Transparency, Diversity and your Employment Brand

Last week Paul Dodd from Head2Head (a TalentOyster partner) made a thoughtful blog post about trends in employment branding and one of them in particular stood out to me and got me thinking. It was when Paul talked about the need for transparency in a successful employment brand and here is what he had to say on the subject.

"Employment brands are all about trust and credibility, so it's important to be authentic, honest, and transparent. It's okay if you aren't perfect - but pretending you're perfect, or something that you're not, is a good way to turn off potential employees. "

It's good advice but it never is as true as it is when it comes to how you embrace diversity. Good candidates, the ones you want to hire, can tell the difference between a truthful employment brand and one that in the case of diversity is simply about tokenism.

I talked before about how sometimes you need quotas in order to increase the diversity in an organization but if you want your organization to move past tokenism and have an actually diverse workforce quotas aren't enough. Being transparent with your employment brand on where you are now as well as the future you'd like to see can help with this.

Good candidates aren't going to be fooled by a message that says it's about diversity when the organization obviously isn't. By being honest about where you are now you make the candidates believe in the sincerity of your diversity strategy and more likely to join your organization.

After all, in the end good candidates are what it's all about. The diversity advantage we all talk about only comes about when you're actually able to attract all candidates including the best ones.

That means being transparent about your workforce strategy just as you are about any other aspect of your employment brand.

What a Jeopardy Playing Computer means for the Future of Sourcing and Hiring

If you haven't already heard last night a computer program called "Watson" started a three night run as a contestant on Jeopardy. A "thinking" computer that takes just seconds to understand questions and come up with correct responses on a wide variety of topics, does this mean your sourcing department could be replaced by computers sometime in the near future?

The results of the show so far have been mixed but as a software developer myself what is more interesting than how well or poorly the computer does is the demonstration to the general public of the gap between human thought and the "thinking" a computer does. For the computer it's not having access to information that is the problem, it is understanding the question that is the challenge.

It's a problem space that anyone associated with computers and programming is well aware of and it manifests itself in many ways including, the focus of this blog, searching and sourcing candidates for specific roles. It's why in spite of the many promises made of "magic bullet" software solutions that can take over your screening and sourcing these systems have not, and if the amount of computing power behind Watson is any indication, can not deliver.

We all know that while there are many benefits to a large database of candidates in an applicant tracking system it can also be a drawback when it comes to actually identifying the best candidates for specific roles. From a computer science perspective it's a challenge, be able to understand and quantify what a resume says, be able to understand and quantify what kind of candidate you are looking for and then matching the two together.

From the perspective of a user trying to search the system it's an excercise in frustration as we have to spend a lot of time being specific with what we are looking for while still getting mixed results. Mixed meaning that we either aren't finding all the candidates who might be suitable or we are finding too many candidates who aren't actually helpful to our needs. "Innovations" like "boolean searches" (which as an aside aren't really that innovative since they've always been a part of underlying database theory), have helped but there is still a lot of work required on your part to get actually usable search results.

So back to the headline does Watson mean that your ATS will soon be getting smarter then ever? Just drop in a job description and find the actually three best candidates in your system? No need for manual resume screening anymore?

Well. No.

If you have been following along you'll note that Watson took years of effort from multiple people, incredible amounts of hardware, is focused on one specific problem "domain" (aka playing jeopardy) and still is far from perfect. All of which would tend to show that the "holy grail" of fully automating the sourcing and screening process is still quite some time away.

It also seems worth mentioning at this point that all of even this relies solely on hard, quantifiable skills and experience. The realm of the job interview with it's appraisal of soft skills and analysis of how well (or not) a candidate will actually fit in to a role and organization isn't looking replacable for a very long time if ever.

At any rate it would seem that despite the advancements in AI that Watson represents the practical applications for it are still some time away and limited, at least to start, to certain types of problems. This technology or not it is still going to be very difficult for a computer to read and more importantly "understand" exactly what a job description or candidate CV says.

In many ways it's a reminder of how the valuations and assessments of people's skill sets, that we to a degree find easy, really are quite complex. Speaking from a diversity hiring angle it throws a light on the sort of hidden complexity we see all the time. We often talk about the need to make sure you are looking at everyone and it is exactly this sort of hidden complexity where subjective descisions, the kind that make you blind to some candidates, lie.

Some food for thought anyway.

Want to Hire? Focus on Fundamentals

The goal for any diversity recruitment initiative should be, of course, to actually hire more diverse people but it's not always easy to get there. Especially at a time when the internet has become such an everyday occurrence for everyone. It's not just diversity recruitment that has this issue but any recruiting, sourcing and hiring.

Why?

