Posts belonging to Category recruiting



Branding, Schmanding

brandingHR hears a lot of talk about the importance of building a solid employer brand in order to lure top talent, and to make the company known as much for its cool, unique culture as the products and services it provides.

There’s no doubt that establishing and maintaining a reputation as a great place to work is extremely important. And, working for an organization with a fashionable employer brand may indeed be important to some job seekers. But not nearly as important as the work they do and the people they work with, apparently.

In a Monster.com survey of more than 2,400 visitors to the site, job seekers were asked the question, “Aside from salary, benefits and location, which of the following would most likely attract you to a new job?”

The most common response, by a wide margin, was “the opportunity to work in an industry I’m passionate about,” at 61 percent, followed by “the opportunity to work with people I professionally admire,” at 17 percent. Thirteen percent cited “a lively and energetic office environment” as the biggest selling point for a potential new gig, with 6 percent and 3 percent saying the same about “the opportunity to work for an aspirational/cool brand” and “an innovative office design,” respectively.

“Job seekers are naturally most concerned about salary, benefits and convenience to their home,” said Mary Ellen Slayter, career advice expert at Monster, in a statement. “But once that’s settled, the intangibles come into play. People are craving ways to bring meaning to their work, and they want to work in an industry they feel passionate about. Employers can take an active role in supporting these positive feelings by helping people see the connection between the work they do and how it benefits others. No fancy office can replace that sense of satisfaction.”

From touting their freewheeling work environments to overhauling their “conventional” office spaces, some organizations are forever looking for new ways to present themselves as cool and progressive employers. And while there should always be room for innovation, it seems that coolness quotient still doesn’t quite trump passion for their work and respect for their peers in the eyes of most prospective employees.

Could Women Be ‘Fry’-ing Their Prospects?

vocal fryYou may not be familiar with the term “vocal fry,” but if you’ve heard women from the ages of 13 to 35 or so speak recently, then you’re most likely acquainted with the phenomenon itself. Also known as “creaky voice” and “glottalization,” vocal fry refers to a speech pattern in which people lower their voices to a more guttural sound at the end of a sentence so that “interesting” sounds sort of like “interestaaang” or “awesome” sounds like “awe-suuhm.” Here’s a video of someone demonstrating vocal fry.

Often derided as an affectation, celebrities such as the Kardashians and the singer Kesha are regular practitioners of vocal fry. Although it’s practiced among both male and female speakers, vocal fry appears to be most commonly employed by young American women. And it could be holding them back in the job market, according to a new study published in peer-reviewed journal PLOS ONE.

Researchers from the University of Miami and Duke University recorded seven women between the ages of 19 and 27 and seven men between the ages of 20 and 30 saying the phrase “Thank you for considering me for this opportunity” in both their normal tone of voice and using vocal fry. Next, they had 800 study participants listen to five audio pairings and asked them to select people — the ones speaking normally and the ones using vocal fry — was the more educated, competent, trustworthy and attractive, based solely on the audio recording. When asked which of the pair they would hire, study participants chose the speaker with the normal voice 80 percent of the time. Participants also tended to judge female speakers exhibiting vocal fry more harshly — particularly when the listener was a woman, the study found.

Male recruiters and hiring managers should be aware of their perceived bias when interviewing female job applicants who use vocal fry in their speech, Casey A. Klofstad, one of the researchers, told CBS News. However, applicants themselves (ones who don’t have naturally low-pitched voices, that is) may want to avoid using vocal fry, he said. “Humans prefer vocal characteristics that are typical of population norms,” he said. “While strange-sounding voices might be more memorable because they are novel, humans find ‘average’ sounding voices to be more attractive.”

Interestingly, those “humans” may not include college-age humans, among whom studies have shown vocal fry to be both widely practiced and accepted. Approximately two-thirds of the college women observed by Long Island University speech scientist Nassima Abdelli-Beruh used vocal fry in their speech, according to Science magazine. When samples of a young woman’s speech employing vocal fry were played for students at the University of California-Berkeley and the University of Iowa, students viewed the affectation as “a prestigious characteristic of contemporary female speech.” In an essay last year, Slate columnist Amanda Hess wrote that older men may find vocal fry objectionable because it represents a rejection of their own way of talking:

As women gain status and power in the professional world, young women may not be forced to carefully modify totally benign aspects of their behavior in order to be heard. Our speech may not yet be considered professional, but it’s on its way there.

 

Zappos Finds a New Way to Recruit

ZapposJob postings? They’re so old-school! Las Vegas-based Zappos, the online shoe retailer, has decided to do away with posting jobs on career sites such as Monster and LinkedIn in favor of a new social network designed specifically to help the company create a new “talent community” that it hopes will serve as a constant supply of top talent.

