Search Results - providing

Topic: 10 video Interviewing Options to consider for your recruiting organization from #HRtechconf & #HRevolution: I have to say that I was impressed with the advancements year over year. Though most of my questions have been answered I know that the community here will not be fully convinced that video interviewing (recorded and live) plays a significant role in the advancement of hiring best practices. Understanding that our community is rather diverse I do expect varying view points how there are a few key questions everyone will want to ask. If you are a vendor or user and have real numbers to post, please let us know. We'd like to have a debate on the technology and share the outcome with our community. Here are a few questions we need answered: What is a legitimate starting point in dollars to buy into this type of engagement. Taking into account there are various forms of usage including full integrations as well as a point of sale plug and play, what can a firm expect to budget? Is there a precedent for compliance that can be cited for clarification and legal challenges? How does the internal talent acquisition team of a company position this solution to the business so that the investment proves to be a value add? What is an expected period of change management during implementation on a full service video interviewing solution? Are you considering a video interviewing solution in your organization? Below are a few of the video interviewing platforms to consider. Keep in mind that not all vendors offer the same solution and offer a variety of levels at which they can serve you. Here is a short list of video interviewing platforms represented at HR Tech 2013: (NOT IN ANY SPECIFIC ORDER) HireVue: click here to learn more Our Talent Interaction Platform lets people tell their story and demonstrate their talents, enabling high-quality high-touch collaboration and insights - at the speed, quality and consistency of digital. Highly compatable, HireVue augments existing talent management applications, accelerating productivity and decision-making by providing "hi-def" clarity into people’s character, cultural fit, personality, and potential. Turbocharge your recruiting. WePow: click here to learn more WePow is a global leader in recruitment communication, offering breadth, depth, and a personal touch to attracting talent. WePow’s scalable and customizable video and mobile recruitment solutions simplify the way talent acquisition goals are achieved. Our innovative clients are increasing their productivity, improving their efficiency, and significantly reducing their interviewing cost, while improving the quality of their engagement with candidates. At WePow, we translate human interactions into amazing experiences! Reimagine recruitment and learn more about WePow’s recruitment, branding, and mobile talent acquisition solutions. www.wepow.com Interviewstream: click here to learn more From the Interviewstream website: The bottom line? There is no competing provider that can match the flexibility, simplicity, and level of scalability that our system can offer. In addition, since InterviewStream is the only provider to cover the entire interview cycle - from practice to employment - we have developed a knowledgeable user base on college campuses, during outplacement training, from local workforce centers - who are familiar with our tool that is being used by our Enterprise clients. 24/7 Customer Support Available Jobvite: click here to learn more From a single login recruiters will be able to invite, interview, screen, schedule, track and hire effortlessly from their desks. These capabilities will not only accelerate candidate screening, but also reduce remote hiring costs and facilitate panel feedback early in the hiring process leading to better candidate matches. The time saved and the feedback enabled will allow recruiters to understand their talent funnels and level of engagement better. Unlike other video platforms, Jobvite Video is natively built to work seamlessly across the entire hiring process. Take The Interview: click here to learn more Learn about the compliance questions on the TTI blog: click here Take the Interview is a company that changes the way people hire. Its software enables hiring managers and recruiters to ask candidates their most important questions via asynchronous, or not-live, video interviewing. Through its easy-to-use platform, Take the Interview makes the hiring process more efficient by eliminating the need for time-consuming phone screens. Rivs: click here to learn more RIVS was born out of necessity. At their previous startup, our founders constantly struggled with the vast inefficiencies of the hiring process. Their company was growing quickly, and so they needed a lot of great people, but couldn't afford to spend the time reviewing every one of the 1,748,921,303,569 job applications they received every week. GreenJobInterview: click here to learn more Provides cloud-based virtual interviewing solutions that help employers dramatically reduce the time and costs associated with scheduling and conducting interviews. Per GreenJobInterview: Clients reduced their interviewing costs by roughly $18 million in 2012 alone by using GreenJobInterview’s solutions. More than 20,000 interviews were conducted on the GreenJob LiveTM platform. The Orange County Business Journal named GreenJobInterview® one of Orange County’s “Fastest Growing Companies.” Sparkhire: click here to learn more Lower cost monthly subscription model. Eliminate the need for time-consuming phone interviews. Set up one-way video interviews in which your candidates record video responses to your interview questions. Watch and evaluate candidate responses whenever, wherever. Montage Talent: click here to learn more Montage Interview expands your recruiting reach by virtually eliminating the need for candidate and interviewers to be in the same location. With just an Internet connection and a webcam, live video interviews can take place between a candidate and one or many hiring decision makers. Anytime. Anywhere. Even from a mobile device or tablet. We have capacity for unlimited interview participants for an unlimited duration. Ansync Interview: click here to learn more Very cool new LinkedIn Feature on the Async video interviewing platform: click here to learn more Quicker response times? Simple setup? Less insecurity? Most candidates would welcome those additions to the recruiting cycle. Give your candidates a simple, solid solution that makes sense in today’s business climate. Async offers practice interviews and tips throughout the interview process to put your candidates at ease and works with several candidate experience award-winning companies. In a recent poll of a client’s candidates, 100% of the candidates had never done a video interview before, over 75% of candidates stated they enjoyed the experience.…; Added by Ryan Leary to HR Tech Conference at 2:27am on October 9, 2013

