Search Results - perfect

Topic: STICKY STUFF -"I am not a bully".: of her previous jobs have been and just full of wonderful new ideas about what we all need to do. Ugh! We have a great department, all different ages, colors, and experiences but we enjoy our group and our jobs and work well together. Wonder Woman has been so irritating with all of her wonderfulness that some people are avoiding her.Others are making some sarcastic, funny comments to try and defuse the situation and others are just rolling their eyes. Wonder Woman became quickly aware that she was not being well received by her co-workers, so what does she do? She goes to our direct supervisor and says she is being bullied and no wonder it's hard to find people to work in this area. She is an attractive person and has a good background why does she act like this and why play the bully card when she was the one who came in like we were all idiots.So now the situation is that we have had the "bully lecture". Nobody got bullied and I think it was a cheap shot to play the bully card when she caused the reaction by coming in like God's answer to the advertising world.Half the group is pissed and probably will never like her. Two or three people think she is just unstable. Overall she has added a downer to the whole department since now she is not being so overbearing but still has all the answers and if anyone takes issue with her ideas she says they just didn't understand what she meant.It's really sticky in here and our department is walking on eggshells around Wonder Woman. Any suggestions?Signed, "Not a Bully and mad to be called one' Amy Ala - Internal Recruiter Says:Dear Not a Bully,Work is hard enough, isn’t it? I mean if they didn’t pay us, no one would bother to show up. So here you are, enjoying your life for the most part, you’ve got a decent job with good people around you, and here comes Wonder Woman throwing a monkey wrench in the whole darn thing.For what it’s worth (admittedly, probably not much) WW is probably more intimidated by you and the group than you might think. Showing up for work the first day is a lot like your first day in a new school, worse if it’s the middle of the semester. Even worse if it’s high school… but I digress. The point is it’s downright nerve wracking. Here you and your work pals are, steaming along, productive, no doubt well-liked by your boss, and WW is trying to figure out how to fit in. Clearly not very self-aware, she verbally vomits all over the team making a mess everywhere. The optimist in me says that WW probably just wants to be liked and acknowledged for what she thinks she has to offer. The cynic in me agrees that she’s most likely off her meds.If not for the “bully talk” this whole thing would probably have burned itself out quickly. But no… now things are escalated. Now you’re been put “on notice”, so to speak, by someone that should have had your back. I HATE that. What to do?1. Ignore Wonder Woman. I know, this will be difficult, but potentially the safest route to take. Smile and nod, whenever she drops some pearls of wisdom on you say thanks and keep doing your own thing. Above all, DON’T ENGAGE. If you are absolutely forced to work together, make sure you have witnesses.2. Have a serious heart to heart with The Boss. Let him/her know in no uncertain terms that you appreciate he/she wants to support the newbie but that doesn’t mean they’re allowed to throw proven, solid performers under the bus. Highly recommend that Boss tells WW to dial it down a few notches.3. Have a serious heart to heart with Wonder Woman. Personally I hate this idea the most and don’t see myself ever being capable of this. I tend to take route #1 because I still listen to my mother who said if you don’t have anything nice to say don’t say anything at all.In a perfect world WW will eventually (hopefully quickly) wear herself out. It seems the bigger issue for you, dear reader, is that you are not feeling the love from your Boss. Therein lies the difficulty….Sandra McCartt - Third Party Recruiter Says: NO, YOU ARE NOT A BULLY BUT CHECK THIS OUT, YOU HAVE BEEN BULLIED. In the most passive aggressive way known to man. Oh boy, ain’t she a little treasure. I am not a shrink but I am a pretty good armchair psychologist so here’s my diagnosis. I think what you have in your nest is a little bird called a Narcissistic Personality Disorder. These folks are normally pretty smart, attractive people and can be very charming but..and this is the kicker…they will die without attention. It’s all about them. They hardly ever take time to introduce themselves and get to know their co workers before they start telling everyone how great they are. The problem is the Wonder Woman exterior and outgoing “I know it all” attitude is a big cover up for a personality that is like an emotional vampire. If they can’t get attention by exploding into the group as a big star or the reception is negative they will get attention by going into a Sarah Bernhardt routine and playing the “Bully Card” or turning on the “Waterfall”. Believe it or not it comes from a very weak ego and lack of self esteem. I know, at this point you feel like if they had anymore esteem for themselves the windows would blow out. They set people up to react and if the reaction is not what they want it to be ..well you’ve seen it. Wonder Woman will never take responsibility for her own actions and it will never occur to her that the reaction of her co-workers was caused by her entrance as the queen. Unfortunately these personalities are not treatable nor can they be reasoned with. The only thing that works with them is adoration and they are not very adorable. But that doesn’t answer your question. Just perhaps offers some insight into why she would play the “Bully Card”. Oh , and she will do it again or throw some other kind of fit that will make other people angry or be falsely accused of some sort of abuse of this little darling. Most of them are pretty smart and tricky so the best thing I can tell you is don’t get caught up in the narcissistic dance.You have to work with her at this point so eggshells may be the best course of action. Be polite and professional and wait for the mills of God to grind as they always do with an NPD. If an NPD doesn’t get a lot of attention or people disagree with their ideas they normally don’t last long in any group. I think your supervisor will come to the party pretty quickly and realize that things were good in there before Wonder Woman exploded on the scene. They can be pretty conniving so my advice is keep your distance and keep in mind that if you poke a rattlesnake it will strike or it will slither and wiggle. It’s a snake. You are all in a bit of a pickle because when an NPD is ignored it always figures out a way to get attention. But my advice on this one is to steer clear as long as you can stand it. When she puts the full court press on you in some way just smile and ask for a meeting with you , Wonder Woman and your boss. Discuss just that instance and at least let your boss know that you are making an effort to get along in an impossible situation, before WW has a chance to play any of the black cards in the black deck of the narcissist. I’m sorry, but I think your department is going to be not so pleasant until WW decides that you are all a bunch of Barbarians who can’t appreciate her and moves on. Just don’t let her suck you into a conflagration and make you the bad guy. They can do that and they will and you will be up all night worrying about it because sane people angry/frustrated trying to figure out personality disorders because it doesn’t make good sense. And it doesn’t , that’s why they call it a personality disorder. I feel for you. I have seen a couple of these in action. I worked for a TV station for several years and most of the “on the air” types were textbook cases as many of the attention addicts end up in broadcasting, acting and politics. The other 95% end up in offices. yuck! If it gets so bad that it makes you miserable, you can take her on head on and let her have it. But ,be ready to go find another job when you do. Your whole department can go to your boss or baring that there is always HR. That's called punting the NPD to the people who hired it.…; Added by Sandra McCartt at 3:00pm on October 7, 2011

