If there's one thing business has learned since the economic meltdown of 2008, it's this: In a tough market, the key to success is innovation. Businesses who do nothing but imitate competitors not only don't get ahead, but start falling further and further behind.
And guess what? Having a diverse workforce is no exception. For many companies, diversity recruiting programs have taken a back seat in the past couple of years. That's a mistake, and here's why:
1. Diversity innovators have a huge opportunity right now
In a sluggish employment market, companies that take the initiative in diversity recruiting have a better chance of standing out from the competition. Not only can they attract the best and brightest of a diverse talent pool, but they can reap other benefits, like an improved employment brand and better media opportunities.
In other words, a little bit of effort can go a long way in the current market.
2. The market may be slow, but it hasn't stopped
The talent pool may be a little less competitive than it was 3 or 4 years ago, but there are still all kinds of roles and industries which are suffering from chronic talent shortages. Diverse talent pools are still the best 'untapped' source of talent for many of these hard-to-fill roles. Ignoring diversity recruiting strategies now will increase your time-to-hire, cost-per-hire and quality of hire in the next 12 months.
3. You're letting your competitors gain the advantage
When your competitors are tapping into the full talent pool - including diverse candidates - they're giving themselves the best opportunity to get the A-list candidates before you do.
What's more, your competitors are setting themselves up for long-term success: When the market improves (and it always does), they'll already be well-established in the diversity talent market, while you're still playing catch-up.
Don't think of diversity recruiting as a 'mandate' that you have to adhere to. Think of it as an opportunity to get ahead of the competition - and set yourself up for success in the long term.
Showing posts with label ROI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ROI. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Monday, March 7, 2011
Job boards and the problem of metrics
A well known technique of successful businesses is to constantly be collecting, measuring, analyzing and applying data and results. Metrics. They're great and I mean that. If you're not measuring some fundamentals about your business then how do you know what success actually looks like?
When it comes to job boards it's no different, the concept of using metrics to evaluate performance still applies, although over time what is being measured has in some cases changed. Originally it was only the number of applications that was counted and for some organizations this is still all that is measured. For other, highly metric focused organizations, this expanded to measuring number of "quality" or "qualified" candidates and some even further to encompassing "quality of hire". At the same time some organizations have gone the other way and are only counting the actual number of views per job as their job board measuring metric.
So who or what is right?
No doubt the idea behind measuring "quality of hire" is a good one but I don't fundamentally believe it's very fair because there are so many other, far more important factors that come into account. Let's look at the TalentOyster example. A company uses TalentOyster but discovers their rate of quality hires is less than they mainstream sourcing solution they already use. Is that difference really due to TalentOyster or something more? Is the culture of the organization actually diversity friendly? Is the organization actually making diversity hires in the first place? These are pretty vital factors that have nothing to do with the job board itself and yet are reflected in that metric.
Qualified applicants seems like a better measure, and it probably is in most cases although it still can be a victim of bias. And measuring all applications is simply too broad a number to be useful so what can you use?
I believe the answer, for multiple reasons is to use view as your only real job board measuring metric. I know, I know views are a measurement even more broad than applications, but really I believe the only metric that can be usefully measured. Really what job boards are about is advertising your employment brand and the kinds of jobs your organization has to the widest possible audience. The deeper your candidate pool is the more likely you will be able to hire the best candidates for your positions and so reaching the larges audience you can should be your goal. A job board isn't a replacement for your interview, resume screening and hiring processes; it's simply another medium for you expose your employment message on.
I think that's an important thing to keep in mind. Yes, we all want to measure ROI, but you don't measure the ROI of marketing or advertising campaigns on the basis of what happens today. It's about the brand knowledge and loyalty you build that will influence the customers decision process when it comes to making a purchase. Likewise with job boards you want to "plant the seeds" with prospective candidates, so that they think of what a career with your organization might be like, so that they think of you first when looking for something new and/or better or in the best case scenario so that working at your organization becomes internalized as a career ideal.
It turns out these ideas hold even truer for diversity groups, especially for some specific cultures. For example did you know that 1st and 2nd generation South Asians are 60% more likely to look at job boards at least once a week even when not actively looking for work? It's the kind of demographic that makes you rethink what the term passive candidate really means.
