HR data and analytics drives profits but at what cost?

By Neil Patrick

HR analytics can punish your employees, but you won’t worry about that if you want to win.

In his 1976 book, 'Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment To Calculation', author Joseph Weizenbaum laid out the case that while artificial intelligence may be possible, we should never allow computers to make important decisions, because computers will always lack human qualities such as compassion and wisdom. Weizenbaum made a crucial distinction between deciding and choosing. Deciding is a computational activity, something that can ultimately be programmed. But it is the capacity to choose that ultimately makes us human. Choice, however, is the product of judgement, not calculation.

Stephen Hawking went even further when he said,  "...the development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race. Once humans develop artificial intelligence, it will take off on its own and redesign itself at an ever-increasing rate. Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn't compete and would be superseded."

I cannot say if this distopian vision will or will not ever manifest. But it is plain to anyone that we are racing down this path with scarcely any care. We are already seeing the first applications of big data and AI based workforce decision and management systems. HR leaders like it because it promises to solve several of their most longstanding and vexing problems.

HR has been fed up forever about not being taken seriously. HR big data and analytics promises to be their saviour. It suggests that HR can transition from being perceived (wrongly in my view) as fluffy and utilitarian to having a proper seat at the leadership table, because like its rivals in finance, sales and marketing, it can now deploy hard ‘scientific’ data to back up its proposals.

It also promises a happier, more engaged workforce. One in which every twist and turn of employee sentiment can be quantified and responded to. If the data says people are feeling worse about something, HR can know this quickly and help rectify the problem.

I wish this were true. But I fear the opposite. That’s because every technological advance includes the option of being deployed for good or evil.

What HR may not like so much is that HR data delivers an extremely useful tool for business leaders to push and punish people. It’s a deal with the devil, in which HR’s quest for happy, engaged workers, risks being hi-jacked by the rest of the business to brutally force up productivity and drive down cost.

Incidentally, my argument skims over the very real practical questions around HR data and its inherent unreliability as Marcia LaReau has convincingly described here in her post, ‘To a Hammer, Everything is a Nail’.

Business has some critical problems today. Growth and profitability are chief amongst these. And countless studies show there is little correlation between hard profit and employee satisfaction. Sure there are plenty of examples of firms growing successfully who also invest in their people. But when we look at the most established large firms who are making the most money, most care much less about their people.

This is actually a very simple economic truth to understand. In an open competitive market, whoever gets the most work done for the lowest cost, wins. And if that means some people suffer, then so be it.

Every employee survey I have ever seen identifies that a person’s manager is the single greatest determinant of job satisfaction. It’s not pay, it’s not perks, it’s not flexible hours. It’s the person who manages you. If they are inspiring, caring, transparent, supportive, their staff will enjoy their work.

But here’s the problem. Managers that display these qualities are becoming an endangered species. Because their bosses usually don’t care very much about strategic HR. They do care about smashing their immediate revenue and profit targets. HR gets people hired for them, sorts out people issues and keeps them out of court. Everything else is fluff.

It’s that simple. Good leadership (not data) delivers happy and productive teams.

But we also know that good leadership is a frustratingly elusive and expensive resource to acquire and maintain. One accidental bad hire of a psychopathic manager and the whole of an organisation’s carefully nurtured culture can be demolished in a few months.

So if good leadership is expensive and scarce, but data is cheap and plentiful, the choice becomes a no-brainer.

What is becoming visible now is that there are firms who take HR data very seriously. And what we can also see is just how punishing and dehumanising the application of HR data can be in practice. To verify this, all we need to do is examine the firms where HR data is most developed and embedded in the day to day operations of the organisation.

And right now, probably the most advanced organisation in this field is Amazon. In January 2019, Amazon became the world’s third most valuable company by market capitalisation, after Apple and Microsoft.




Yet in some US states, nearly one in three Amazon workers are on food stamps. For Amazon, this is even better than paying people almost nothing. It is the transference of part of Amazon’s wage bill to the taxpayer.

In Amazon warehouses, every second of people’s work is measured and evaluated. They may walk over twenty miles on a day’s shift. Their productivity is tracked and ranked against their peers, with whoever is at the bottom of the table likely facing disciplinary actions and threats. A toilet break can cost you your job if it exceeds a tightly prescribed time allowance. Many describe it as a daily hell, which they endure only because they have few other options.

Welcome to the brave new world of HR big data. It’s being corrupted from the get-go. And if you’re an HR leader, be careful what you wish for.

AI in recruiting really means ‘abdicated intelligence’

By Neil Patrick

What is advocated and marketed as technology-enabled recruitment processes increases the difficulty in finding and retaining great people. The best people are made not found. We don't need to get better at ranking people by increasingly tightly defined data points, we need to take ownership of our responsibility (and self-interest) to find good people and make them great. 

Artificial intelligence is the big topic in almost every professional field right now. From drones in farming to robot surgeons, the overriding narrative is about the tasks which AI will enable us to perform better, faster and cheaper.

HR and recruitment are no different. The application of AI is spreading like wildfire as new tools are developed which expand the range of tasks that AI performs to assist recruitment management processes.

Until now, it was relatively simple to integrate the digital world with our own professional world. Have a LinkedIn profile which is properly constructed. Expand our professional networking onto one or two social media platforms. Write some commentaries or blog posts. By these means, anyone checking us out could easily discover our credentials.

Some people understandably chose not to participate or did so in the most cursory way possible. They had no wish to participate in the online race. They had fears about privacy. They didn’t understand how social media worked. They had better things to do with their time. All these were legitimate grounds to not participate. But not anymore because…

This is now all set to change

The next wave of AI and big data is going to transform the processes of hiring way beyond anything we’ve seen to date. Traditional recruitment is a gruelling, complex process for employers and recruiters alike. Recruitment teams have to be heavily incentivised to commit to the heavy workloads involved. And this costs money. A lot of money. But AI will streamline and speed up these processes. It will be able to identify suitable candidates in a few seconds. It will message the chosen few and chatbots will perform initial screenings. Candidate selection decisions will be made on the basis of data and scoring algorithms rather than fallible human interactions. Very little human intervention will be needed.

Recruitment costs will fall even more. Hiring efficiency and speed will increase. Hiring choices will be validated and justified by the ‘scientific’ methods involved.