Comment on: Blog Post 'Recruiting is a game of failure.': each and offer my counter-point below: 1. Delivering a single consistent attraction strategy across all potential candidates which eliminates any potential ambiguity in how the job is perceived by those candidates. Removing that ambiguity at the outset has a positive impact on how long candidates stay in a job. Multiple “attractions strategies” delivered by multiple quality recruiters (in conjunction with clear client guidance, market research and the tenets of honesty) allow candidates multiple perspectives which is a positive not a negative. It’s the reason we ask for multiple “opinions” whenever making important decisions. Candidate retention has far deeper qualifiers than that of “ambiguity” during initial presentation, and done properly (with the guidance of a good recruiter) gets flushed out during the candidates due diligence, business model aside. 2. Benchmarking all candidates through a consistent assessment and interviewing methodology. Clients like it when candidates have been interviewed and undergone some kind of meaningful assessment before they meet them. The retained recruiter doesn't need to sell candidates because he/she owns the process. Consistent assessment is by no means exclusive retained firms. Your implication that it is, is just silly. I’m lost regarding how “owning the process” equates to not “selling the job”. Quality passive candidates (the only candidates I work with) always need to be sold on procession each step of the way, until comparative analysis (due diligence) reveals the deal the recruiter is presenting to be “better “than the prospects current / future condition. High integrity recruiters counsel prospects honestly refusing to engage if the candidate’s condition will not be significantly improved, while also ensuring the best possible fit for their clients. This is not a retained vs. contingency model issue, it’s about the recruiters integrity and skill-set. 3. Not wasting any of the client's time client through them not having to weed-out any ineffectual recruiters. Companies generally much prefer only having to deal with one supplier, for obvious reasons. Infers ALL retained firms bring high quality, implying clients don’t have any “weeding” to do. Of course they do under both models and when they find quality in suppliers, they prefer doing business with them. Under contingency however, they get to move on a dime if they feel the need. 4. Owning the job means the retained recruiter is far less likely to cut any corners in a race to get candidates in front of the client ahead of other recruiters doing the same thing. Again, implies contingency recruiters somehow “get a pass” and can send garbage to their clients. Cutting corners under either model ensures loosing clients (and candidates) and a client’s ability to switch suppliers to improve quality exists under contingency offering a built in incentive for contingency firms to perform, not so easily stated under retained firms with “money in the hand”. 5. Like others on this thread have mentioned, the client is perceived as taking recruitment more seriously by taking a more focused approach rather than the rather ad-hoc nature of giving the job to several recruiters in the hope that they might come-up with suitable candidates. Candidates prefer this. I agree clients may take the process more seriously when they have skin in the game and certainly its preferred by all recruiters regardless the business model, that clients are engaged. But you are veering off the point. This does not support your premise of higher quality production through retained agreements and which model ensures it. Quality recruiters know their space, and judging quality is not exclusive the subjective measure of any “single” employer, engaged or not. GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) is not exclusive retained or contingency engagements, and quality recruiters of either stripe know the difference, and do not (should not) work with a client who’s not fully engaged regardless the business model. Respect for ones TIME spent working a project and Candidate opinion (how candidates are treated by uninterested clients) should be as important to a recruiter as is the client relationship, or cashing their "up-front" check. 6. The client pays roughly the same fee as they would have paid to the contingency recruiter that happened to come-up with the successful candidate. Only difference is they pay a third upfront and the balance on completion. In some cases, having that exclusivity can enable the retained recruiter to actually undercut the contingency recruiter, again, for obvious reasons. Again, you’re veering off the point regarding quality. Not sure how potentially “cutting fees” improves quality but contingency recruiters have options for cutting fees also, but should be the fodder for another discussion. Overall, because the retained recruiter has eliminated the competition, that frees him/her to invest a lot more time and money in getting the attraction pieces right, developing greater intimacy of the client's business and ensuring that a large enough cross-section of the target candidates are sourced, assessed and presented to that client. Quality contingency recruiters enjoy similar exclusivity due to client’s preference to deal with one provider; however, the decision is made not through contractual agreement, but through free will. Mastering the attraction piece, intimacy and search diligence MUST occur, or under both models the recruiter goes out of business. These qualities are not exclusive retained firms (your inference). In