A couple of weeks ago a study was released that revealed some shocking statistics on the potential for new immigrants to Canada and their descendents. In short what the study showed was that in spite of higher than average education levels, income and employment were both below average for second generation Canadians. That is Canadians, born, raised and educated in Canada but who are the sons and daughters of immigrants.
The difficulty of many immigrants in finding meaningful employment is well documented and is usually ascribed to such factors as language issues, difficulty in getting international education credentials recognized or just unfamiliarity with Canadian business culture. The darker and generally unspoken factors are items like ignorance or even outright bigotry and racism. We all want to believe that the latter is not true, that the first reasons, which are all somewhat pragmatic are the reasons immigrants struggle. The results of this study fairly clearly demonstrate that sadly this is not the real case.
We have long believed that building awareness of cultural barriers, the barriers that prevent true inclusiveness is a keystone to a successful diverse workforce strategy. This is in part because the recruiting and sourcing functions of any organization have far more cultural bias inherent in them and far more subjectivity in general then most of us want to ever acknowledge.
I've spoken before on the resume analogy but it remains a good one and so I'll recap it here. If you are a recruiter or screener and there is a position to fill, urgently as of course it almost always is, and you need to pull 10 resumes out of a stack of 100 which resumes and candidates end up being selected? Now we all know that those 100 aren't going to be great, not qualified, lacking experience or just a poorly written resume are all items that can, do and should put us off selecting a candidate. So for example let's say that reduces the list from 100 to 50, how do the final 10 make the cut from those? We can hope that it's for objective reasons but human experience, and the evidence shows that the process is highly subjective and relies foremost on the feeling of connection that you as the screener have for the person whose resume you are holding and cultural affinity, or the perception thereof plays a huge role in that.
The fact that this takes place should really in the end not be surprising, and to some degree at least the screeners and recruiters are not to blame. The process itself is to blame with an emphasis on metrics that do not encourage the treating of all candidates equally and the lack of recognition of the role that subjective analysis plays in the filling of roles. And lest you come away with the impression that it's only the screening process that's broken, it is not, each step in recruitment, candidate selection and hiring has these similar types of flaws, it just happens to be perhaps most blatant at the screening step.
So what can be done about this? I think three things.
Generate awareness. Diversity sensitivity training isn't just a nice thing to do, it really can have practical benefits. While affinity biases won't be eradicated over night sometimes just being aware of an issue, being aware of how an unknown bias is affecting their judgement can help people to re-evaluate some of their decisions in future.
Fix the process. A lot of time and money is spent by companies to metricize and evaluate their hiring and HR processes. It certainly can be said that fully objectifying the hiring process is one of the holy grails of the recruiting and HR worlds. Whether, practically speaking this can actually be accomplished is a matter of some debate but all the same it's worth noting that improvements to the process are going to help diverse candidates, perhaps more than anyone.
Diversify your recruiting, sourcing and HR teams. It almost shouldn't have to be said but one way to eliminate cultural bias towards any group is to include members of that group in the process making the decisions. Fixing the process and raising awareness are both good and noble ideas but can take time to implement and generate results. Making your “front line” hiring and HR functions more diverse will pay immediate dividends in removing these biases and prejudices from you process.
Let's always remember that a moral right or wrong isn't the reason to do any of this. We should feel a moral obligation to do something about the unfairness with a situation like that suggested by the study but that is not the reason to fix it. The reason that you must address the inequality is that until you do you simply aren't hiring all the best candidates. Because until the point that you are sure that you are actually looking at everyone you just won't know what you're missing.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Stop using the economy as an excuse
It seems that organizations fall into three main groups on the workforce diversity spectrum. Some see the value and are truly committed, a tiny minority just don't care at all and then there's the majority of companies who fall somewhere in between these two categories.
It is hard to know sometimes where individual members of this middle group actually sit even though I engage with many of them on a fairly regular basis in my role as a diversity evangelizer. Almost all of these organizations do have one common attribute, they claim that diversity is important to them. They do see the value. They do care. But...
It's always a but.