The talent community, called Zappos Insiders, will replace a hiring process that was losing its effectiveness, Michael Bailen, who oversees talent acquisition for the company, told the Wall Street Journal. “We spam them, they spam us back” was how he described for the WSJ the normal hiring process, in which companies post job descriptions, candidates flood the companies with resumes and recruiters spend only a few seconds reading each one before moving on to the next. Last year, the company was inundated with 31,000 applicants and ended up hiring about 1.5 percent of them, according to the WSJ.

With Zappos Insiders, people interested in the company can sign up and network with Zappos employees, participate in contests and chat with recruiters, who will have more time to suss out whether potential candidates are a good fit with the company, Bailen said. The recruiters will use software to help them sort Insiders members based on skill sets or personal interests into pipelines for areas such as merchandising or engineering, according to the Journal.

Bailen said he’s surprised that Zappos appears to be the first company to do this. “We’re hoping a lot of other companies jump on board,” he told the Journal.

 

Prayer Rooms as a Perk?

prayerTech companies have long set the standard for unique on-site amenities, from free haircuts and laundry service to regular massage days and rock-climbing walls.

Could prayer rooms be the next perquisite that employers in Silicon Valley and beyond put in place to help recruit and keep top-notch talent?

They just might be, if a recent article appearing in Crain’s Chicago Business is any indication.

Earlier this week, Crain’s highlighted a few tech firms adding spaces dedicated to prayer and meditation, meaning that “religious employees no longer have to use conference rooms or other shared spaces—sometimes uncomfortably—for daily prayers.”

The rooms, the article notes, “can be a tool for attracting and retaining talent, proof that the boss welcomes Muslims and other people of faith,” not to mention “another way that tech companies disrupt the traditional office, like informal dress and flexible hours.”

Gogo Inc., for example, will provide employees at the in-flight Internet service provider’s new Chicago headquarters with two rooms set aside specifically for prayer and meditation. At its current Itasca, Ill.-based office, employees have typically reserved conference rooms for such purposes, but “it wasn’t a great solution,” Debbie Fangman, Gogo facilities manager, told Crain’s.

Online travel company Orbitz Worldwide Inc. had a similar room built when it moved into its new Chicago digs last year, after managers had noticed employees slipping into stairwells to pray at the company’s old offices.

“[The prayer room] is No. 1 for me, ahead of the soft drinks, the coffee machines or the game room,” Zaki Sharabash, senior director in business intelligence at Orbitz, told the paper.

“When you’re a minority, you don’t feel comfortable enough to ask for something like [a prayer room],” added Sana Mohammed, an Orbitz project manager who uses the room daily. “It’s welcoming. As an employee, you feel respected, that there’s a place for you.”

Those few minutes spent praying also provide an energy and productivity boost, according to Mohammed.

“I come back refreshed and focused. I’m able to put more toward my work.”

A growing number of tech companies seem to be realizing as much, with more of them asking to build prayer rooms into their floor plans, according to Theresa Williams, a design director with interior design and architecture firm Nelson & Associates.

“It started in the past year or two,” Williams told Crain’s. “It’s something you ask about now.”

While tech firms may be on the leading edge of the trend—as they often are—making space for prayer at work “is a fantastically good thing” regardless of industry, said Jeff Carlson, professor of theology at Dominican University in River Forest, Ill., in the Crain’s piece.

“It honors the fact that religion or spirituality is real, and is to be honored and respected,” said Carlson. “Diversity is a fact. It’s how [employers] react to it that matters.”

Recruiting By the Numbers

Attendees took a deep dive into a sea of numbers on Day 2 of the ERE Recruiting Conference & Expo at the San Diego Convention Center.

Keynote speaker Tara Sinclair, an economics and international affairs professor at George Washington University, delivered an address titled a “A Recruiting Leader’s Guide to Key Workforce Trends and Economic Indicators.”

From her desk in Washington, “inside the sausage factory of economic data” as she put it, Sinclair  tracks everything from NFP (Non-Farm Payroll figures) to JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) data in an effort to better understand the trends about the economy.

“But the most watched-government data are old news,” she says, referring to those figures. “They’re not telling us where the economy is going, they’re telling us where the economy was.”

The latest job numbers, she said, are coming back to pre-2008 recession levels, but slowly.

“Don’t just look at the initial numbers for previous month, but also look at the revised jobs number for the month before that as well.”

While economic forecasts may do well on average, she said, “they can fail miserably at key times. We really had no idea, one year in advance, or even one quarter in advance, what was coming.”