At least that is the vision. The reality is more worrying.

Why it’s flawed

Data is not science. The principal predictors of job performance cannot be discovered by algorithms. The first attempts to automate the selection process created a bigger mess than before. Online job boards and applicant tracking systems (ATS) drove application numbers sky-high and candidate quality tumbled. But acquiring 500 applications cost around $50. Using a professional head hunter costs about $30-$40,000 per hire for professional vacancies. These economics ensured that automated recruitment processes took hold and continue to grow in usage.

Nick Corcodilos explains in this video why the application of data driven metrics to recruitment ensures that employers miss many of the best candidates for any given role:





I agree with everything Nick says here. This process is flawed. It cannot find the best people because the available data points cannot determine that they will perform well on the job. And because quite a few of the very best people choose not to present themselves online in their professional capacity. Yet for all its weaknesses, automated recruitment is only going to expand because the cost differential is so compelling.

In a strong and growing economy, organisations can invest in quality processes. In an economy which is uncertain and faltering, when profits and growth are elusive, focus inevitably shifts to cost reductions. Cost trumps quality in such times.

Your career is at risk if you choose not to participate

It seems logical to me that the current and anticipated applications of technology and artificial intelligence in recruiting will continue to erode the quality of hiring decisions made. This may deliver short term cost gains, but will push up long term costs as turnover rises and employee performance falls.

Yet this is not my greatest worry. My fear is that the relentless advance of this technology will create a new underclass of smart, educated and capable people who have chosen for legitimate reasons not to present themselves online. These people will become completely invisible to the data capture bots. And that invisibility will slowly but surely eat away at their employment opportunities.

There’s not a ‘talent shortage’, there’s a leadership vacuum

 
For organisations, the deployment of recruitment AI encourages organisations to abdicate their responsibility to create and nurture their own human talent pool. This creates a downward spiral of ever increasing data point discrimination reinforcing the mythology of what employers disingenuously call their ‘talent shortage’.

And if the belief in the pseudo-scientific reliability of these systems persists within management, we will see the abdication of leadership’s responsibility for taking good people and helping them become great. Instead, the tools will be adjusted to cure perceived shortcomings, when the real shortcomings are rooted in the mistaken faith in progress through technology.

Artificial intelligence is well named. Because it’s not real intelligence…

PS. My good friend Marcia LaReau at Forward Motion Careers has a great post here about what jobseekers can do to avoid becoming a victim of this situation. 

Don't fear hiring the 'wrong' person; fear not making good people great

By Neil Patrick

Fear is the new greed. And catching a dose of it is more life threatening to more people than any terrorist or viral epidemic.

Tomorrow’s UK referendum about staying in or leaving the EU has been dominating the media now for what seems like forever. Watching media interviews with the public on this topic reminded me of an old truth - many people fear change and the unknown more than anything else. Most people will stick with a terrible spouse, a toxic employer and a collapsing career rather than face up to the unknown. Their default is to stick with what they know, even to the point of it harming them.

Banks know this human failing well and even have a name for it and make a great deal of money from it. They call it customer inertia. It's what stops customers switching to another bank even when they are really unhappy about their current one.

And this fear is becoming the norm for organisational behaviours too. Risk management has become a profession which has expanded its death grip from sensible steps to mitigate calamity to an all-pervasive mind set which hampers any organisation seeking to do the sorts of things they aspire to yet often fail to successfully implement. Risk avoidance has become a surrogate for good practice.

Things like becoming agile. Being flexible and responsive. Being customer centric. The reason these management buzzwords cause me to retch every time I hear them, isn’t because they are unworthy aspirations, it’s because so few people who espouse them actually practice them, or have even figured out a way to make them a reality instead of a pipedream.

And nowhere is this commitment to mediocrity more prevalent than in the decisions around hiring people. The whole sorry process has (not unlike the EU) taken on a life of its own. It has grown from a sensible desire to avoid hiring totally unsuitable people for jobs, into an over-rigid and over-specified set of requirements which mean hardly anyone can meet such demanding criteria.

This is why so many vacancies remain unfilled. It's why employers claim they cannot find the people they seek. HR and hiring managers are so terrified that they might make a bad decision that they make no decision. So the post remains unfilled often for months, because no-one suitable can be found (allegedly). In the meantime, the organisation limps on, other employees carry extra burdens, and the whole environment becomes more toxic, more pressured and less productive.

Yet these thousands of person shaped holes are not because no-one can be found. It’s because the specifications and requirements are so extensive that almost no-one could meet them. In my career I have interviewed and hired hundreds of people and watched their careers develop. The thing I learned from this was that an average person can outperform a superstar every time if they are provided with a good environment. Put a superstar in a poor environment and the reverse happens.

And the responsibility for creating a good environment is down to employers not employees. Some employers know this and work hard at it. Too many abdicate responsibility and pass the buck for their failures to their employees.

Employers want good people. But good people are made not bought. And if your organisation is capable of turning good people onto superstars, you’ll not only have a more loyal and productive workforce, you’ll enjoy the benefits of people staying with you longer and critically, acquire the capability of attracting more good people more easily.

It’s time for organisations to stop talking about talent acquisition and start practicing talent manufacturing.

12 ways to make a recruiter love or loathe you

By Neil Patrick and Axel Kőster

I usually write this blog from the perspective of job seekers. And I often criticise employers and recruiters, but also give praise when I think it is merited. Sadly the former group is much larger than the latter.

So I was pleased recently to receive a very honest and heartfelt email from my good friend Axel Koster, the General Manager of the Manhattan Group, a major global recruitment firm based in Melbourne, Australia. In case you don’t know Axel, he is a specialist in recruiting employees for the global hotel industry. From chefs to general managers and CEOs and everything in between.

But Axel isn’t an average recruiter. For a start he has over 660,000 followers on Twitter. He’s taken the use of social media for recruitment to a level that no-one else has in his industry. This level of exposure places him in the top 10 most influential people online in Australia. That’s no mean feat considering there are at least two members of the Minogue family in that list too!

Axel Koster GM of the Manhattan Group

So today we are going to turn the lens around and look at things from a recruiter’s perspective. For job seekers, understanding how recruiters think and FEEL is critical to understanding why they do what they do. It’s called empathy. If you can empathise with someone rather than simply judge them, you are in a much better position to influence them.