I am not saying don't use metrics. Obviously they help keep many companies on the success vector, but when it comes to job boards I do think you should be carefully evaluating what you are measuring and why.
Sourcing and hiring aren't about "quick fixes", they're about long term success strategies and they should be measured as such. How many more people know about your company as an employment brand and think positively about it? That's what you should be measuring when it comes to job boards. Even if it can be harder to measure than what you are currently it is after all a measurement that's more reflective of the longer term nature of your sourcing and hiring strategies.
When it comes to job boards it's no different, the concept of using metrics to evaluate performance still applies, although over time what is being measured has in some cases changed. Originally it was only the number of applications that was counted and for some organizations this is still all that is measured. For other, highly metric focused organizations, this expanded to measuring number of "quality" or "qualified" candidates and some even further to encompassing "quality of hire". At the same time some organizations have gone the other way and are only counting the actual number of views per job as their job board measuring metric.
So who or what is right?
No doubt the idea behind measuring "quality of hire" is a good one but I don't fundamentally believe it's very fair because there are so many other, far more important factors that come into account. Let's look at the TalentOyster example. A company uses TalentOyster but discovers their rate of quality hires is less than they mainstream sourcing solution they already use. Is that difference really due to TalentOyster or something more? Is the culture of the organization actually diversity friendly? Is the organization actually making diversity hires in the first place? These are pretty vital factors that have nothing to do with the job board itself and yet are reflected in that metric.
Qualified applicants seems like a better measure, and it probably is in most cases although it still can be a victim of bias. And measuring all applications is simply too broad a number to be useful so what can you use?
I believe the answer, for multiple reasons is to use view as your only real job board measuring metric. I know, I know views are a measurement even more broad than applications, but really I believe the only metric that can be usefully measured. Really what job boards are about is advertising your employment brand and the kinds of jobs your organization has to the widest possible audience. The deeper your candidate pool is the more likely you will be able to hire the best candidates for your positions and so reaching the larges audience you can should be your goal. A job board isn't a replacement for your interview, resume screening and hiring processes; it's simply another medium for you expose your employment message on.
I think that's an important thing to keep in mind. Yes, we all want to measure ROI, but you don't measure the ROI of marketing or advertising campaigns on the basis of what happens today. It's about the brand knowledge and loyalty you build that will influence the customers decision process when it comes to making a purchase. Likewise with job boards you want to "plant the seeds" with prospective candidates, so that they think of what a career with your organization might be like, so that they think of you first when looking for something new and/or better or in the best case scenario so that working at your organization becomes internalized as a career ideal.
It turns out these ideas hold even truer for diversity groups, especially for some specific cultures. For example did you know that 1st and 2nd generation South Asians are 60% more likely to look at job boards at least once a week even when not actively looking for work? It's the kind of demographic that makes you rethink what the term passive candidate really means.
I am not saying don't use metrics. Obviously they help keep many companies on the success vector, but when it comes to job boards I do think you should be carefully evaluating what you are measuring and why.
Sourcing and hiring aren't about "quick fixes", they're about long term success strategies and they should be measured as such. How many more people know about your company as an employment brand and think positively about it? That's what you should be measuring when it comes to job boards. Even if it can be harder to measure than what you are currently it is after all a measurement that's more reflective of the longer term nature of your sourcing and hiring strategies.
Friday, March 4, 2011
B2B, Pan Am Games and Diversity
This past week the 2015 Pan Am Games (to be held in Toronto) organizers announced that bidders for contracts for the games (from construction to concessions and everything in between) will be required to demonstrate that they will involve businesses and employees from traditionally under-represented ethnic communities. Read more about the story in the Globe and Mail here.
This isn't actually a new idea, although extending such a plan to all bidders is new. Following on the trend of such international events requiring bidders and contracts to be awarded with marks for environmental sustainability (such as those for the Vancouver Olympics) the trend of supporting "minorities" or other diverse groups is growing. The London Olympics has a diversity strategy when it comes to supply chain and now the next logical step is being taken by Toronto's Pan Am Games organizers.
