Busy of late but a few updates

John and I haven't been doing as much blogging as of late, mainly because this has been a very busy spring (and early summer) for both of us. I know John has a new post he's been working on coming later this week but I thought I would share a few of the updates, features and changes we've been working on the last while since really the TalentOyster from January is already quite different from the TalentOyster of today.

Improved Usability

Over the past few months we've rolled out a number of usability updates for our job-seekers and especially our employers. Better paging of previously posted jobs, a simpler step-by-step wizard for resume searching are just a couple of the improvements we made for our employer users. Based on feedback these features are now easier to navigate and use by normal users than previously.

New Employers

We've added a number of really great, enterprise level employers from across Canada in the last few months including Trillium Health Center, the CBC, Georgian College and most recently Accenture.

TalentOyster Network

Along with the existing EpochJobs.ca (Chinese) white-label site, March saw the launch of our Spanish white label Correo Jobs. We are currently finishing development on two other white labels, one which will launch later this week, and another two are starting development soon. All in all, by the start of the fall we expect the TalentOyster white-label to make up at least 5 different sites and that's not including the sites and organizations who are using OCEAN, the TalentOyster API we launched in March. The TalentOyster Network is already Canada's largest, in real traffic terms, employment focused, network of diverse online diverse properties in Canada and we see continued growth on the horizon.

Addressing a diverse audience – clear communication is key

My colleagues and I often get asked if we have any quick and easy tips for getting more views and higher conversion rates for job posts delivered to a diverse candidate base. To a certain degree there isn't a magic answer that will increase candidate flow just like turning on a tap.

Real success, we know only happens as part of a long term, organic, process. Increasing the SEO visibility of your profile and your opportunities, developing an awareness of your employment brand and getting industry related recognition about your organization (especially in amongst target groups) are all keys to the performance of your posts. Successful sourcing strategies are a bit of a numbers game and the more traffic you have, the more qualified applicants you will also have, regardless of conversion rate.

Having said all that though there are some commonalities to success that improve your posts SEO and improve conversions to posts no matter how many views you are getting. The key here for diverse audiences is, funnily enough, the same as it is for non-diverse audiences. Communicate clearly.

Far too often I see job titles that contain nothing but acronyms and short forms. There is a time and place for SMS style language but the title of a job post isn't one of them. A point made worse when company culture specific acronyms or terminology is used. And these sorts of things don't show up only in the titles of job posts but in the job description detail as well.

For a traditional “mainstream” candidate audience using company specific terms and/or SMS shorthand can be at the least off-putting but imagine how discouraging it can be for diverse groups who are more likely to be able to interpret the language and meaning of such posts.

At the end of the day the job posts are advertisements, just like the B2C or B2B advertisements your organization already uses. The concept of employment branding is real, better candidates will be attracted by a better employment brand. For all the employment branding activity you may do nothing will have as much impact as the “front-line” advertising you do, it’s your first point of contact with the target audience and first impressions are lasting ones. That's why clearly written job posts are so very important.

A job title and description that are well, as in clearly, written are easy to understand and will attract more candidates. They are also a better reflection on your organization as an employment brand and that's the kind of value that will pay off when candidates are more invested in you as a potential employer, giving your opportunities a longer, better look and more likely to share your opportunities with their own network.

The personal touch and employee engagement

During my conversations with companies across Canada I have noticed that there is a commonality in diversity programs that work and it is a personal touch. It should really come as no big surprise that an effective diversity program goes beyond making a few diversity hires and some niceties in the employee handbook but makes sure there is real, personal engagement with all employees that focuses on that employees specific area of needs.

All companies want high levels of employee engagement, but such engagement is a two way street. Your employees will feel passionate about the success of your business when they feel that your business is equally passionate about them. And there's simply no better way to communicate that to employees than to communicate with them in a personal way.

So that's all nice but what exactly does that mean?

Well the execution specifics can vary but one of the diversity related programs that seems to have the greatest success are internships and mentoring programs.

I think these programs work so well for a number of reasons. For starters the program experience is founded on a one-on-one relationship and that's a good ratio to ensure that the intern or mentee feels that their success is important to the organization as a whole.

Even more though I think that one of the most valuable experiences these programs leave with their participants is being able to see first hand what success looks like. Too often starting in an organization, outside of a sales role, means working in a area where opportunities to move up are limited, or the gap between your work and bottom line success is hard to bridge. These sorts of disconnects can make it difficult for all new employees but the problem is compounded for new employees from diverse backgrounds who may feel even less like they fit in to the success of your company and its future.

When any employee, but especially a diverse one, gets first hand experience of what hard work and real engagement can bring they are far more likely to remain passionate about the organization.