Well, as many companies have discovered the "real-time" nature of, and the creation of huge "social" networks through, the internet mean that among other factors, brand is more important than ever before. Employment branding has existed for a long time, but in a world where there are brand interactions happening in real time in front of an audience (hello Twitter) and literally millions of people can share opinions and experiences about an organization (hello Facebook) the importance of positive brand interaction with audiences has just exploded.

The increasing importance of employer branding, arguably even greater for niche sourcing like diversity, is why I am pleased that we have started working closely with Tamm Communications, an innovative leader in the field, to develop truly comprehensive offerings around diversity employment. We'll be talking more about this at the HRPA conference next week.

So that's all very good but I hear you saying "I need to find more/better candidates!" and "How do I leverage the Twitter/LinkedIn candidate cloud with my organizational employment culture!". Well maybe you don't entirely say the last one (hopefully nobody does really) but often times people come really close. Yes, you should be on Twitter, and yes your employment culture is important but it's not the place to start. I am huge fan of innovation and being on the cutting edge of whatever technology, ideas or systems there are. My interest in innovation is for example the reason why TalentOyster sends alerts about new jobs via SMS text alerts to candidates. Innovation is cool, but for many organizations it's a few steps ahead of where they need to be.

For many years, in high school and university, I played (and later coached) football. Football can be a complicated game, especially at the professional level you will see many intricacies in strategy and plays, but more than anything football is a team game.

I learned early and often that you can have the greatest play on paper but if your quarterback has bad footwork, if your linemen don't block, if your receivers don't run precise routes or if your back doesn't hold on to the ball none of it will matter. These are all fundamental parts of success for the various positions on a football team and if you don't have them you just cannot win.

I have been in the job board and recruiting industries for long enough to see that even though we all want to be cool and progressive sometimes there needs to be more of a focus on fundamentals here too.

So what are some of the fundamentals I am referring to exactly? Well for job posts they include things like:

• Have good job titles on your job posts. If every job was really the world's most exciting then coming up with alluring job post titles would be easy but of course life is not so easy. But you can at least make sure that your job titles are meaningful. Too often I will see job post titles like "Lvl 3 Clerk" or "Ast Mgr RG 2". What do those even mean?!? The basic question you should ask yourself if composing a job title is this, will anyone outside of our organization know what this means? If the honest answer is no then it's time to re-write it. People aren't going to even look at your opportunity if they can't decipher its title.


• Include as much detail as possible in your post. Saying your job is in "Toronto" or "Vancouver" doesn't really tell a potential candidate much. Imagine a candidate looking for a job that is accessible by public transit, what can you say about the location of the job for that candidate?


• Detail is good, too much boilerplate is bad. Often in a well intentioned but poorly executed effort to extol the benefits of working for an organization a company will include several paragraphs describing the company and why a candidate would want to work there. Now don't get me wrong, as I said the intention is good but there is a line between doing this well and appearing to be insincere as well as losing candidate interest. If you have an opening paragraph about your organization, and maybe even close with another one or two that's fine, but if every job in your organization from senior to junior starts with the same 5 paragraphs of "We're the best company EVER!" it has lost all meaning and impact. In fact our testing shows that when presented with these types of ads candidates are less likely to read the entire description and far less likely to apply for the position.

So having said all that I will say that there isn't one magic answer for how anyone's job posts should be structured. Varieties based on industry, type of job and just what works for your organization are certainly going to exist. My point today is that sometimes we can all get caught up in the "hype" of the latest recruiting or sourcing trend and we forget that this too is a "team" game. If you're looking for more and better candidates to hire before you ramp up the social networking and technical widget brigade maybe just take a moment to make sure that you have put enough focus on your fundamentals first.

Don't just talk "Diversity" - Do Something

If you happen to live in the GTA then you already know and see how visible minorities represent more and more of the population (you can almost call them visible majorities now) If you happen to sell a consumer product then I am certain your marketing department is already figuring out how to sell to diverse groups. That's good but what about hiring them?

You may be thinking it's time to look at hiring more of the diverse people that you see around every day. But how do you get started?

The secret in this process is going to be that you need to actually do something.

Okay, I know, that's not exactly Zen but you are going to need to take action. Many of the companies I see and speak to every day tell me they think diversity is a great idea but are either not ready or unsure of how to take the necessary steps to move forward. It's time to stop talking about what a great idea diversity is and actually experience it.

In the very near future your workforce is going to get more diverse, like it or not. Prepared or not. If you continue to source talent for your organization like you always have – you are putting yourself in a competitive disadvantage. You need to source talent in new and different ways using sourcing tools that are tapping into the growing pool of talent that is coming into the country at the rate of about 250,000 people every year. It's Canada's Hidden Talent Pool.

So keeping that in mind, when it comes to diversity you should already be connecting with this talent pool, and if you're not you need to get started now. An overall diversity strategy for your business will of course pay the most benefits and be the most successful but don't let the enormity sink you before you start. Set a small, reachable, goal for increasing the diversity of your workforce this year and get actioning on it. I know that every company with diversity strategies, even (or perhaps especially those) with successful ones have had learning experiences along the way. You should expect to encounter issues you hadn't thought of and you can expect to find opportunities that you hadn't previously discovered either.

