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.
Monday, March 7, 2011
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.
Friday, February 18, 2011
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.
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.
"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.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, January 28, 2011
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:
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)