the retained approach, what the client is ultimately buying is not a single candidate. They are buying a process that gives them greater confidence that they have hired one of the best people currently available because that retained recruiter has worked that particular candidate niche well and as a minimum has replicated the amount and quality of candidates that the multiple contingency recruiters might have produced. Doubletalk… and frankly conjecture. Your inference that contingency recruiters are just selling a “single candidate” is misguided. Business’s need “partners” to survive and contingency recruiters are no exception. Inferring the retained search process offers greater [client] confidence bla bla bla, is all speculative hype. You just saying these things doesn’t make it so. One last thing, Nick. I'd like to raise your point about free market ideology and how you see the retained approach as somehow being contrary to that. One of the popular aims of businesses operating in a free market is to win as much market share as possible. Agree with this, Nick? OK, good. Yes Mitch, I agree that gaining market share is a popular aim in a free market business model! So, if lets say that I, along with 4 other recruiters, have the opportunity to pitch for a piece of recruitment work and that I am able to convince that company that it's in their best interests to only use me to perform the work and to formalise that arrangement through the provision of a retained fee (part of which will be used to spend on identification and attraction tools). Then what I am doing here is winning market share. Eliminating the competition is what all companies want and on a micro level, this is what I am doing by selling the retained option. When you have competition, you also have winners. Agree here also Mitch! So Nick, your argument really carries no weight, either in the wider context of the free market system or on the micro level of the multiple contingency approach producing better quality results. More often that not, it won't. Lol… your final conclusion is as convoluted as I’ve come to expect from this volley. At the macro-economic level, eliminating competition whether it be in the automobile industry, the food industry, widget sales or recruiting, is about delivering a better product and winning market share through loyal customers, not contracted agreement. Consumers want the freedom to select product based on merit (to include process where applicable). The telecommunications industry has seen the fall of term agreements that “locked” customers into one provider and out of “free choice”, as has Cable TV and other media outlets, which once their monopolies broken down, had no choice but to COMPETE for the loyalty of their customers. Pick any industry in any part of the free world that limits its customers to wholly exclusive engagements through contractual agreement (usually after a slick salesmen locks them in), and I’ll show you a business model on its way out! At the micro-economic level when considering both business models, as painful for many as this is to come to terms with (me too, believe me), the retained model has become obsolete in most corners because the premise I mentioned early in this thread of the mystique a recruiters “guarded, little black book” (metaphorically recruiters monopoly) equaling “superior quality access” has become a “misnomer” with the advent of social media and mass media communication platforms accessible globally, and the perception (if not reality) they perpetrate. Your attempt to justify the retained search model’s continued importance in spite of this “reality” based on a “quality” delivery or process argument is sheer nonsense. Further arguing its beneficial for your customers (and not espoused to serve your business model) and believing any unbiased observer (much less recruiters “in the biz”) would buy into such subterfuge is pure folly. Basic fact in a Global Economy: Eliminating choice for customers through contractual agreement by “deluding” them into believing its “better for them” (through a slick sales pitch given before any product (process) delivery)), is the main flaw in your argument, and only works on consumers lacking access to unbiased market / product information, which is a rapidly shrinking pool thankfully due to mass communication platforms like the internet! Perhaps you can prove me “all wet”, by providing unbiased statistical evidence from a reputable industry source showing the growth of Retained Search Firm Market Share outstripping that of Contingency Search Firms. I think…not…; Added by Nick Lagos at 4:01pm on April 23, 2012

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: Rules to Recruit By!!!: Added by Dean Da Costa at 2:05pm on March 28, 2010

Blog Post: Value and Beyond; Partnering with Management Consulting Firms

Working with management consultants sounds simple enough…

Added by Jeremy Eskenazi at 12:34pm on October 26, 2011

Blog Post: Do You Want Some Real World Advice To Prepare For Job Interviews?: Added by Travis@nexusITgroup.com at 10:34am on November 30, 2011

Blog Post: 2012 - Reflections on a Staffing Journey Through an Eventful Year: I needed a chance to collect my thoughts, with so much crowding in in the holiday season, with work busier than ever, and with family holiday moments seizing the stage, one must remember why they…; Added by Mike Rasmussen at 11:52pm on December 7, 2012

Blog Post: 3 Recruiting Technologies & Tools Changing the Future of Hiring: This is the third time I’ve had the honor of judging the iTalent competition…; Added by Matt Charney at 2:27pm on November 20, 2013