Indeed, in May 2009, the forecasts overestimated U.S. jobs by 7 million, she said.

“So when you include forecasts in your plan, leave some space because when the economy changes, the models will fail.”

While she acknowledged that no single series, or even a set of series, should be trusted about the others, she nonetheless offered three sets of figures recruiting leaders may want to start following in order to get a better sense of just where the economy may be headed in the  coming months and years.

1. Quits rate (from JOLTS): The Bureau of Labor Statistics calls this figured a measure of a workers ability or willingness to leave their job.

“It’s a great number to watch”, she said, but added that the figure wasn’t being tracked until 2000.

Unsurprisingly, the quits rate dropped off dramatically between 2007 and 2009 as the full effect of the recession was being felt. From 2000 to 2007, the average rate was 2.1 percent , while the 2008 -2013 average hovered around 1.7 percent and is now slowly rising, she said.

“The reality of what we’re facing going forward is that we are going to be looking at a lot more people willing to leave their job as that number goes up as the economy improves,” she said.

2. Unemployment Insurance Initial Claims

“If I had one series to take to a deserted island and still  continue forecasting,” Sinclair said, “I would take this one. It’s perhaps the best single variable to forecast the direction of the economy. We get it every week from Department of Labor, so it’s timely, and we get a sense of how many people have been signing up for unemployment insurance over the past four-week period.

“It’s a great signal for when the economy is going to turn and be quite different than it was,” she said.

3. Employment to Population Ratio

Sinclair calls this data “the most dramatic graph of the U.S. labor market today.”

The numbers have plummeted since the end of 2007 and it’s not really coming back up, she said, adding that we’re now “actually stuck at mid 1908s levels.”

But is this a result of an aging work population in which baby boomers are retiring en masse?

Apparently not.

“If you change it from ‘population’ to ‘working-age population’ the graph largely remains the same,” she said.

So where are the hidden pockets of talent? Sinclair offered the attendees a group of sources that may yield quality hires for organizations: career changers, flexible workers and what she called “movers,” people willing to relocate for a job. She noted a survey found eight out of 10 millennial workers are willing to move for their first job.

Another survey Sinclair cited found less than 50 percent of those currently employed are actually looking for jobs in their current occupation.

“Overall,” she said, “job seekers like to change careers.”

As for flexible workers, the low-inflation economy may make it difficult for employers to differentiate themselves based on wages, “but offering flexibility may be a good way to attract that talent.”

While overlooked for many years, the long-term unemployed are another avenue that may lead to quality hires, she noted.  “There are 3.7 million long-term unemployed, and those people are very similar in experience to both other unemployed AND employed workers, but these people are not getting callbacks. It’s a population to look at.”

And, the college professor noted, don’t forget the new grads, as there will be 24 million students enrolled in higher education by 2022.

Economic data may not be perfect, Sinclair concluded.

“But you need to know where the overall labor market is heading.  So be prepared for a much tighter labor market in 2015 and beyond.”

The Fast-Changing State of Recruiting

When Ron Mester opened the 2014 Spring ERE Recruiting and Conference & Expo at the San Diego Convention Center this morning with a keynote address on  the “remarkably fast-changing” field of recruiting, he wasn’t kidding about just how fast things are changing.

Indeed, just moments into his presentation titled “The State of Recruiting” — in which the CEO and president of ERE Media shared the results of a survey encompassing 1,353 respondents, including HR leaders, hiring managers and recruiters – he changed the name of  his address to “The State of Talent Acquisition” in a nod to the survey’s results.

(In the survey, 58 percent of recruiting leaders prefer the term “talent acquisition” over “recruiting,” while 53 percent of HR respondents expressed the same preference.)

No matter what you call it, though, the field is poised for growth, Mester said, noting that 53 percent of respondents said they think their recruiting team will grow in size in 2015, while 40 percent said they think it will remain static and 7 percent said their team will shrink.

“The growth of in-house recruting will rise between 3 percent and 5 percent by December 2015, according to ERE estimates,” Mester added. “It’s a growing profession.”

And the field of recruiting isn’t getting any easier, he said. More than 54 percent of recruiting leaders said in the survey they think the next year will be harder for recruiting, and that’s something 44 percent of HR leaders surveyed agreed with.

“The good news is that your key stakeholders get it,” he said.

But in order to deal with the increasingly difficult and ever-changing landscape, recruiting teams need to first align themselves around the main challenges they face in their respective roles.

To wit, the survey revealed that one of the most pressing issues for recruiters is handling their workload, but “workload” didn’t appear anywhere on recruiting leaders’ radar screens.