And surely having influence over a recruiter is much better than simply resenting them if you don’t get the outcome you seek?

Of course no amount of empathy is suddenly going to turn you into a must hire candidate. No recruiter on earth is going to drop everything to ensure you get hired.

But when you read what follows from Axel, you’ll discover the amazing amount of nonsense, unprofessionalism, rudeness, lying, laziness and unreasonable expectations from job seekers which he experiences day in day out, 24/7.

And you will also discover how not to shoot yourself in the foot when dealing not just with Axel, but in my opinion ANY recruiter.

Simply by avoiding these obvious and sometimes not so obvious mistakes, you will ensure you get at least fair treatment by recruiters and possibly even get them to come a little more onto your side…

Remember empathy begets empathy!

And if nothing else, Axel’s comments will reveal the truly crazy expectations that some jobseekers have.

Here’s what Axel has to say:



I’ve thought long and hard about expressing my views about recruitment, candidate search and follow through and so here it is at last…note that I speak purely for myself & not the industry as a whole.

I feel terrible some days (and I do really mean that) because I just do not get the time to respond to all mails and messages sent to me via direct mail, Skype, SMS, LinkedIn, Twitter , phone and Message bank to name just a few.

Believe it or not, I'm on the job seven days a week, working long hours and always with my phone next to me. So even over dinner, or using public transport or relaxing at home or any other location, I spend my time reading messages and answering as many as I can - time is unfortunately a commodity in itself and I simply just don't have enough.

A few years ago, we established some custom built recruitment programs for our clients and in general we work mostly on retainers. Moreover, our clients actually pay us up front - and in full. We are often trusted with the most attractive jobs on the market and we enjoy a close relationship with many senior managers. These people are not just our clients but often they become our applicants as well. It is not unusual for other recruiters to ask us to share their candidates; however we never do.

9 out of 10 times we receive a clear profile of the candidate requirements. This usually consists of regional experience, a specific skill set, preferred nationalities, time lines and employer names and sometimes sex and age. In Australia, it would of course be illegal discrimination to reject applicants on age or gender etc., but many other countries have different laws, preferences and practices.

But let's face it, only one person can secure the position. Only one individual will be appointed; so from let's say 100 applicants (sometimes many more), 99 will be disappointed. The very best applicants make it quite clear why they should get the position. They explain to us WHY they are the IDEAL candidate.

Our shortlist usually incorporates a maximum of 3 people, sometimes more. If they are all turned down by our clients, then we try our utmost to find out the reasons why, so we can communicate this back to the applicant. You can be assured if we introduce you to our client, that you are matching the client’s profile. And yes we argue (we call it a discussion!) with our clients too. I do understand and respect that careers are vital for families and lives and I will go the extra mile to assist you on your journey. Many candidates of mine have over the years stayed in close contact and have become friends.

I have no time for nonsense and those people who know me understand that I hold honesty and integrity very close to my heart as this is how I was brought up.

Here are the top twelve things that candidates do which antagonize, dismay, alienate, annoy and frustrate me. Some are obvious, but I am sure some will astonish you that they happen at all!

 
1. I am not your servant: Someone sends me an invite on LinkedIn and as soon as we have connected, I receive a message – “I need a job!” (every new LinkedIn connection of mine receives a response mail very clearly stating how to approach us, even my email address is stated, and where to find open positions – do not tell me to ‘check your profile’! 

 
2. I am not responsible for your life: Don't write me letters telling me that your future or your life is in my hands as I do not own you; it’s ridiculous. It is time for many to take responsibility for their own career and choices and stop blaming others for their misfortune.

3. I am not here to do your work for you: Asking us to check your profile as you don’t have the time to apply correctly ...(I match suitable candidates for positions who are actually applying). 

4. Don’t expect me to put you forward without a resume: Applying back to me through my regular alerts but not being able to attach a resume (I clearly state on my mail that I'm working out of the office and therefore need a resume with all applications). 

5. I execute my clients’ wishes, not yours: Some people DEMAND to be forwarded to a client! (Actually you are not paying me....it is the client who pays me to find the right candidate.) 

6. Do not hide behind alleged confidentiality: Sending resumes where the last position is confidential or a cover letter masking gaps or whatever by claiming your work was confidential...if your work is confidential then please just don't apply - if you work for the CIA, better stay there. Believe me I have better things to do than to tell the world that you are looking for a new job. 

7. I am not able to provide everyone with free coaching: I do many sessions offering free advice, correct resume set up, career mentoring, etc. for people I have met but please don't demand this service from me, especially if I have never even spoken to you before! 

8. Don’t expect me to provide you with my clients’ contact information: I will never provide my clients’ and connections’ names, email addresses or telephone numbers as I work with complete confidentiality in all my placements. 

 
9. Don’t think you can jump the queue: Asking me just to set up an interview with company A or B and ‘you will do the rest’...(it never works this way and just shows me your arrogance and naivety).

10. Don’t lie: Don’t mail false resumes or place false profiles on LinkedIn ...(missing jobs, incorrect employer names, time frames wrong or false titles)...remember, if this happens I will never deal with you again and thanks to our comprehensive database you will definitely be red flagged...like the “owner representative” in Cambodia or the “general manager” in the Maldives. The list goes on...caught and never forgotten. 

11. Treat me as you would wish to be treated: Writing a personal letter to me and you can't even get my name right or you address me as Dear HR manager or Accor , or Interconti etc ...(And you are supposed to be so proud of your attention to detail?!!!) 

12. Don’t try to bribe me: Offering me money or other inducements if I manage to place you…(Once again, we charge our clients and NOT our applicants).

I hope the suggestions above are helpful. I know that in today’s jobs market, it can be hard to find the right job at the right time. But if you understand me and my life, then you will also understand how the system works and how not to sabotage your own endeavours to find a job. We may not like the ‘rules’, but the system works the way it does and none of us can change that. Trying to cheat or trick the system is a surefire way to lose.

To try and be as helpful as I can, I have set up several online resources designed to help jobseekers in the hotel industry find their next job more easily. If that’s you, you’ll be welcome to join and engage with us on our two LinkedIn Groups:

Upcoming Hoteliers & Careers Group http://ow.ly/4nlEm4 (designed for all levels in hospitality)

Hoteliers & Careers Network http://ow.ly/4mPZB7 (Department Head onward including owners, CEO's, VP's etc)

Why are so many job descriptions cut and paste catastrophes?

