e company, are to be treated? I agree with the notion that how a rejected candidate feels about the hiring process or what h/she does with those feelings is ultimately of little consequence. However, if the goal of every hiring company is to bring on board the best employees who exit the starting gate with a strong sense of partnership and company loyalty, then it's in their best interest to treat all candidates using the simple principle of the golden rule. And if you don't know what that is, ask any 1st grader.…
holes large enough for whales to swim through offer little value at best. The percentages for jobs posted to people actually hired from the response are in the same percentile margin as listed above for the Ladders. So what are really talking about - is the money from the job seeker more imporant since they have less to spend then the big corporate companies? I see very few people challenging the notion of the traditional model of charging the company. Fact is most of these sites offer little value to either side.
The ideal situation would be a job board/portal that actually had customer interaction, a liason for the customer and the candidate to ensure the potential for success increased. For example, posting of the jobs and then having someone at the board actually run screens, make calls and generate interest in the role. Sift candidates to an extent, rule out bad applicants, and even schedule interviews. Kind of a light recruiter service. That is value and stop paying 300 plus a posting for garbage.…
me up in a third party agency ad. Actually calling for people who had worked for us... I was incensed... I picked up the phone to go through this poor unfortunate soul, but stopped myself... breathed in and out... and I thought... why really make myself a target site? So I left it alone and let the strength of the employer brand look after the threat of people being poached.
On this I saw a website, where the company actually put everyone's name on it, daring people to call their people, with the notion being that we love our people and they love us.. if you can convince them to leave.. go for it :)…
ake the place less useful to the people who inhabit it".
I suppose you could say that "posting jobs anywhere but on the job board is rude and inconsiderate". You might frame it as "Anyone who doesn't take the time to understand RBC before posting risks looking like the morons who post their jobs in the blogs and forums".
How about "Not using the job board for your jobs is like not using the toilet to pee."
One might opine "The fastest way to ruin your credibility on RBC is by posting jobs in the Forum or Blogs'" You could imagine a geek saying, "You can tell the defectives by the way that they post jobs in the blogs and forums". (Maybe that means we should have a new membership category:Private Defective".)
Marketing consultants note: "Want to destroy your personal brand? Post your jobs in the blogs and forums on RBC." Control freaks and parental types would assert, "Don't post jobs in the forums and blogs of RBC."
A small sign reading "Post No Jobs" may communicate the notion more clearly. Or, some high minded citizen could take the time to explain this principle in a variety of ways.
It's really pretty simple. There's a job board. That's where you post "jobs and opportunities".
There is "catch 50 50" where you are caught between a "rock and a high place".
No one wants RBC to become one of those dysfunctional social settings buried in laminated signs that proclaim "Your mommy doesn't work here'" or repeated enjoinders to "Flush Twice." Obsessive labeling of cabinets, walls, doors and other surfaces with harsh directives always shows that an organization is in decline. We really don't need additional rule makers, and hall monitors in our neighborhood.
Anyone who wants the job of manners police is immediately disqualified.
There's a bigger question, I think: How do we articulate the RBC norms and customs without seeming preachy or unfriendly. Being inclusive is a great idea, how do you do it when you're irritated by bad behavior? What do you think is the best way to convey the effective use of our community?…
sson you've learned as well.
One mistake I recall making was on the candidate side, early in my career I got cocky and began to take the gut instinct that I felt when a candidate didn’t respond well to my push back to mean it was always a red flag. I was proud of this notion; in fact I wore it brazenly as I conducted my follow ups after interviews, closing each candidate down every step of the way. “Locking them down” I called it.
One candidate made it all the way through this process with me, and came on board with my client. About 2 months into his project he came in to meet with our Consultant Representative and after the meeting she came to me. She told me the candidate shared with her that while he enjoyed working for our company and liked the project we had him on, he had felt bullied in the recruiting process. “Bullied”. It hit me like a brick wall. Anyone who knows me would be floored to know I had treated someone that way.
I would push and push until I was sure they were 110% committed, or do a take away – and in many cases I felt that I was justified because they took it. I shudder to think of how many solid candidates I screened out in this process, folks who walked away not because they weren’t committed to the opportunity, but because they weren’t committed to me – and rightly so! In reality they were exercising their own self-respect by walking away.
This is a difficult story to tell, as I am very embarrassed by it. I was determined that I would NOT give a candidate the opportunity to decline an offer, that I would always screen it out ahead of time, no matter the cost… I learned a great deal from being shown the error in my ways. I hope someone else may benefit from the lesson as well. Please, share your own learning experiences – good or bad, candidate or hiring manager – that helped shape your successful “push back” technique.…