“So maybe ask your recruiters about their workload sometime,” he said. “That can be a good start. … But don’t just keep doing what you’re doing. Challenge everything you’re doing.”

Your Words Matter

leadership wordsIt’s not news that men still outnumber women in leadership roles.

New research, however, suggests fewer women even apply for management positions. Why? Part of the reason may be found in the way companies word their job postings.

A team of scientists from the Technische Universitat Munchen in Munchen, Germany recently found women feel less inclined to respond to employment ads containing words such as “determined” and “assertive,” because such words are “linked with male stereotypes,” according to the researchers.

In their study, the TUM team showed fictional employment advertisements to approximately 260 test subjects, in an effort to study how leaders are selected and assessed. If an ad described a large number of traits—assertive, independent, aggressive and analytical, for example—commonly associated with men, female participants found the ad less appealing and were less likely to apply, according to researchers, who note that women responded more positively to words such as “dedicated,” “responsible,” “conscientious” and “sociable.” Male test subjects, however, found a job advertisement’s phrasing to be of no consequence.

In addition, investigators found that women may be selling their on-the-job abilities short. In conjunction with researchers at New York University, TUM conducted a separate poll of approximately 600 Americans of both genders, in which respondents considered women and men to be equally competent, productive and efficient on a fundamental level. Both genders, however, rated men’s leadership skills more highly. Women also reported believing themselves and other women to be, on average, less capable in terms of leadership abilities than male respondents perceived themselves and other men.

Such findings seem to echo an all-too familiar refrain in our workplaces, with regard to gender equality: We’ve come a long way, but still have a long way to go.

Claudia Peus, chair of research and science management at TUM, and lead author of the study, suggests that employers can help close this gap by choosing their words carefully when crafting employment ads.

“A carefully formulated job posting is essential to get the best choice of personnel,” said Claudia Peus, in a statement. “In most cases, it doesn’t make sense to simply leave out all of the male-sounding phrases. But without a profile featuring at least balanced wording, organizations are robbing themselves of the chance of attracting good female applicants. And that’s because the stereotypes endure almost unchanged, in spite of all the societal transformation we have experienced.”

Want This Job? Audition For It

auditionThis month’s edition of the Harvard Business Review (subscription required) includes a profile of the hiring process at Automattic, a tech firm that’s behind the free, open-source software platform WordPress. Founder and CEO Matt Mullenweg wasn’t happy with the traditional recruiting process (resume screening, in-person interviews, taking candidates out to lunch, etc.) his company was using, he writes:

As we considered the situation, it became clear that we were being influenced by aspects of an interview — such as someone’s manner of speaking or behavior in a restaurant — that have no bearing on how a candidate will actually perform. Some people are amazing interviewees and charm everyone they talk to. But if the job isn’t going to involve charming others, their interview skills don’t predict how well they’ll do as employees. Just like work, interviews can be “performed” without real productivity.

The more he and his team thought about it, Mullenweg writes, the more they recognized that there’s no substitute for actually working alongside someone in the trenches. Thus began Automattic’s “auditions” for job candidates, in which those who’ve made it through the firm’s resume-screening process (which it retained) work for the firm on a contract basis for three to eight weeks, 10 to 20 hours per week, performing real tasks alongside the folks they’d be working with if they’re hired. Candidates (regardless of the position they’re auditioning for) are paid $25 per hour and, thanks to the firm’s highly flexible work arrangement, can work nights or weekends so they don’t have to quit their existing jobs during the audition period.

The tasks candidates perform depends on the jobs they’re auditioning for: a customer-service candidate would interact with customers, an engineer would write code and a business-development candidate might run the numbers on a business proposal. The goal, Mullenweg writes, is to assess whether having the person work at Automattic would be a mutually beneficial relationship: The company can evaluate the candidate while the candidate evaluates Automattic.

Candidates are provided with feedback during the audition, Mullenweg writes — in some cases, if it becomes clear things aren’t working out, the company calls an end to the process as quickly as possible “out of respect for everyone’s time.” The auditions require a substantial investment of time from Automattic employees as well as candidates, he notes — in the engineering department, for example, four engineers oversee auditions for their department. The final step in the process is an interview with Mullenweg. Ninety five percent of the people who make it to that stage end up getting hired, he writes.

The extra scrutiny afforded by the auditioning process is important for Automattic because — unlike many software companies — the firm wants employees who will build long-term careers there and it needs to ensure employees will be able to handle its flexible-hours, limited-supervision work culture. About 40 percent of audition candidates are hired by the company, writes Mullenweg. The process has proven successful so far, he says: Of the 101 people hired last year, only two ended up not working out.