By Neil Patrick

As employers increasingly complain about the poor quality of job applicants and trouble finding the skills they seek, the implication is that it’s not their fault.

Despite lots of searching and advertising, they just cannot secure the quality of talent and skills they aspire to; they are deluged with low quality applications.

Maybe, just maybe, they should look at their own actions first?

The advertised job description determines who applies. So why when I look at so many job vacancies are they cut and paste catastrophes?

Here’s a post for the position of Senior Marketing Manager I pulled at random today from Linkedin along with my own commentary in italics (with a few key points removed to protect the guilty):

Key Duties & Responsibilities: 

• Work closely with ******* to identify and promote new opportunities 
• Work with the web marketing team to develop effective, distributable marketing assets (tools, banners, emails) 
• Assist affiliate team to identify potential partners willing to host content 
• Write all required copy including: emails, product copy, press releases and social copy 
• Update existing material 
• Work with the design team to produce newsletters and mailings 

Senior Marketing Manager? A Senior Marketing Manager is more erm, senior than a simple Marketing Manager. Whilst they are not the principal owner of the marketing strategy (that of course is the remit of the Marketing Director) I would expect to see at least some mention of the word ‘strategy’ in this JD.

What about leadership? Nope. This is a hands-on, get the work done role. The only action verb here beyond the hands-on stuff is “Assist affiliate team…”

The reality is that this position is mainly about content production – writing copy, a bit of design work, and developing media distribution channels.

It’s not a Senior Marketing Manager position. It’s not even a Marketing Manager role. It’s a junior marketing  job.

Desired Skills and Experience

Essential

• Degree (or relevant experience) 
• Excellent computer competency 
• A versatile portfolio showing experience with a range of clients 
• At least 3 year’s copywriting experience 
• Strong problem‐solving skills 
• Excellent written communication skills 
• Ability to effectively manage own workload and perform under pressure 
• Quick to learn and adapt to new challenges 
• Highly organised and reliable 

My diagnosis is borne out by this section. The only job specific essential requirement is 3 years copy-writing experience. The rest is more or less generic (I'm being polite - it's a cut and paste isn't it?). So with 3 years copy-writing experience do you suddenly have the necessary skills to be a Senior Marketing Manager? I'm sorry to disappoint the person that is hired for this job, but you've not become a Senior Marketing Manager...

Okay. So let’s look at the requirements that an absolutely great candidate will also possess:

Desired 

• Marketing based degree 
• Knowledge of (our) products and services 
• Understanding of affiliate platforms and tracking 
• Experience of measuring the success of your writing and PR (for example through Google Analytics, A/B testing and campaign metrics) is extremely desirable 

Studied Marketing at university? Great. Tick that box. Unfortunately if you did that and then spent the next 3 years writing copy, the stuff you studied at university was probably written no later than about 2008 – when Twitter was just one year old and still in its infancy. See my point? The speed of marketing communications development is so fast today that even if you graduated as recently as 2010, most of what you studied has already been overtaken by subsequent media and marketing developments.

I’d expect a Senior Marketing Manager candidate to have experience of things like:

• Acquiring and disseminating customer, competitor and market insights 
• Product/service development and positioning 
• Promotional strategy development and implementation
• Experience of managing specialist external suppliers 

Nothing even remotely resembling this appears anywhere in this job description.

Nowhere in this JD is anything mentioned about goals and outcomes. Things like growing market share, enhancing product/service quality, monitoring and helping respond to competitor and market movements. A Senior Marketing Manager should be tasked with delivering marketing accomplishments. So an applicant that has a stellar record of such achievements won’t necessarily even get considered for this job.

A Senior Marketing Manager spends their time making their employer more competitive, more attractive to its customers, more profitable. Not writing copy and pushing it out to anyone who’ll take it.

I'm pretty confident that this vacancy will attract plenty of under-qualified applicants and very few great ones, simply because the best candidates will be entirely uninspired by the job description.

No salary or benefits information is given for this role. If this had been present, then at least the true nature of the job and whom it would suit would be clearer than the inflated job title infers. And it would demonstrate that the firm was being transparent about what was on offer.

Instead readers are just left with a sneaky feeling that the pay package will be disappointing or at best subject to fierce negotiation.

I’m left with the distinct impression that this firm’s ideas about marketing are all mixed up…and that their HR people probably need to skill up too…

Am I being fair, or is this just a unwarranted rant?

Recruiters – don’t be a fail on social media – take the eight-point test

By Neil Patrick

A lot of recruiters follow me on Twitter. Over 500 at the last count.

And I follow them all back. I’m always interested to see what they are tweeting about. And I am hugely grateful to the select few who share my content with their followers. Thank you all!

Some recruiters really ‘get’ social media. Many more do not. So I thought I’d run through what I see as the biggest failures by recruiters that I see on social media.

The first give away of a recruiter failing on social media is nothing but endless tweets about job vacancies they are seeking to fill. Tweet after tweet after tweet with links to job postings. And not much else. Sharing your vacancies on social media is fine as part of your activity. But only part. If you are doing this and this only, you are never going to see much return on your investment in social.

Fair enough, it’s your business, and you are free to run it as you see fit. But this approach fails on so many levels and I think it’s a tragically wasted opportunity.

Here’s my list of the eight points I see most often where I think recruiters are getting it wrong.

You don’t have a social media strategy

I’m not saying that no recruitment firms have a social media strategy, but I am certain many do not. And I am certain because there is no evidence of one in most cases. And here’s my evidence that’s there’s no erm…evidence (!): 

You only have a small following

This is such a fundamental point, it’s amazing to me. But many recruiters I encounter on Twitter have less than 1,000 followers. This is such a tiny pool that it makes a nonsense of advertising your vacancies via Twitter. Let’s say you are a recruiter in the IT field. It should be your prime mission to find and connect with thousands of IT professionals. They are your audience and your revenue stream. Moreover, they also know lots of other IT professionals, so if they see your tweet and know someone who might be a great fit, they are in a position to make them aware of it.

Except this won’t happen because: 

You don’t share other people’s tweets

Social media isn’t a free version of broadcast media. It’s an interactive medium and building goodwill is an essential pre-requisite to having others like you enough to be willing to even consider sharing your content.