One of the reasons I hear right now goes something like "*mumble* recession *mumble* hiring-freeze *mumble* global economic credit issues". On the face of it this seems like a reasonable excuse but here's the reality, Canada is not the U.S! The Canadian economy is not in the same shambles as our neighbours to the south and in fact some areas of Canada continue to experience labour shortages. Second we all know that for enterprise size organizations a "hiring freeze" is only a concept and not a reality. No enterprise level organization goes two years without hiring anybody. Even if hiring for expansion is curtailed, there will still be critical existing roles that will open up and require filling during that time.
More than any of that though is the fact that any excuse is, well, an excuse and it is telling of where your priorities with diversity really are. If your diversity strategy is a plan that is thrown away at the first excuse it's just not much of a strategy at all.
This is the fundamental reason that the organizations that have success with diversity are the ones doing "it" right now. Because the companies who are doing it now are the ones whose strategy is founded on real commitment and that's reflected in their employment brand and the types of candidates available to them. Remember that at the end of the day your employment brand isn't a nice-looking poster or a hilarious viral video but a reflection of the way your organization actually deals with its employees.
Just think about it. If you were a diverse candidate would you want to work for a company that was known for its commitment to diversity? Or the company that had a reputation for being fickle on the issue?
So the next time you find yourself putting off your diversity initiatives because of the economy or any other reason really, ask yourself the questions above. Just know that a diverse candidate is going to answer them in the exact same way that you would.
It is hard to know sometimes where individual members of this middle group actually sit even though I engage with many of them on a fairly regular basis in my role as a diversity evangelizer. Almost all of these organizations do have one common attribute, they claim that diversity is important to them. They do see the value. They do care. But...
It's always a but.
One of the reasons I hear right now goes something like "*mumble* recession *mumble* hiring-freeze *mumble* global economic credit issues". On the face of it this seems like a reasonable excuse but here's the reality, Canada is not the U.S! The Canadian economy is not in the same shambles as our neighbours to the south and in fact some areas of Canada continue to experience labour shortages. Second we all know that for enterprise size organizations a "hiring freeze" is only a concept and not a reality. No enterprise level organization goes two years without hiring anybody. Even if hiring for expansion is curtailed, there will still be critical existing roles that will open up and require filling during that time.
More than any of that though is the fact that any excuse is, well, an excuse and it is telling of where your priorities with diversity really are. If your diversity strategy is a plan that is thrown away at the first excuse it's just not much of a strategy at all.
This is the fundamental reason that the organizations that have success with diversity are the ones doing "it" right now. Because the companies who are doing it now are the ones whose strategy is founded on real commitment and that's reflected in their employment brand and the types of candidates available to them. Remember that at the end of the day your employment brand isn't a nice-looking poster or a hilarious viral video but a reflection of the way your organization actually deals with its employees.
Just think about it. If you were a diverse candidate would you want to work for a company that was known for its commitment to diversity? Or the company that had a reputation for being fickle on the issue?
So the next time you find yourself putting off your diversity initiatives because of the economy or any other reason really, ask yourself the questions above. Just know that a diverse candidate is going to answer them in the exact same way that you would.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Diversity and Pride
Back in May an interesting diversity in the workplace story broke and quickly slipped beneath the waves but it's relevant to pride week and so I thought I'd share my thoughts on it now.
The story was about Rick Welts, the CEO of the Phoenix Suns, a professional basketball team playing in the NBA who "came out" as gay in an interview with the New York Times.
It's an interesting story for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that, as is well known, and as I have personally experienced, team sports at a high competitive or professional level are environments have historically been quite hostile to LGBT persons both individually and collectively. Mr. Welts was quoted in the story saying that "This is one of the last industries where the subject is off limits. Nobody’s comfortable in engaging in a conversation.", and I think that's pretty true. So from simply the aspect of breaking down a barrier it's a pretty significant moment.
But I think there's a more significant aspect to this story then the sports angle and that's the executive angle.
One of the discussions I often have with employers around diversity is on the importance of mentoring programs and there's a good reason for this. You can give your current employees diversity training, you can make sure you are looking at including different groups in your sourcing strategy but if your diverse employees, whatever their affinity group, don't feel that there are roles and a place for them in your company you're simply not getting all that you could be from your diversity strategy.