Although auditioning may not be ideal for every company, Mullenweg writes, it could be useful as an augmentation to a firm’s existing hiring process. It’s worth considering because so much is at stake, he writes:

Nothing you do for your company has as much impact as putting the right people around the table. The aphorism is true: You can’t manage your way out of a bad team.

Another Sign Your Talent May Be Bolting: Hooky

160611067-- sick employeeA month ago, almost to the day, Editor David Shadovitz posted this about a Utah State University professor’s study laying out specific behaviors to look for in top talent about to head out the door.

I thought the signs themselves, as revealed by researcher Tim Gardner, were interesting and deserve repeating. Employees about to leave, he found:

  • Offered fewer constructive contributions in meetings;
  • Were more reluctant to commit to long-term projects;
  • Became more reserved and quiet;
  • Became less interested in advancing in the organization;
  • Were less interested in pleasing their boss than before;
  • Avoided social interactions with their boss and other members of management; and
  • Began doing the minimum amount of work needed and no longer went beyond the call of duty.

Now, thanks to this from Monster Worldwide, we have another dimension to offer up in this flight-detection protocol: playing hooky. Or at least playing “I have a doctor’s appointment.”

According to Monster’s global poll, based on votes cast by Monster visitors from Dec. 2 through 6 of last year, 44 percent of respondents consider telling their boss they have a medical appointment to be the best excuse to leave work for a job interview.

The second-most-popular choice for getting out of work to interview for other work is also health-related: saying they’re sick, weighing in at 15 percent. Of course, the way I see it, both excuses — especially the latter — requires some play-acting as well, so perhaps there are some additional behavior traits we can read between the lines.

There were other non-health-related excuses — childcare, at 12 percent, and delivery/repairman at 8 percent — but faking personal health challenges topped the chart.

Especially interesting, I thought, were the differences in faking forte by country. As the Monster release states:

French respondents are the most likely to create faux doctor’s appointments when sneaking out for interviews, with 54 percent answering that they believe it is the best excuse;      conversely, French respondents are the least likely to fake an illness to excuse an interview-related absence, with only 7 percent selecting it as the best option. Respondents in the United States were the biggest proponents of the call-in-sick method, with 16 percent choosing illness as their preferred excuse. Canadian respondents were the least likely to use a delivery/repairman excuse, with under 7 percent selecting this option and were the most inclined to use a childcare-related excuse, with 16 percent picking this answer.”

Mary Ellen Slayter, a career-advice expert for Monster, says all employers ought to look at this as a reminder that “they have no choice but to be on both sides of this coin.”

“Making it easy for people to be honest is a good approach,” she says. “That means when you’re recruiting, make an effort to schedule interviews before or after work hours — or perhaps at lunch. With your own workers, don’t press them about how they’re spending their requested time off.”

As for what you’re supposed to do when you notice your top talent scheduling an inordinate number of doctor’s appointments, that’s anyone’s guess. I would think that might be a good time to start examining their engagement levels.

Don’t Judge a Book by Its Cover

Last week, I received an email from Arte Nathan that included a link to a TEDx talk he recently did at the University of Nevada. Nathan is always an engaging speaker. Passionate. Honest. Thought-provoking. On at least a couple of occasions, as CHRO at Wynn, he keynoted our HR in Hospitality Conference & Exposition in Las Vegas (being held this year April 28 through 30) — each time receiving a standing ovation.

About seven years have passed since Nathan left Wynn, having spent more than 23 years there. (Today, he’s a visiting professor at the University of Nevada College of Hotel Administration.) But it’s great to see he hasn’t lost his touch when it comes to delivering a powerful speech. If you take the time to click on the play button below, you’ll hear Nathan (also the subject of an HRE cover story, “Roll of the Dice,” in 2005) recount three hiring experiences that demonstrate why a good deed is often its own reward.

Nathan recalls in his speech that, if he ever had the opportunity to help others through his work, he would take full advantage of it. And he certainly has had plenty of opportunities over the years. During his career as “Steve Wynn’s HR guy,” he managed recruiting programs that pulled in more than 3 million applications, and from them he “hired 125,000 great employees.” In his talk, Nathan shares several heartfelt stories on how, by giving applicants “a second chance,” he’s been able to make good on a promise he made to himself when he was just getting started in his career: to try, through his work, to make a difference in people’s lives.  In each instance, Nathan’s employers have reaped the rewards as well.

Near the end of his talk, Nathan notes that, along the way, he was able to learn that you “can’t judge a book by its cover and that giving people a second chance and an opportunity can change lives, and that good deeds really are their own rewards.”

“But maybe the most important thing I learned,” he says, “[is that] just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should, but then there are other times that because you can, you absolutely should.”

Enjoy!