Social Media in Recruitment Isn't Working - Just Ask A Candidate

Another week and another social media conference goes by. Another chance for the ever-increasing number of social media experts to tell recruiters how to attract and engage with candidates, create talent pools etc.

But here's the problem. In this avalanche of 'this-is-what-you-should-be-doing' information, who is representing the views of the candidate? In the social media recruitment equation, candidates are customers and they have a voice. They are the ones who need to be attracted and engaged with. Which companies ignore the opinions of their customers? Well, in recruiting terms, it seems most of them.

I am currently a candidate looking for a job, so I have some real insight into the motivations of job-seekers, and what companies are offering in the social media recruitment space. And, frankly, from the candidate perspective, the scene is not good. There are some real problems to overcome.

Communications

Most corporate websites are firmly in the grip of the marketing function. The objectives of the marketing and recruitment arms of a business with regard to social media comms are different. Candidates do not want to be inundated with corporate PR, but they are.

Content

Usually a mix of corporate news and retweeted/shared articles which can be found elsewhere. A lack of genuinely insightful and original content of interest to a potential employee.
Recruitment output is often limited to tweeting/sharing job postings. By their nature, most will be irrelevant.

Time Constraints

People who are out of work want to get back into work quickly. People who are in work and want to move do not have a lot of time to conduct a search. Job-seekers do not want to have to follow/like/share/link to large numbers of different sites or pages to have irrelevant jobs posted to them. They want to see lots of relevant jobs in one place. That's why they go to job boards.

Lack of Discretion

Engagement with social media sites can be in the public domain, and increasingly employers are likely to take a dim view of some of their employees' online contacts. (In the interests of balance, a big tick in the box for Google+ Circles in this regard- but are there really 100 million active users?).

Passive Engagement.

There is still a sense that simply having a Facebook page etc will give you a presence and attract candidates, an "if you build it they will come" approach.
There seems be be a lack of commitment to engage from the employer/recruiter standpoint. The onus is still very much on recruitment as a transaction, and on the candidate to seek out and apply to a role.
Why, when in such a scenario the recruiter has full access to CV & contact details from many candidates who have shown an interest in the company, is nothing positive done with this information? Telling unsuccessful candidates to keep looking on the website for new jobs does not convey the idea of an organisation actively committed to building a pool of talented individuals on which to call in future.

Lack of Trust

Candidates ARE interested in a potential new employer's reputation and culture, but they rarely either look for or get this information from a corporate-sponsored site. A general internet search on corporate reputation is much more instructive.

Corporate Fear

Candidates, both passive and active, can and do join groups where they can share experiences, information and problem-solving techniques with like-minded professionals from the same sector. But which corporate is going to sanction a site where it may be sharing information with someone from a competitor company? I haven't seen one.

LinkedIn and Twitter are my major social media of job-seeking choice. I use the LI job board (!), but also in the same way as a recruiter, I can use LI to identify and contact people direct who I think might help with my job search and exchange information that I think is relevant and over which I have some control. The social media recruitment model just doesn't seem to be as targeted.

If I, as an active job-seeker, see no incentive to engage, what chance do companies have of attracting the passive job seeker, that Holy Grail of the recruiting world?

The irony is that all the building blocks for successful social media recruitment programmes are out there. It is just that nobody seems to be asking the most important people, the candidates, what will attract them in.

Comment by Lonny Gulden on May 11, 2012 at 5:40pm: Ian,

You're absolutely right on the money with your observations ... and that's exactly why we developed the SourceMob solution (http://www.sourcemob.com). Let me address your points one by one.

Communications - SourceMob builds social media career microsites which are owned by Talent Acquisition/Recruitment, not Marketing. Talent Acquisition/Recruitment owns the message.

Content - SourceMob or the client can create and post content specific to the employment experience and company culture. Candidates may request to receive content specific to the job function and desired location on an "opt in" basis.

Time Constraints - Candidates can receive relevant job postings based on their selected criteria wherever they prefer, Facebook, Twitter, Google+, email, text or on their mobile device.

