a hiring manager says, "O.K. we met with the three candidates you set up, none hit the mark who else do you have..." Back to the drawing board...and a very unsustainable business practices.
By engaging people interested in your business to show more of themselves in a company specific community - a recruiter has more information at their finger tips to make the right decision. I'm not talking about candidates that a TPR provides - but people that answer ads, apply at the career page or the merely curious that don't want to apply now, but go to a career page to see what's open... If none of the other solutions I recommend are done, an internal recruiter will now have an additional tool to use to make placements. Maybe that would help mitigate some of the unproductive work that a recruiter does everyday...improving the level of sustainable work.
Not a bad thing is it?…
issue for me if you are actually solving a problem! Apple solved the single platform computing issue and continues to give MSFT a run for their money. Google took early search engine capability and put it on steroids making the whole search engine industry have to up their game. All great results and worthy of big returns for shareholders.
Dividing the online resume universe into nibbles and then selling those nibbles individually for profit makes money for the niche boards but does not make anyone more efficient (ask job seekers, they don't like having to duplicate effort anymore than recruiters do). I'm not against internet recruitment - it holds the promise to job seekers and corporations - "help us find each other". But I don't think comparing "www.over40latinoaccountingjobs.com" to "Google" makes much sense in a conversation about making the internet work better for two parties trying to find each other.…
talk to recruiters. It solves problems on both sides but it's not solving the same problem for both sides and that sometimes is where it all falls apart. I don't know how I could have ever over come objections and negotiated the best possible starting salary and package for a candidate if I did not have regular dialogue with the hiring manager. Everyone is trying to be efficient and it's easy to see why companies look at these vendor management systems as efficient and it is I suppose when you look at it one way but it's the wrong way. It becomes inefficient when it comes to getting the right person in on time through a recruiting firm. I remember terminating all agreements I had with clients way back when some of them started using peopleclick and required my firm to use it as well.
reminded me of this post I wrote a while back.…
It is beginning to fail already, with people no longer engaging with the site and its services, moaning about erroneous approaches by in-house talent scouts and poorly trained recruiters, on top of the numerous irrelevant emails received everyday from LinkedIn itself.
As a recruiter it is not my first place to go looking for talent. I have better sources. In fact when we recruiters are banned from LinkedIn we will see an uplift in activity as clients turn to recruiters who have reverted to methods used before it came into existence.…
mes have not, and will not catch on: they make the hiring process more cumbersome, not less.
The two points I will focus on are first, where they fit into the process, and second, the length of video resumes.
Before I venture into my discussion, allow me to define two terms. First, I define a video resume as a video created by a candidate and made available to an employer in an effort to help the candidate stand out. Second, when I say “mainstream” I mean that a significant amount of companies, including Fortune size companies, adopt a certain practice as a standard part of their process. In the case of video resumes, it would mean that companies would use them for every hire (well, at least for every candidate in a certain silo of hiring – for example, their entire sales force.)
So let’s dive into why video resumes tax the hiring process by way of how they fit into the process. If a video resume is submitted by a candidate to an employer, it means it enters the process at the very beginning of the hiring cycle. I can understand why a candidate might want to do something to stand out, but to consider this process from the employer’s point of view – it is simply outrageous to expect HR at a company to have to view a video for every single resume that comes through their door.
Most recruiters I know are pretty busy – it’s no wonder they are not motivated to make video resumes a part of their standard process – it is simply not fathomable how much time it would take to have to watch a video for every applicant.
Or is it? I took the liberty to do some quick research by doing a search on YouTube for “video resume.” Here is a summary of my findings:
20 results to “video resume” on first page; 1,400 total.
On the first page:
-12 actual video resumes (6 how to’s, 1 advertisement for a video resume company, and 1 outtake)
-11 posted 1 year ago, 1 posted 3 weeks ago
-Average video resume length 4:42 (longest was 8:08, shortest was 2:05)
4:42!!! Considering the length of the actual video, I’m not surprised video resumes are not catching on (and again, if anyone knows a Fortune company using video resumes are part of their standard process, please let me know)
Imagine adding 4 minutes and 42 seconds to the time it takes you to review every single resume – that’s right, it is simply not going to happen.
Reviewing how video resumes fit into the hiring process and by doing some quick research to quantify the time they would add to the process, it becomes crystal clear that video resumes won’t become mainstream.…
veloped by software engineers who does not really understand minute details of successful recruiting process. Hence their systems are highly inefficient and non-intuitive.
2. Most recruiters are not tech savvy and they find their ATS to be complex to handle.
3. ATS assumes that recruiters to be disciplined to manage job listings. This is not the case with most hiring companies.
4. ATS systems don't blend well for processing high volume of candidates or job requirements quickly. Hence recruiters never get to review majority of resumes those received from their job portal.
5. Most ATS systems does not have matured resume search capability in order to effectively look-up resumes already exist in the system.
6. Communication between recruiter and candidate is traditionally transactional. Mostly it is controlled by the recruiter. Those candidates with good prospects for a targeted position is given some attention. All other applicants are left out in the dark and get no communication.
Summary: ATS software has lot of scope for improvements and recruiting community must work on improving their communication with applicants.…
oise" around them that make many inefficient, especially the popular ones that have millions of members and thousands of "so called" jobs. If I am a job seeker I want someone to come to me and say "here is the couple of jobs that you will successfully land so send your CV. Dont bother applying for 100 jobs, getting anxious due to no replies, going to 10 interviews and then accepting 1. Here is that 1 job". Then on the other side of the coin you have the recruitment consultant who is also faced with all this "noise" to find the one candidate that will successfully fill their vacancy. How can we make it easier for both the job seeker and recruitment consultant? Profile the needs of the job seeker and the recruiter then use a calculation predicting the probability of successful placement to efficiently match them together. I have a biased opinion because this is what we do. But we do it for exactly this reason. Everyones goal is the shortest path to successfully landing a job which is also our goal.…
Added by Leah Davis at 3:05pm on February 28, 2011