Diversity in an organization isn't a switch that anyone can simply turn on (or off) but if you don't get the ball moving on your diversity strategy when exactly will you? So stop just talking about diversity and thinking that it's a "good idea", it's time to start actioning on it.

The Disingenuity of our Government on Immigration

I believe that the future of Canada is in immigration. And not just some sort of namby-pamby utopian future vision, but the reality of just sustaining our economy and the standard of living we currently enjoy in this country. One only has to look across the ocean at the continuing economic meltdown in Europe to see the price countries pay for not continuing to develop and expand their economies.

Even in Canada we are already seeing major problems in some industries and areas. Have you tried to find a GP in Ontario recently?

The reality in Canada is that soon, without a real increase in immigration we will have some real economic problems. So it's more than a bit disheartening when on top of the roadblocks thrown up in front of immigrants when they arrive in Canada (and find that their skills and experience are worth far less than they are told before coming) our Federal government seems to be doing all it can to discourage immigrants from coming.

The most recent example is the story of funding cuts to settlement agencies in Ontario and British Columbia that broke just days before Christmas. (A bit of background here, settlement agencies are organizations that help newcomers adjust to life in Canada. They provide help in a variety of areas including: finding places to live, language and skills assessments and training, how to enter the Canadian job market.)

Now let me state clearly, I know that there are areas in which some settlement agencies could surely be more efficient and there is likely to be a good case that there are too many smaller agencies that would better serve their constituents if they were almagamated into larger organizations.

So, especially with the current, somewhat fragile state of the economy the idea of some cuts to funding and budgets for any group, including settlement agencies is not without merit. Sadly this sort of thinking wasn't the major reason put forward by CIC for the funding cuts and several elements of the way it has been handled in whole are at the very least eyebrow-raising. The most disturbing parts of the story are:

1. Lack of notification and dialogue - The agencies who did have their funding cut and/or dropped were informed by letter. There was no opportunity for discussion of what sorts of cuts would be needed for budget purposes, nor any discussion about what the needs "on the ground" actually are. There have been some vague claims by CIC that choices were made based on "number of clients served" but the actual objectives measured is not clear. It's frankly just arrogant to make choices of this nature without meaningful consultation with the groups and organizations who are actually on the front lines providing services.
2. The PR Spin Nonsense - The main excuse peddled for the cuts by Minister is that Ontario receives less immigrants than it used to so this money is being redistributed. There are multiple problems with statements like this but the primary one being that, everyone, including the Minister would be fully aware that (outside of Quebec) the place that immigrants settle is not necessarily the place that they first arrive. Newcomers are going to migrate to where the jobs and opportunities actually are in the country and not where the government might like them to be.
3. The Timing - There is a reason that these cuts were made in mid to late December and it isn't because CIC wanted to be known as the grinch who stole Christmas. The reason that these cuts were made when they were made is that late December is a good time to bury bad news. It's the one time of year when for many people it's hard to feel much outrage about any topic because we think of our friends, families, good times in the past and to come. Newspapers are filled with stories about kindness and generosity and there simply isn't much stomach for discussion of policies and serious plans. The fact is that if this story had broken in June you could expect to hear about it all summer but being that it was end of December it's almost dead and buried already.
4. The Follow Up - There has been little follow up from the CIC on any of this. Is this money going to be re-allocated as was implied by the Minister or is this just a straight cut? And if it will be re-allocated will it be to something sensible, like settlement agencies in other places or something irrational like more weapons for our borders to "protect" us from starving refugees? In what can only be described as sadly typical the only follow up from CIC thus far was a ham-handed attempt to stifle any further discussion of the cuts. This later turned out to be a "mistake" but either way doesn't really offer much hope when it comes to meaningful dialogue.

Again, I am not averse to budget cuts anywhere, including services for new immigrants even though I personally believe that these are pretty vital. But there is a big difference between that and an agenda of destroying settlement agencies and given the lack of honesty, and the heavy PR spin and timing used here it's hard to understand what other possible agenda there could be. Our government should be consulting and working with these agencies to help remove the obstacles from the paths of new immigrants. Our government should be open with its plan for sustaining the economy of this country either with or without more immigration.

It's really hard to see what the plan is here, or believe that the government is actually interested in any discussion of their plans or ideas or that they think there is any value in the experiences of those actually working with immigrants with these moves. I personally hope that the CIC takes some lessons from this episode and tries to be more proactive in engagement with those in the front lines although I'm sort of doubtful that will happen. But this behaviour is just short-sighted when it comes to the future of this country, and it's a little shameful as well.