But is this a good thing? Will the imposition of "quotas" on contract bidders actually support diversity or simply support less capable vendors/companies?
Ian Troop, CEO of the Toronto Pan Am Games made some comments addressing this which I found striking. He said,
Hey, that sounds kind of familiar to me! As I have said many times before, "You should only hire the best candidate. But make sure you are looking at everyone". I am glad to see I am not the only one who thinks this way.
Diversity strategies aren't about doing what is "right" or what is "politically correct", they are about doing what is actually best from a pure business standpoint. Quotas aren't about promoting inferior candidates or in the Pan Am Games example inferior companies, past their competency. Quotas or requirements are about making sure that diverse candidates or organizations aren't being cut out of the process due to inherent biases in it. If all contracts are awarded and hires are made simply on the basis of who has done it before, who is best connected with my network or who I feel I personally relate to the most, you will be leaving large groups of possible candidates and companies out in the cold. The result of that being that what you are ending up with right now is inferior to what you could have.
Companies who "get it" when it comes to diversity already know this. It's why they are committed to a diversity strategy that embraces the full process, from employment branding, to candidate sourcing, to hiring and onboarding. But this story is about an even more immediate reward for companies still on the fence, namely that by increasing the diversity of your organization you can win more business.
As someone as familiar with the sales process as I am I can tell you that any advantage you have over your competition when it comes to selling your company is a good thing. The inverse is also true; lacking an advantage a competitor has can put you at a severe disadvantage. The growing amount of RFPs and bidding outlines with diversity as an integral component of the process mean that if you don't have a diversity strategy for your organization you're being left behind.
This isn't actually a new idea, although extending such a plan to all bidders is new. Following on the trend of such international events requiring bidders and contracts to be awarded with marks for environmental sustainability (such as those for the Vancouver Olympics) the trend of supporting "minorities" or other diverse groups is growing. The London Olympics has a diversity strategy when it comes to supply chain and now the next logical step is being taken by Toronto's Pan Am Games organizers.
But is this a good thing? Will the imposition of "quotas" on contract bidders actually support diversity or simply support less capable vendors/companies?
Ian Troop, CEO of the Toronto Pan Am Games made some comments addressing this which I found striking. He said,
We’re not showing any favouritism to anybody. We’re saying to employers, "Recognize the reality of the marketplace and community we live in... This is a level playing field and a meritocracy. The cream will rise to the top."
Hey, that sounds kind of familiar to me! As I have said many times before, "You should only hire the best candidate. But make sure you are looking at everyone". I am glad to see I am not the only one who thinks this way.
Diversity strategies aren't about doing what is "right" or what is "politically correct", they are about doing what is actually best from a pure business standpoint. Quotas aren't about promoting inferior candidates or in the Pan Am Games example inferior companies, past their competency. Quotas or requirements are about making sure that diverse candidates or organizations aren't being cut out of the process due to inherent biases in it. If all contracts are awarded and hires are made simply on the basis of who has done it before, who is best connected with my network or who I feel I personally relate to the most, you will be leaving large groups of possible candidates and companies out in the cold. The result of that being that what you are ending up with right now is inferior to what you could have.
Companies who "get it" when it comes to diversity already know this. It's why they are committed to a diversity strategy that embraces the full process, from employment branding, to candidate sourcing, to hiring and onboarding. But this story is about an even more immediate reward for companies still on the fence, namely that by increasing the diversity of your organization you can win more business.
As someone as familiar with the sales process as I am I can tell you that any advantage you have over your competition when it comes to selling your company is a good thing. The inverse is also true; lacking an advantage a competitor has can put you at a severe disadvantage. The growing amount of RFPs and bidding outlines with diversity as an integral component of the process mean that if you don't have a diversity strategy for your organization you're being left behind.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Furthering the diversity business case
Yesterday the Globe and Mail ran a story titled Ethnic consumer the goal for new Loblaw president, that is interesting for multiple reasons. The article speaks to the issues, challenges and solutions that Loblaw, as a major retailer faces when it come to the "ethnic" or diversity market.