One retweet or comment doesn’t constitute the basis of a relationship either. Just as relationships mature slowly over time in the real world, so the same applies to the social media world.

You don’t create a sense of community

A recruiter depends for their livelihood on knowing everyone in a given field and geographic area. Or they should. And social media makes this easier than ever before. Social media allows you to build relationships with people even when you and they are really busy. So you don’t even need to meet or speak to be aware of each other. What’s more powerful, a business card at the bottom of a dusty drawer, or a living breathing relationship with a potential future candidate? 

You don’t engage or participate in discussions

With a few notable exceptions such as my friend @AxelKoster (who has over 500k Twitter followers), recruiters generally never contribute to discussions outside of the recruitment community. Big mistake. Especially when this is arguably a more powerful profile building strategy than simply making endless connections on Twitter and Linkedin.

Providing a recruiter’s viewpoint on job and carer topics is so underutilised typically, that the opportunity to steal a lead on your competitors is just there for the taking… 

You don’t make your tweets worth sharing

When I look at my own tweets, one of the things I see is that my tweets without links generally get shared the most. These are tweets when I try to provide a snippet of insight in less than 140 characters. It’s not the easiest thing in the world to do, but clearly people like the immediacy and simplicity of something which can be consumed in 5 seconds or less. And they share them. A lot. It’s not unusual for these tweets to be retweeted 30 times or more. And this attracts a lot more followers.

The life of a tweet is just a few minutes. Then it’s gone. More or less for ever. I don’t expect anyone to be so interested in my tweets that they visit my profile and scroll through my tweets. It’s not going to happen. Tweeting a job vacancy a few times to a few hundred followers will likely never get seen by anyone who is interested. Period. 

You give the job of social media management to the most junior person in the office

How I tire of the tweets I get from the office junior or worse an outsourcer in the Philippines! Whilst I genuinely appreciate the courtesy of any acknowledgment of an RT, ‘Thx!’ is so cursory, it’s almost a let-down. Office interns may have grown up using texting as their default MO for digital communication, but this is business and in the business world, what we say and how we say it determines how others perceive us. If you own a recruitment firm, do you really want to be perceived as a business junior? Because that’s what’ll happen if the intern is left in charge.

Worse, if your social media is being executed as a routine task like answering the phone, how can you expect to build any sort of interest or engagement with the people you really want to be your biggest advocates? 

You don’t give anything to your followers

In the world of social media, giving before expecting to receive is the mantra for all success. And recruiters are in such a privileged position to share the benefits of their insight and experience. But very few do. It’s as if giving is an alien concept.

It actually doesn’t take much. Build your relationships with the people you want to be your candidate pool by supporting them online. You don’t have to RT them. Just like their tweets, or comment on them. Show a genuine interest in them and they’ll show a genuine interest in you.

I am being harsh I know. And there are plenty of notable exceptions like my friends at @Intellegojobs, @HRISjobs and @RandstadUSpros and others. But many more are failing in my view.

There’s a thing called ‘first mover advantage’ in business. Right now this opportunity has been recognised by so few in the world of recruitment that the door is wide open, if not globally, then at least in local markets where the majority of recruiters operate.

And last but not least, this state of affairs ironically creates a big opportunity for jobseekers who are savvy enough to turn this situation to their advantage. If you want to get recruiters to notice you, I’ve created a social media strategy that will enable you to do just that. Go here to discover what this is and how it works if you want to know more.

And if you are a recruiter I’d love to hear your thoughts about this post!

Why it’s time for zero tolerance on resume lies

By Neil Patrick

There's a growing and hard to spot threat to recruitment and employers' carefully developed talent acquisition programmes. It's called lying...

Back in April I posted here about the damage that lies on Linkedin cause employers and employees.

So I was really interested today to discover that CareerBuilder had completed a survey recently to look in detail at the subject of the lies people tell on their resumes.

And the findings suggest that telling lies on Linkedin is just the tip of the iceberg. I always knew that a lot of people stretch the truth on their resumes, but I was wholly unprepared to find out that resume lies are now an epidemic…

The nationwide survey, which was conducted online by Harris Poll on behalf of CareerBuilder included a sample of 2,188 hiring managers and human resource professionals across all industries and company sizes.

So the sample is large and the findings can therefore be relied upon to be representative of the current state of affairs.

58% of hiring managers said they’ve caught an outright lie on a resume. One-third of these employers have seen an increase in resume ‘embellishments’ post-recession. But these numbers don’t tell the whole story as I’ll explain shortly. For now, let’s look at some of the evidence…

Most Common Resume Lies

The first interesting finding is what people lie about.

There are some fabrications job seekers try to slip past employers more frequently than others. And it seems that what gets lied about most are the things which the applicants think (a) are most difficult to verify and (b) most likely to increase their chances of being hired. According to the survey respondents, the most common lies they catch on resumes relate to:

Embellished skill set – 57%
Embellished responsibilities – 55%
Dates of employment – 42%
Job title – 34%
Academic degree – 33%
Companies worked for – 26%
Accolades/awards – 18%

It's not really surprising that skills are the top of the table. After all, if I say I know how to use a particular piece of software, I know that you’re almost never going to test me on it. And if the day comes when I need to actually use it, I’ll have an excuse about it, like “I used the older version” or, “ I never used this particular function”.

But some of these lies are so crazy, you have to wonder what the applicant was thinking…

When asked about the most unusual lie they’ve ever caught on a resume, employers recalled: 

• Applicant included job experience that was actually his father’s. Both father and son had the same name (one was Sr., one was Jr.). 
• Applicant claimed to be the assistant to the prime minister of a foreign country that doesn’t have a prime minister. 
• Applicant claimed to have been a high school basketball free throw champion. He admitted it was a lie in the interview. 
• Applicant claimed to have been an Olympic medalist. 
• Applicant claimed to have been a construction supervisor. The interviewer learned the bulk of his experience was in the completion of a doghouse some years prior. 
• Applicant claimed to have 25 years of experience at age 32. 
• Applicant claimed to have worked for 20 years as the babysitter of known celebrities such as Tom Cruise, Madonna, etc. 
• Applicant listed three jobs over the past several years. Upon contacting the employers, the interviewer learned that the applicant had worked at one for two days, another for one day, and not at all for the third. 
• Applicant applied to a position with a company who had just terminated him. He listed the company under previous employment and indicated on his resume that he had quit. 
• Applicant applied twice for the same position and provided different work history on each application. 

