of anyone providing crucial identity data to said bankrupt companies, who might (Enron-like) be out to leverage the assets of hopeful employees to their own benefit.
I think a stronger policy would be to teach the candidates 'backbone', and have them deny the companies such data on the first round.
Otherwise, I think Detroit is setting itself up for a grand slap in the face (such as GM recently received) in a class-action lawsuit. I can only imagine how many hungry litigation attorneys are already salivating at the thought of suing such instances of 'privacy invasion' for the maximum penalty allowed by law.
IF a company truly 'needs' to track candidate submittals, why don't they ask for "last place you went on vacation", "favorite color", and "favorite celebrity"? That list of questions should be sufficiently unique, and far less invasive of people's private data.
In an era when identity theft is rife, and hacking and cyber-espionage are so common, who can afford not to be cautious?…
tuff I either knew, or learned as I grew as a recruiter. The reason I mention this is because the first time I heard 'candidate control' I was FLOORED. How on earth can I 'control' someone else's behavior?! All I can do is provide them with enough information to make an intelligent, well informed decision. As far as the 'control' part...well, wouldn't that be lovely. To be honest, however, I am not sure I'd want to hire people I can 'control'. I don't think that's in the best interest of our clients, either!
Interestingly, one of the things we tell our clients is that while we can control many things about the recruiting process, the one thing we simply cannot control is the candidates themselves. Providing we do our due diligence for each candidate we select, our clients know the candidates employ free will and life happens. Fortunately, we have had very little (only once instance in the past almost three years) problems with this!
Thanks for blogging about this, Chadd! …
ivacy and confidentiality and contacting references prematurely - to kick the tires vs. concurrently with extending a legitimate offer.
I do know that people that have worked at the same job for quite some time seem to have more trouble releasing names than those who may have been more mobile. Especially if the people they would list as a reference are still also employed there.
Either way, it can be awkward if a person is regularly interviewing and their references are contacted repeatedly for different positions. The candidate may tire of asking that favor of their references. Or, at some point it becomes tougher for the references not to leak info about all of this activity to others.
I've seen people get uncomfortable when they are required to provide specific references, like a recent former boss. I think in some cases even if a person was a super star performer, relationships with bosses are not always smooth and simple, so that can be a touchy subject. It doesn't automatically mean there are red flags, it might be that the two have not stayed in contact after parting ways or the relationship was strictly about work and not one where either party would reciprocate providing a reference for the other.
Based on the above, it might make sense to probe further into the reason for reluctance, but it it is outright refusal maybe time to move on... …
o hear why you yourself are not doing them. So many articles talk about what should be done without taking any responsibility to prove that they can be done by providing detailed examples.
And not one example that might be the exception to the rule but half a dozen examples which would suggest that the recommendations being made can be done.
And, again, if the practice is not being done we want to know why not and what has to be done before it can be done. And we want to know if the author is doing any of this stuff herself.
For instance, you say that hiring managers should be given personal sourcing quotas. Is that being done anywhere in a way that doesn't allow them to just dump their personal quotas on recruiters? If not, why not? Has it been tried anywhere? Was there resistance? Was it successfully implemented. I personally doubt that it can be done so I would be very interested in seeing six examples.
If the recommendations are just visionary suggestions and have never been attempted we should know that too.
omposite applications and SaaS become more prevalent, the way recruiters network and aggregate the social networking tools used into a single portal, you are right the web 2.0 sourcing strategy will be commoditized into a standard business practice. The real ROI will be seen when this is integrated with mobile app technology allowing you to localize your online network and take it to the streets (see companies like moximity).
Within the enterprise, you will see your ATS integrate more closely with internal business initiatives (provide real-time data for projected personnel increase costs for new initiatives for instance), human resources activities, and finance to allow for real-time business intelligence as well as integrate seamlessly with job boards (major and niche), networking sites such as linkedin, and internet search engines.
Even still, none of this is true SOA. Service Oriented Architecture only applies to the way large enterprises plan and ultimately consume the hot-pluggable technologies provided by companies like Oracle. SOA is way more about the IT strategy and governance employed across the enterprise to create business transformation and less about specific technologies to create or consume services. Think of this way, SOA is like city planning so that you can be more strategic in the way streets connect providing you access to the goods and services your citizens need. You still have to build the buildings.
Even with all of this... you have to pick up the phone.…
wont able to answer 100% of your questions.
or instance, in your own country: - I am from india
What holidays would impact phone sourcing? - didnt understood this question
What hours of the day/night would impact phone sourcing? Indian normally works from 9 AM - 7 PM, but in india we do have alot of outsourcing company which works according to US timings (9 AM - 6 PM EST).
Would language be a barrier - do most "Gatekeepers" speak English? If not, what is the best way to find someone at that location who does? In India you will find mostly English speaking peoples.
What "social niceties" would impact phone sourcing? didnt understood
What telephone manner would be considered "rude" in your own country? No one would be rude if its an job call, but if its an marketing call than definately they are rude.
Do companies in your own country typically have VoiceMail systems? - Most IT companies have VM Systems
Do individual workers in your country typically have their own desk? Phone? - Yes
What is Internet access like in your own country? - We have all major IS Provider, to name few, BSNL, VSNL, Satyam etc.
What are the "management levels' typically called at companies in your own country?
What are the general characteristics of the person who answers the phone at companies in your country? if you call to companies it would be gate-keeper (We call it receptionist)
What is the general concensus in your country about "poaching" employees from one company to the next? Salary ..…
getting a job in the way that you mention.
For my part, I don’t see it as a zero sum game. A military job seeker is certainly not obligated to use a third party recruiter. And if they do, they can still apply for and acquire jobs on their own. And most reputable third party recruiters will encourage them to take advantage of as many job seeker resources as they can (e.g., as Bradley-Morris, Inc. does here: http://www.bradley-morris.com/MilitarytoCivilianTransition.html ).
On the employer side, many companies have recruiters that know how to hire military. But for some companies, they will never be able to invest the time or the resources to learn (we all know how many companies have had to cut recruiter staff in the past couple years).
A military-specific third party recruiter can help those employers who do not yet have a mature military-recruiting structure tap into a source of talent, military-experienced job seekers, that they never could otherwise. Without the help of a 3PR, most of those companies would never have gotten past the ranks or MOS’s on a military job seeker’s resume to even consider them, so the job seeker has gained everything in these cases.
The fee is only an issue if the 3PR is not providing unique value to the employer over what no-fee (at least on a $ basis, not counting opportunity cost) alternatives can provide. And if there is no unique value, the 3PR will not be in business long, no matter whether the talent pool they specialize in is military, legal, accounting, IT, etc.
My 2 cents...
Bradley-Morris, Inc. (BMI)
Delivering Military-Experienced Talent to America’s Top Companies…