Loblaw is a TalentOyster employer and was recently named as one of Canada's best diversity employers and it is not a coincidence that a retail organization would be so interested in diversity. In what is perhaps most succinct business case for adding diversity at any level to any organization the article says:
That's a pretty stunning number when you stop and think about it. What are your sales growth projections for the next 10 years? Are you making efforts to reach a diverse audience? If not you can cut those projections right now by two-thirds and that's only if you're lucky! The fact is that diversity isn't just a "nice to have" any more for business, it's now a "must have to survive".
This is the other, I think, compelling reason for why your diversity employment strategy must be strong. (The first reason being actually hiring good candidates which sure does seem like the kind of thing a company looking to be successful would want to do...) A more diverse workforce gives you better access to more diverse markets.
Ironically it's many of the same causes that push diverse candidates aside; comfort with "hidden" cultural references, networks of like minded people and the trust that comes in doing business with "someone like me" that will keep your business from growing in diverse markets. If you don't have representatives from the communities you are trying to reach on your payroll how can you possibly expect to build the same level of branding, trust, communication and user experience with those communities? You simply can't.
"But, this is retail", you say "this won't actually my B2B based business".
Oh really?
Yes it is retail, but let's remember that when it comes to consumer trends, in retail you're either first or dead. In other words retail may be setting the trend but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be closely following. The fact is that the size of diverse markets are growing and as retail operations reflect that it will increase the expectations for everyone about what a company should "look like". A company with a diverse, integrated workforce is clearly, demonstrably reflective of it's interest and commitment to diversity.
Diverse companies are going to seek out and prefer other diverse companies, because they clearly share some core business priorities, values and strategies. You clearly don't want to be the non-diverse company in this landscape and if, as the article shows, major retailers are diving into the diversity space then you need to make sure you are or will be soon.
And that means a real diversity strategy. Not just slapping a picture of a new immigrant and a woman in wheelchair on your website. Not just printing up your brochures in Mandarin Chinese. A real strategy starts internally and it begins with your workforce.
Loblaw is a TalentOyster employer and was recently named as one of Canada's best diversity employers and it is not a coincidence that a retail organization would be so interested in diversity. In what is perhaps most succinct business case for adding diversity at any level to any organization the article says:
"About 70 per cent of spending growth in the next decade will come from visible minority groups, according [to] CIBC World Markets."
That's a pretty stunning number when you stop and think about it. What are your sales growth projections for the next 10 years? Are you making efforts to reach a diverse audience? If not you can cut those projections right now by two-thirds and that's only if you're lucky! The fact is that diversity isn't just a "nice to have" any more for business, it's now a "must have to survive".
This is the other, I think, compelling reason for why your diversity employment strategy must be strong. (The first reason being actually hiring good candidates which sure does seem like the kind of thing a company looking to be successful would want to do...) A more diverse workforce gives you better access to more diverse markets.
Ironically it's many of the same causes that push diverse candidates aside; comfort with "hidden" cultural references, networks of like minded people and the trust that comes in doing business with "someone like me" that will keep your business from growing in diverse markets. If you don't have representatives from the communities you are trying to reach on your payroll how can you possibly expect to build the same level of branding, trust, communication and user experience with those communities? You simply can't.
"But, this is retail", you say "this won't actually my B2B based business".
Oh really?
Yes it is retail, but let's remember that when it comes to consumer trends, in retail you're either first or dead. In other words retail may be setting the trend but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be closely following. The fact is that the size of diverse markets are growing and as retail operations reflect that it will increase the expectations for everyone about what a company should "look like". A company with a diverse, integrated workforce is clearly, demonstrably reflective of it's interest and commitment to diversity.
Diverse companies are going to seek out and prefer other diverse companies, because they clearly share some core business priorities, values and strategies. You clearly don't want to be the non-diverse company in this landscape and if, as the article shows, major retailers are diving into the diversity space then you need to make sure you are or will be soon.
And that means a real diversity strategy. Not just slapping a picture of a new immigrant and a woman in wheelchair on your website. Not just printing up your brochures in Mandarin Chinese. A real strategy starts internally and it begins with your workforce.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)