Industries Most Likely to Report Catching Resume Lies

The survey found that employers in the following industries catch resume lies more frequently than average: 

Financial Services – 73%
Leisure and Hospitality – 71%
Information Technology – 63%
Health Care (More than 50 employees) – 63%
Retail – 59%

At first glance, it appears that old habits die hard in the financial sector. Despite all the extra regulation, penalties, media shame and criminal proceedings, the financial workers seem unwilling to give up their devious ways of going about things. But hang on, is it perhaps quite the opposite story here…i.e. the financial sector has had to get it’s house in order and is being a lot more vigilant today than the other sectors? I don’t know, but it’s a distinct possibility in my view.

Employers are leaving themselves wide open to exploitation

Career Builder reported that employers may be taking more time looking over individual resumes. 42% of employers said they spend more than two minutes (Wow! –Ed.) reviewing each resume, up from 33% in December.

Two minutes…I cannot imagine that the IRS would manage to uncover a financial fraud in less than two weeks, so employers are hardly giving themselves chance to catch the tricksters it seems. We all know what the excuses are; we’re too busy, we get so many applications etc.

The trouble is that like all fraud, the incidence rises in proportion to the chances of getting away with it. And right now it’s a free for all it seems.

These stats also don’t tell the whole story I suspect. If employers are asleep on their watch, there are a whole lot more lies getting past them that they never discovered and which consequently won’t appear in any of these stats.

What’s more, only half of employers (51%) said that they would automatically dismiss a candidate if they caught a lie on his/her resume, while 40% said that it would depend on what the candidate lied about. 7% said they’d be willing to overlook a lie if they liked the candidate.

With odds like these, I’m almost tempted to say telling lies on your resume is a worthwhile job search strategy. But I won’t because it does no-one any good in the long run and I hate lies, whoever tells them.

I think this is a loud alarm bell for everyone in the business of hiring. There’s a huge threat emerging to your talent acquisition programme or whatever you call it and you need to tackle it right now. Moreover, a huge prize awaits whoever can be the first to produce an effective resume verification software platform...

A recruiter’s views on the 2014 job market

By Neil Patrick

If you’ve ever wondered what recruiters really think about job candidates and the evolving job market, you’re not alone. So last week I set out to find some answers. And here they are!

One of the great things about this blog is how it helps me get to speak to experts all over the world about their specialist insights into the world of jobs and careers. And recruiters are a very important group. But recruiters are very busy people. So their perspective is valuable but hard to come by.

Last week I was especially pleased to interview Laura Warnes, the Managing Director of a brand new specialist marketing recruitment agency, Proudfrog.

I wanted to get her insights into how the digital revolution is reshaping marketing jobs and what trends she is seeing. Even if you are not in marketing, it’s clear that technology is a key driver in the evolution of the jobs market and because tech is moving so fast, skill requirements are changing fast too!

A lot of great insights emerged from this interview and I’m pleased to share them here.

Proudfrog

NP: In what ways have marketing job descriptions changed in the last 5-10 years?
LW: That’s a huge gap to speak about – 10 years ago we didn’t even have apps! I’ll go with the last five years. Multichannel, Big Data, and a bigger focus on consumption/ analytics have all become more widely used in JDs since the late noughties. There is more focus on the customer journey and UX (User experience – Ed.) over simple promotion and making a sale. There is also often now a requirement for global reach.

NP: What are the most in-demand marketing skills right now?
LW: Digital, creative, content, analytics, UX and CMS (Content/customer management systems – Ed.) seem to feature everywhere.

NP: Are marketing pay rates rising or falling in real terms?
LW: In real terms, it is on par with the average rise across all sectors.

NP: Do you see any skewing between gender, age and race profiles in marketing hires?
LW: Only in terms of pay in my experience. Female hires at entry/ graduate level in general secure higher salaries, but as the roles become more senior it is reported that the gap becomes wider, with men earning around 17k more than women as Marketing Director. There is a growing trend for hiring graduates in to positions which in the past would have required a “second jobber” as well and an overall more accepting attitude of youngsters in responsible roles.

NP: If so why do you think this is happening?
LW: In regard to the younger hires, I believe the value of millennials when it comes to technical aptitude for social media etc. is recognised more as these skills play a bigger part in Marketing and the ability to pick up new skills fast is important in an age where new technologies are introduced almost daily. Regards the gender pay gap, at Director level, women have often needed to take a pay cut to re-enter the work place after maternity leave and haven’t yet caught up. This is probably true of all sectors and not unique to marketing.

NP: What’s better for a marketing person’s resume/CV, a big brand name, or a small fast growth business?
LW: It depends entirely on the hiring manager and company culture! It is very difficult to achieve, but a well-rounded exposure to both environments will generally give you the best advantage. A theme which has emerged over the past few years is a dislike for applicants who have been in the same role for too long, or stayed within one industry sector through two or three roles – unless you wish to stay in the sector in which case this will be an advantage. I remember a time when anything less than five years in a role made an applicant appear “flaky”, now if you haven’t moved on to something bigger, better, or different after a couple of years then my clients are asking me why you aren’t driven or hungry for something new.

NP: What’s the most common error made by applicants for marketing roles?
LW: Not detailing your technical skills. If you’ve used it – put it on your CV and let us know about it! A dynamic personal statement is also crucial. We expect marketing professionals to be more tech savvy and more creative than others so a dry Times New Roman two pager isn’t going to cut it. Your CV is your personal marketing tool and demonstrates the value that you place on presentation, branding, content and technology.

NP: What are most marketing people looking for in their next employer?
LW: Learning, variety, a collaborative environment, flexible working, and the opportunity to use creative skills.

NP: Do you think recruitment firms serve clients and candidates equally well?
LW: A recruiter’s fees will always be paid by the client, and with this in mind they will usually be viewed as the true customer over and above the candidate. Many recruiters treat the candidate relationship as lesser and, on a basic level, that is understandable. However, for two reasons it is very important to treat candidates with respect and professionalism in the same way we treat clients: One, it is the ethical thing to do, we should treat others as we would wish to be treated and as professionals we should enjoy passing on our time and expertise to those who can benefit. And two, from a business perspective these candidates are our “tribe”. Good marketeers hang out with other good marketeers and as such we want them out there telling their peers how great we are! I have enjoyed many occasions where a former candidate becomes a client, or recommends me to a hiring manager even when I didn’t actually place them myself, simply because I treated them with kindness during an often daunting time in their life. 