And again none of this should really be rocket science but if you find yourself wondering why your diversity initiative isn't working remember it's time tested programs like mentoring that really do make the difference. Having good intentions is all well and good but having a personal touch with new employee engagement is what stands out most about companies who are successful with diversity.

LinkedIn : The future of recruiting?

There isn't much doubt that LinkedIn represents a very new and powerful way of using the web for sourcing and recruiting talent. It's the first popularly successful example of connecting social networking to business for recruiting purposes and certainly it represents a sea change in how organizations view and invest in their recruiting function.

But exactly how big of a change is it?

I have heard it suggested that LinkedIn is a death knell for the job board industry. That would of course be a significant change (as well as bad news for me) but is it true?

I don't think so.

Let's first remember that employment advertising and branding, just like all advertising and branding is designed to influence decision making at purchase time. That's a process that starts well in advance of the purchase and effective advertising seeks to get messaging about product top of mind with the purchaser so that at the correct time they are more likely to consider and/or buy your specific product.

When it comes to employment advertising the goals are the same. Yes, of course posted opportunities will get applicants who are currently looking for work and just happen to see your job and apply, but there is also a process of enticing passive candidates and top talent for your business that goes beyond the number of applicants for a position.

Top talent, when looking for work is going to start by identifying the companies and positions that they want to work for. The criteria by which specific organizations will depend on the individual but in the case of diversity specifically may include questions such as the inclusiveness of the organization, opportunities for career advancement and ... You want your organization to be included in this short list of potential employers and the only way to do that is through employment branding and advertising.

Job boards allow you extensive and non-replaceable opportunities for employment advertising in several ways including the amount of exposure available. This isn't just traffic we are talking about here but very targeted traffic of people who are either actively looking for employment or at least considering a new role. The brand message on a job board and subsequent SEO are undiluted by your B2C or B2B brand messages which is key to making sure your employment brand is being seen by the target audience at a time that they are open and receptive to it.

But can't I do the same thing on LinkedIn? Surely their audience is my target and receptive to my employment branding?

Yes but like any advertising you can't just throw up an ad in one place and call it a day. You don't limit your B2C advertising to TV or print or online or billboards, instead you choose as many options as you can so that your message is seen by the largest number of your target audience as possible. In the same way that I will tell you that because TalentOyster as a diversity niche job board (with a niche audience) means that you should be using mainstream sourcing boards (like Monster) as well as and not instead of TalentOyster the same applies for job boards vs. social networking recruiting tools like LinkedIn.

If tomorrow you took all your jobs off Monster and posted them all on LinkedIn instead would you see an impact?

There would be a short-term impact, although the exact drop-off in applications would vary based on your industry and overall brand but the more significant impact would be in the longer term (6 months or more). As time went on I believe you would experience a serious drop in applicants fro top talent coupled with a lack of interest in your positions from passive candidates. Being absent from job boards means you would no longer be top of mind for candidates when it comes to planning where they want to work.

There's also the matter of who exactly is on LinkedIn. Is it a "mainstream" social network representing the non-diverse audience? It certainly seems that way. As we already know making sure that your message is being seen by everyone requires a sourcing strategy that looks beyond the mainstream.

Don't get me wrong, LinkedIn is an excellent tool for your recruiting and sourcing "toolbox". But at the end of the day it is a tool, not a one-stop solution for all of your online recruiting needs.

What does diversity mean to you?

Seems like a simple question doesn't it? But I think the answer can tell a lot about where an organization is on the diversity scale.

It starts with the "big four" groups inherited from the legal/equity perspective, visible minorities, aboriginal, women and persons with disabilities but in most cases diversity in a company means more than that. Other groups that are often part of it may include new immigrants, LGBT and older workers. But there are even more than that.

I recently came across a definition of diversity that included occupation types! The general idea is that when we talk about “uniting in diversity” we need to be including all the different groups that make up our organization, including groups that are not obvious at first glance. And when you think about it, the concept of inclusion does mean that different business function areas in your company should be working together just as different ages, races or genders are inside each one.

So is diversity really just another word for teamwork?

Someone once said that diversity isn't about the differences between us but about the uniqueness we all share. Isn't that also a good definition of good teamwork?

Successful teamwork takes the unique skills and strengths of individual members and uses them to achieve shared objectives that wouldn't otherwise be reachable on their own. I think you can say the same for successful diversity workforce initiatives. As an organization we source from a number of alternate sources, tapping unique skills and experience in order to best achieve the goal of hiring the best possible candidate.

I have said it before and I'll say it again, diversity isn't about accommodation or promoting the inferior, it's about the best talent you can find. The only way you can have the best talent is if you can find and hire it, and you can't do that unless you are looking at everyone. So I guess you might say that for me, diversity, in the employment sense is as simple as this, "look at everyone". I'm not sure it needs to be any more complicated really.