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: How to Utilize Google+ As a Recruitment Tool

Social media…

Added by Megan Ritter at 7:29pm on October 1, 2014

Blog Post: 3 Ways to Shorten Hiring Time in Your Company: Recruiters are consistently pushed to shorten the time it takes to find and recruit new talent.…; Added by Raj Sheth at 4:04pm on January 23, 2015

Blog Post: Skeletons in the Closet - How to Do a Good Background Check: Added by Caroline Murphy at 5:47am on October 19, 2018

Blog Post: Boolean Search Tutorial: I. THE ROLE OF PARENTHESES IN BOOLEAN SEARCHES

AM I SUPPOSED TO GIVE YOU 5 MILLION DOLLARS OR 6 MILLION DOLLARS??

You’ve heard it said when looking at your paycheck, or looking…; Added by Hasan Mirza at 10:23am on May 29, 2008

Blog Post: Staffing agencies: do they have a future?: I used to work for a staffing agency. A good one at that. One that tried hard to recruit good consultants, who, on the whole, tried hard to do a good job finding the right people for their…; Added by Nick Leigh-Morgan at 7:21pm on May 30, 2012

Blog Post: The Missing Piece to ATS Prescreening Questions: It’s no surprise that the number of resumes stockpiling for HR and hiring managers has increased in the past year. Thus, it’s important now more than ever to have an applicant tracking system (ATS)…; Added by Jake Stupak at 2:46pm on September 11, 2009

Blog Post: The 31 flavors of recruiting - you're one of these: So, I posted this originally back in 2009 on my bloodspot blog "The Recruiter Chronicles" Updated it again a bit essentially the same. The reason I posted this was to help non recruiters…; Added by Joshua Lee at 7:47pm on May 31, 2012