NP: What are the main tools used by Proudfrog to search for suitable candidates?
LW: In the main, traditional job boards will always play a big part in sourcing candidates, and here at Proudfrog we put most of them through their paces day and night! However, it is also important to be constantly networking with passive candidates who aren’t active in the market for everyone to see. The real value for our clients is in the relationships we have built through dedicated networking and intelligent market mapping using social media, physical market presence, and research.

NP: How does Proudfrog think and act differently from other recruiters?
LW: Everyone at Proudfrog without exception is incredibly excited by what we are achieving. Being a start-up business we have a lot to prove and have no laurels to rest upon. Given the positivity in our market, we were confident to hire big right from the off and at just eight weeks old we are a team of eight, and actively seeking our next intake of trainees. As a lighthouse customer of Proudfrog you will receive the full, undivided attention of our founders but rest assured, if you miss that boat, we have the resources to hire around your needs and would be incredibly quick to do so! We all have big characters, boundless energy and our core team is diverse. At the helm we have 30+ years of the highest calibre of recruitment experience, but amongst us we also have a budding mobile app entrepreneur, a fashion graduate, sportsmen and a holistic therapy evangelist. We think like you do and ask ourselves every day: how can we utilise every technology and personal skill in our armoury in order to do our job as well as we possibly can?

NP: What should marketing professionals do if they would like to be on your radar?
LW: There are many ways to get in touch. There is a contact form on our website for one. We are also contactable via Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. You can email me at laura@proudfrog.com, or – my personal favourite – give us a call today on 0203 0565581.


I’d like to thank Laura for her time and the insights she has shared with me. And I wish Proudfrog every success with their business. Thanks guys!

Why are salaries such a secret?

By Neil Patrick

I've noticed a worrying trend in job advertisements. It’s been going on for a while now, but seems to be becoming the norm.

Job advertisements which use terms such as, “attractive salary and benefits”,  “salary negotiable based on experience”, or similar.

This is such a waste of everyone’s time including the employer's.

Employers and recruiters are struggling to handle the volume of applications received for many positions.

This omission of such critical information makes this problem worse. Without the benchmark of salary, both under- and over-qualified applicants will apply when many of them would either not take the job if were offered to them because the salary was too low, or will be too junior to be a serious contender.

It reeks of deviousness and destroys brand value.

What message does this send to the world? That you are open and transparent? That you are trustworthy? That you care about your employees? I’d argue that it is rightly or wrongly interpreted as, “We’ll see who applies and then with luck we’ll be able to hire someone who fits the spec, but whom we can pay far less than the market rate for the job”.

All those carefully crafted brand values are brought into question by this one simple omission.

To apply a less negative viewpoint, it’s also possible, that they are thinking, “If we get an absolute superstar applying who we have to pay over the market rate for, we don’t want to put them off applying”.

I’d argue that this is wishful thinking. Not specifying the salary or even the range, will mean that the real superstars assume the worst and ignore the vacancy. After all they are probably already being generously remunerated in their present position and they know that if someone really wants them, they’ll come knocking.

There’s no excuse.

I accept that in advance of appointing someone, it's often impossible to know the exact salary that is appropriate. An employer doesn't know who is going to get hired and what their precise experience level might be. But they’ll have a clear idea. So there’s nothing to stop them specifying a range of salaries.

I think it's just plain dumb and helps no-one including the employer.

I’d love to hear what job seekers, HR and recruitment people have to say about this, so do please post any opinions below.

An extra way to get found by recruiters when you are jobseeking

By Neil Patrick

I’m always thinking about ways I can make this blog and my Twitter account more valuable for jobseekers.

And this morning I had a flash of inspiration.

I have a lot of recruiters who follow my Twitter account - 500 at least. I also have a lot of job seekers.

But it occurred to me that jobseekers usually don’t have a lot of recruiters following them on Twitter. And recruiters are always looking for ways to find candidates.

So I have decided to try something new.

I have set up a new list on my Twitter account that any jobseeker that wishes to can appear on. Just send me a tweet if you are jobseeking and I’ll add you to the list.

The list is called “My job seeking friends”.

I have no idea what the results will be. Or how many people will join the list. All I know is that the people that join it first will be the most visible because they will be at the top of the list.

There’s no cost, no catches and no downsides that I can think of. It’s no more and no less than it appears.

I’d suggest that if you do this, you also make sure that your Twitter bio contains a link to your Linkedin profile. That way recruiters can go straight to your Linkedin profile.

It’s an experiment I admit, but you have nothing to lose if you are job seeking. Just let me know and I’ll be happy to put you on the list.

I’ll also tweet about it to encourage recruiters to view the list.

It might be a total flop, I don’t know.

But I’m ready to give it a try!

If you are a jobseeker or recruiter I’ll be happy to hear what you think!

Why the wrong people get hired and how to turn this to your advantage

By Neil Patrick

There are a lot of very average people that get hired simply because they fit a template. 

It’s not because these people are special. It’s because archaic approaches to selection have proved to be astonishingly persistent in many organisations. If you don't believe me, I think you'll change your mind, when you read some of the examples below, at least some of which I am sure you'll have personal experience of.

When these flawed approaches are combined with some bizarre thinking, it’s unlikely the best person for the job will be selected.

You cannot change this fact, but if you know what the process flaws are, you can use this knowledge to your advantage.

I’ve been talking to several recruiters recently about their businesses and how they and their clients go about the process of selection. And it’s clear the best person for a job is often not the one that ends up getting hired.

How can it be, when this is such an important decision and so much time, money and effort is invested in it, that so many poor decisions are made?

Well my conversations revealed that the supposed science of selection is frequently distorted and corrupted by a whole range of instinctive, almost primitive beliefs and practices.

1. Managers define the person rather than the job

Most job descriptions are written so that the desired person’s personal characteristics are much more specifically defined than the characteristics of the job requirements. These personal requirements presuppose what the person hired ought to have in terms of background, skills and experiences. Such profiles not are not job descriptions, they’re ‘person descriptions’.