The Chicken and the Egg

Last week I was doing some catch up reading on some back issues of HR Reporter when an article caught my eye and almost immediately it caused me to ask myself a question that I have been pondering since. The article was on the link between a good business culture and real business success. It reported that companies who were perceived, by outsiders to have the best culture were the most successful in Canada.

My question though was which of those come first? The article was at the very least trying to imply that culture comes first, that creating a positive, business culture is one of the things that leads to success. I think there is something to that but in reality I'm not sure that you can breed a positive culture without having success first.

We'd all like to think that while the culture of a business could be separated from the level of success, or lack thereof, that a business has, the reality is it cannot. When times are good employees are going to reflect this and so will the general business atmosphere and culture meanwhile when times are bad the inverse is equally true. Everybody would prefer to work for a “winner” and nobody wants to work in an environment where they are worried about the future, the viability of the company and their job security.

At the same time though it's important to recognize that cultures are not fixed forever. If your business is going through a downturn you are not “doomed” to a downward spiral of negative environment producing poor results. Every business will have its ups and downs and businesses do adapt and change all the time.

Now applying this to the diversity space, how does a company become diverse? Do you start by adding diverse candidates or do you need to incorporate diversity into your business culture first?

No real question here that you need diverse candidates, without making hires that reflect your commitment to diversity your plans are hollow but... if your business culture doesn't embrace diversity will top diverse talents stay with your organization?

Which all leads to the question of how you are supposed to incorporate diversity into a culture if you don't have any (or much) diversity yet. As my colleague John wrote earlier in the week organizations that are successful with diversity know that both a top-down and bottom-up strategy is needed and I think the same applies here. If you want a diverse culture you need to bring in diverse candidates of course, but you can't overlook making sure your culture reflects the diversity of where you really want to go.

Bottom up or top down?

Last week I was interested to read about a bit of a commotion in Germany regarding women in the workplace. It seems that women only make up 3.2% of the members of executive or advisory boards of Germany's top 200 companies. That's a bad number, what makes it even worse, and what the stories last week were about, is that it's a problem that German business has been trying to address for ten years.

Back in 2001 German companies introduced voluntary targets to raise the representation of women in executive or advisory roles. Chancellor Angela Merkel described the effect of these voluntary targets as "modest results" and said that more needs to be done. But really, if 3.2% represents "improvement" when a demographic number would suggest more in the range of 50% the situation really is quite bad.

An outcome of this is that the German Minister of Labour has threatened to impose mandatory quotas that businesses would have to achieve. The numbers being talked about are 30% by 2018, which would be a significant change. As expected, the threat to impose mandatory quotas is not without controversy of course, with companies who would be affected complaining about the possible interference in running strong businesses. In the end the government stated that businesses have 2 more years (till 2013) to triple the number of women in executive roles or the government would force business to address the issue.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, tripling the number in three years sounds very aggressive until you consider that's still only about 9.5%. It's also interesting to note the excuses and reasons given by these companies. As per usual they claim the results of their strategy simply aren't paying off yet, that they are integrating women into their corporate culture and promotion structure but it takes time to see the results of this at the very top.

No question, bottom up strategies have the largest potential benefit for all those involved. Companies get employees who are invested in the process and are well acclimated with the culture, needs and strategies of the business. But does it actually work?

Historically the conclusion would have to be no. Implementing diversity strategies with only a bottom-up approach seems to time and again to fail and there are good reasons for this.

In the German example we can see one of the reasons why, it takes so long to see results that it's difficult to know if it's working... or not. Now common sense would say that with only 3% it almost certainly is not working, but the businesses make the case that it's impossibly to tell yet and apparently in this case the government agrees that that might be true. True or not the point of difficulty in measuring success in intermediate terms is a problem here and when the success of a strategy is measured in decade cycles that's a real issue.

A second problem, but one I believe just as bad if not worse is that bottom-up strategies don't shock the culture into the change that is needed in order to make the strategy a success. When diverse employees (women or otherwise) look up the corporate ladder and only see white males in the top roles what sort of message do you think that sends to them? How motivational do you think that is? What kind of trust in your diversity strategy will employees who see this have?

Right about as much as you think. And the problem of leadership not reflecting your diversity goals extends to more than just if diverse employees believe you, it's also about the vision and direction of your organization as a whole. Executives in leadership roles are, well, leaders. A company can't really have an inclusive vision without inclusivity in its visionaries.

Don't get me wrong, as I said earlier bottom-up strategies do have long term benefits for companies, investing in top talent will in the long haul bring results. But a bottom-up strategy when it comes to making a company more diverse just doesn't work, on it's own. It's not a question of bottom-up or top-down, but recognizing that to have an effective strategy when it comes to diversity, you need a little bit of both.