Now the ideal is of course close mentorships or internships but both of those can require a major investment of time that you simply might not have. That's okay. Even providing example role models for candidates can be helpful. Having diverse individuals at every level of your organization sends a clear message to candidates and employees alike, "there is a place here for you". We're not talking about tokenism here, having two diverse VPs but no diverse people in middle management fools nobody, but when your organizational structure is inclusive all the way through it can inspire and motivate your diverse candidates and employees.
Now having said all that, how does LGBT fit into it? I had an interesting discussion a few months ago with Brent Chamberlain, Executive Director of Pride At Work Canada who made me more aware of how strong some of the stereotypes surrounding LGBT and work can be. For example, there are many young gay men who actually feel that careers as hairdressers, in fashion or as graphic designers are all the opportunities that are open to them. And while any of those careers can be fine it's sad if you think that on the basis of your sexuality you're restricted to them. So in this line one of the programs that Pride at Work talks about is, just like it is for other diversity affinity groups, mentoring. Letting affinity group members know that every opportunity is open to them is an important step.
So back to the story, I think that more than the sports part of it (which I think could be valuable as well), there is the part of being a CEO that I suspect may have more of an impact. The fact Mr. Welts is a CEO of a sports team is no doubt why the story was even covered but the fact he is a CEO may provide inspiration, hope and widening of potential opportunities for young LGBT people no matter what industry they are in.
Or so I would hope.
It's hard to say, or measure, the impact of stories like this on groups as a whole. Is it as impactful as someone working in the same organization as the diverse, or in this case LGBT, candidate? Almost certainly not. But I think it can have some positive impact and that's a start and in this case a good reminder of how far we have come and how far there is in fact to go when we all celebrate the pride events of this week.
The story was about Rick Welts, the CEO of the Phoenix Suns, a professional basketball team playing in the NBA who "came out" as gay in an interview with the New York Times.
It's an interesting story for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that, as is well known, and as I have personally experienced, team sports at a high competitive or professional level are environments have historically been quite hostile to LGBT persons both individually and collectively. Mr. Welts was quoted in the story saying that "This is one of the last industries where the subject is off limits. Nobody’s comfortable in engaging in a conversation.", and I think that's pretty true. So from simply the aspect of breaking down a barrier it's a pretty significant moment.
But I think there's a more significant aspect to this story then the sports angle and that's the executive angle.
One of the discussions I often have with employers around diversity is on the importance of mentoring programs and there's a good reason for this. You can give your current employees diversity training, you can make sure you are looking at including different groups in your sourcing strategy but if your diverse employees, whatever their affinity group, don't feel that there are roles and a place for them in your company you're simply not getting all that you could be from your diversity strategy.
Now the ideal is of course close mentorships or internships but both of those can require a major investment of time that you simply might not have. That's okay. Even providing example role models for candidates can be helpful. Having diverse individuals at every level of your organization sends a clear message to candidates and employees alike, "there is a place here for you". We're not talking about tokenism here, having two diverse VPs but no diverse people in middle management fools nobody, but when your organizational structure is inclusive all the way through it can inspire and motivate your diverse candidates and employees.
Now having said all that, how does LGBT fit into it? I had an interesting discussion a few months ago with Brent Chamberlain, Executive Director of Pride At Work Canada who made me more aware of how strong some of the stereotypes surrounding LGBT and work can be. For example, there are many young gay men who actually feel that careers as hairdressers, in fashion or as graphic designers are all the opportunities that are open to them. And while any of those careers can be fine it's sad if you think that on the basis of your sexuality you're restricted to them. So in this line one of the programs that Pride at Work talks about is, just like it is for other diversity affinity groups, mentoring. Letting affinity group members know that every opportunity is open to them is an important step.
So back to the story, I think that more than the sports part of it (which I think could be valuable as well), there is the part of being a CEO that I suspect may have more of an impact. The fact Mr. Welts is a CEO of a sports team is no doubt why the story was even covered but the fact he is a CEO may provide inspiration, hope and widening of potential opportunities for young LGBT people no matter what industry they are in.
Or so I would hope.
It's hard to say, or measure, the impact of stories like this on groups as a whole. Is it as impactful as someone working in the same organization as the diverse, or in this case LGBT, candidate? Almost certainly not. But I think it can have some positive impact and that's a start and in this case a good reminder of how far we have come and how far there is in fact to go when we all celebrate the pride events of this week.
Monday, June 27, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, April 29, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)