Lack of Discretion - Candidates can opt to remain anonymous until such time as they wish to apply.

Passive Engagement - If you build it they WON'T come unless you surround your efforts with a coordinated marketing effort to drive traffic to your microsites. SourceMob offers a full slate of professional and e-Services to market your social media career microsites. SourceMob also provides a candidate engagement tool called SourcePool. SourcePool allows you to capture "rockstar" candidates and maintain an ongoing conversation with them. SourcePool requires no CV or resume, but allows the recruiter to view the candidate's LinkedIn profile to determine suitability of the candidate.

Lack of Trust - SourceMob has created a proprietary sharing tool which allows both current employees and candidates to forward job postings to their networks. The best source of company culture information comes from the current employees.

Corporate Fear - Today's candidates demand transparency. Companies that are unwilling to be transparent in their dealings will not be successful in attracting the best and bright employees.

I urge you to check out SourceMob. Go to http://www.sourcemob.com or contact me to request a demo.

Lonny Gulden

Vice President, Sales & Marketing

SourceMob LLC

lonny dot gulden at sourcemob dot com

Comment by Sandra McCartt on May 12, 2012 at 2:20pm: Source mob must really be desperate to sell something. Using comments as a blatant attempt to squawk and hawk tells me a lot about how well this is working. Buy an ad Lonny you won't look quite so desperate.

Comment by Randall Scasny on May 13, 2012 at 6:11pm: I agree with Sandra. I have a service to sell but I'm not posting here to get new business; I have more than I can handle. I came to this blog to learn. The comments are generally informative. I sometimes forward them to my customers (individual job seekers) so they can see the hiring game from the other side of the table, so to speak. when I see a posting that looks like advertising, I usually skim over it or go onto something else. An genuinely informative comment with a website reference is more than enough to attract interested parties.

Randall Scasny

FS5 Consulting

Comment by Tim Spagnola on May 13, 2012 at 7:04pm: Agree Randall, but having said that I would welcome the opportunity to share with Lonny the marketing options we have for our RBC vendor members; )

Comment by Jerry Albright on May 13, 2012 at 8:37pm: Lonny - might I ask - what in the world do you mean when saying applicants today demand tranparency? Furthermore just what type of tranparency are they expecting?

Comment by Gerry Crispin on May 13, 2012 at 9:42pm: Ian, despite the digression by those who've commented here, your central question "who represents the candidates" is a reasonable one and deserves an answer.

You of course represent yourself and fellow job seekers well...at least at the moment. Given your previous jobs as a researcher for a search firm, I'm interested in your sharing how you might have better represented both the candidates you moved forward... and those you didn't. Would you do it differently now knowing what you now know? would you do it differently now given the technology tools that have been added to your kit bag?

From the candidate side, it looks pretty bleak when a hundred or more express interest for a position that only one person will fill.

The discussion at conferences does always focus on how the person who is hired is found. Some effort might be used to share how social media is helpful in responding to the 99 who were not selected this time...or not.

Some of the agency folks might also consider how they "represent the interests of the candidates they sought out who aren't going to be hired by giving them feedback and helping them move on..or not.

In the end we all have to choose if we have some responsibility to 'represent to job seekers' how we treat everyone we touch in the recruiting process whether we're hunting passive candidates or engaging active ones responding to some message we've put out there. I'm of the opinion that it should be done upfront, even if it to simply state, "w'eve no time to get back to anyone but the person we plan to hire...and maybe one or two others for backup." At least that would be telling the truth.

Thanks for your initial comments. If you want some data about firms that actually are moving the dial on this...even in the UK, send me a note or just google me.

Comment by Lonny Gulden on May 14, 2012 at 3:55pm: Jerry,

Transparency is the willingness to be open and forthright about who you are and what you are about, warts and all. Many employers try to paint the rosiest picture possible about their work environment. With the internet and social media it is impossible to prevent a candidate from finding out what other employees think of the environment. If everything they hear from their peers is totally counter to the picture you paint, you risk damaging your company's reputation beyond repair.