Some (sort of) good news

With the holiday season approaching quickly I've been looking for a "good" topic to blog about. With various economists making wildly varying predictions for Canada's growth in 2011 and the ongoing problems in Europe it's been hard but a story in yesterday's Globe and Mail caught my eye.

The story in question reports that according to Statistics Canada Women's income has been growing faster than men's in Canada since 2000. The story goes on to report that between 2000 and 2008 average income for women rose 13% versus 7% for men which is a good thing. There is still though a wide gap in average incomes between men and women that see women make 71 cents for every dollar men make.

So while there is still a gap and thus room for improvement it's good to see that the gap in pay equity is shrinking. But it reminds me of a question I sometimes get on what TalentOyster can do for companies looking to shrink their own gender pay gap and the answer to that is truthfully not much.

Certainly we can help drive female candidates to your roles but addressing diversity related issues generally, and gender ones specifically in any organization starts with changing the culture of your organization. I previously wrote on how the compensation gap starts with the negotiation and hiring process and it's still a good example of where "everyday" biases, the kind of which we are not always aware of, contribute to the equity gap.

I often talk about the need to "make sure you are looking at everyone" but part of that means to be looking at everyone fairly. Do all the processes regarding hiring, compensation and career advancement at your organization really treat people equitably? Sometimes it's hard to recognize, mainly because a process "works" and has been in place for a long time that it's not actually fair. That the process "works" better for people who fit a certain image or in this case gender. I believe that a process that "works" but isn't looking at everyone makes for a process that actually doesn't work very well at all. When diversity in an organization works it works because it is an essential part of the organizations culture, not just a box we ticked off to make us feel better.

Stories like the one in the Globe show us that we are all making some progress and that is good, but they also show us we have a ways to go. As we approach a new year it would be my wish to see the progress continue so that the same story in December 2020 reports on how the pay equity gap in Canada has been closed. I don't know if that makes me too idealistic or not, but I think we can get there and I hope we will.

Networking: The Diversity Disadvantage

A question I have been asked, from the time of my Monster years through the present at TalentOyster is "Do job boards really work?" and my answer has always been "yes". Okay, I know, no earth-shattering surprise but there is more to it.

Yes I know that job boards do work, but I'll also be the first to tell you that no single job board, or single talent source in general is the best answer to all of your hiring needs.

If you use just once source, be it a mainstream job board, recruiting agencies, networking or the classic ads in newspapers you can probably still fill all your roles but... with the looming talent crisis that's unlikely to stay true. Moreover talent shortage or not, using one source is a guarantee that you aren't filling your roles with the best available talent. Of course you do want your organization to have the best people so that means you need a holistic approach to hiring and that means drawing from multiple sources for your talent.

So in short, yes you should be using job boards both mainstream (like Monster) and niche (like TalentOyster) but you should also be using networking and recruiting agencies and other means you can to get a strong flow of candidates to your careers. This idea leads to the next question which is "When is enough, enough?", in other words if your organization is already using two candidate sources have you done enough?

This question is more difficult to answer then a simple yes or no response because it depends on a combination of what methods you are using and the candidate audience you are trying to attract. Specifically if you want to draw applications from diverse candidates you need a niche diversity job board like TalentOyster.

Why?

I often talk about how the diverse audience is often missed by mainstream media. For example for the majority of first and second generation Canadians the main, trusted new source is not a mainstream one but one specific to their own culture. It's not just newcomers though. A similar tenet holds true for other diversity groups like aboriginals, persons with disabilities and LGBTQ. I think we also tend to forget that being outside the "mainstream" isn't just limited to a person's source of news but extends to the network of friends and colleagues they may have. That seems a simple and somewhat obvious point but the implications for the hiring cycle are huge. It means that there is a candidate pool that not only isn't part of the traditional mainstream in hearing about and applying for jobs but is also "outside" the traditional networking circle.

I actually think that you can make a strong case that being outside of mainstream networking circles is the biggest disadvantage that diverse candidates face. You use job boards to advertise your roles and the benefits of employment with your company but the reality we are all aware of is that the candidates most likely to be hired are those who have been networked in. Being that that is the case what does that say for the chances of someone, no matter how qualified or experienced they may be, in finding a suitable role if they simply aren't connected to the same network that you are in?

To return to the question posed earlier, "when is enough, enough?" what this means is that if you are really interested in hiring diverse candidates, if you realize that the future of your company depends on it, you need a comprehensive, holistic hiring strategy. Knowing that Canada's diverse pool of hidden talent isn't just hidden on or by mainstream job boards but also by personal networking and recruiting agencies connected to them means that your strategy must also include a niche diversity job board. Enough is a combination of mainstream job boards, niche ones, recruiting agencies and networking in the balance that works for you.

Only by understanding why and how you make your hiring strategy complete will you be able to not only fill your roles, but also know that you are filling them with the best possible candidates.