Since clear definitions of work success have repeatedly been shown to be the main driver of personal performance, it seems obvious that managers should carefully define the work that needs to be done before defining the person they think can do the work.

Specific, key performance objectives should be the main part of a true job description. Not vague and generic characteristics like, “good communication skills”, “self-motivated”, or “results-orientated”

2. Getting the job requires a whole different skillset to doing the job

In an election, when deciding who to vote for, we often judge and choose based on our perception of the candidate’s presentation skills, not their ability to do the job.

Managers do the same with job candidates. They overvalue first impressions, likeability, and communication skills. They instinctively exclude those who are “different” in some way, temporarily nervous, or those who are not slick and polished interviewees.

 
3. People with personal connections are treated differently

People who are connected to the interviewer in some way are evaluated more fairly than a complete stranger. Strangers are assumed unqualified from the outset.

Ordinary candidates are assessed on the depth of their skills, level of direct experience, personality and first impression. These have been proven by research to be useless as predictors of future performance and fit.

The connected person has an automatic advantage – it’s assumed that they will fit with the team and culture of the organisation. Those who are unknown are not given this approval. They have to prove it and that can be difficult.

4. Managers ask irrelevant questions and assess people on meaningless facts

Brain teasers were proved to be of no value in selection processes long ago, but they remain a persistent feature of numerous interview and selection processes.

I heard of one CEO who predicted team skills based on whether or not the candidate picked up the coffee cups before leaving the interview room. I worked with a senior manager who co-related strong organizational and planning skills with a tidy desk, and would regularly carry out desk ‘inspections’, in the belief this would help him know who was performing and who wasn’t.

More recently, I heard about a manager who assumed that any person that could not keep to the appointed interview time for any reason at all lacked a strong work ethic.

5. The decision process is based on candidate features not benefits

Filling jobs with those who tick the largest number of boxes is a poor but common substitute for hiring the best person possible. The latter involves a dialogue aimed at acquiring an in-depth understanding of a person’s capabilities, aspirations and fit. There’s more give-and-take in the negotiation process. Both sides balance their long and short-term needs.

So, I have no doubt that the hiring processes in many, many cases are flawed and that the best candidates are often not the ones that get hired.

What can you do about this? Yes it’s unfair and counter-productive for everyone involved. But you have to face facts and ignore the things you cannot change, and focus instead on the things you can.

1. Pay close attention to the job description, however flawed it may be.

If the JD has been thrown together without due care and attention to detail, play them at their own game. Make sure that you include every clichéd key word from the JD in your resume AND then verify that you have that qualification, by means of providing an example of how you have delivered that result, or shown that capability in your previous job(s).

2. Recognise that the job interview will place undue importance on how well you present yourself, probably much more than how well you can do the job.

Approach the interview not so much as an exercise in showing what you know, more as an opportunity to seduce the interviewers. This is why you should pay close attention to every detail of your dress and personal presentation.

Understand that if you show an interest in the organisation and the job by asking appropriate questions, you’ll actually make the interviewers like you more and they will thus rate you more highly.

3. Adjust your target jobs to prioritise those where you may have a connection to the person hiring

This is where long-term investment in building a good personal network can really pay off. The bigger your network, the more chances you will have of finding vacancies where someone you know personally can come into play…whether it’s by giving you a confidential inside track, or in the best situations, actually putting you forward for consideration.

4. Don’t lose self-confidence following a rejection where you were the best candidate but still didn’t get hired.

I know this is easy to say and hard to do. But if you spotted any of the above process weaknesses I described above in your selection process, you can take heart from the knowledge that: 

• It was poor process by the hiring firm not your unsuitability that meant you didn’t get hired. 
• If the firm can’t get this key process right, maybe, it wasn’t such a great firm to join after all. 

For all the talk in HR circles about process quality and selection science, the sad fact is that the process flaws I describe above will probably never be banished completely. But at least if you know what they are, you have a chance to counter them.

Recruiters need you…but do you need them?

By Neil Patrick

Over the last few days I have been spending a lot of time talking to recruiters about their businesses.

And I discovered things about them which are not typically well understood by job seekers.

Since they hold the keys to many job opportunities, I think it’s worth knowing a little about the different types of recruitment firms and how they function. If we feel they have not served our interests well, it’s not because they are wicked or unprofessional people (even if you have had some unhappy experiences), it’s because they are distinctly different types of businesses.

And of course because we are not their clients, we are their voluntary raw material.

Their business model determines how they behave with candidates

Different businesses function in different ways. So if you know what type of recruiter you are dealing with, you’ll be much better placed to understand what to expect and whether you should invest a lot or a little of your time in dealing with them.

How do you know what type of recruiter you are dealing with? If you ask them and they tell you, ‘I’m a head-hunter’, or ‘I’m a contingency recruiter’, what’s the difference?

And most importantly, what is the likelihood of each one actually landing you a job?

Here’s my five minute briefing which I hope will answer these key questions.

Placement agencies that charge you a fee

These agencies collect a fee from you, in exchange for arranging the entire placement process with potential employers. They typically handle lower-level jobs.

Many people have been burned by these types of agencies sometimes losing thousands of pounds. These types of companies prey on desperate job-seekers who have little or no other information at their disposal.

Any recruiter that asks you for any fee means that you should treat them with the utmost caution. Better still run a mile in the opposite direction!

Contingency based agencies

Contingency based agencies are also known as employment agencies and commonly recruit for administrative level jobs.

They seek suitable candidates by matching your qualifications and skills with their client’s requirements. If the criteria match, an interview is conducted followed by a background check and the taking up of references.

Some employment agencies charge a flat fee to the client company, while others take a percentage of the candidate’s first year’s salary. In most cases, the candidate serves a probationary period and the agency is only paid once you’ve successfully served your probationary period.

Now the bad news. Contingency based agencies are usually competing with others to place their candidate. And thus it often ends up as a numbers game. Their view is that putting as many candidates forward as they can gives them best chance of success.

Contingency agencies are also dealing with the lower end of the salary scale. So their fees are also much smaller than firms dealing with executive and managerial roles. For a candidate, this means you cannot expect much if any support from the agency and that you will likely be one of many candidates they find and put forward.

So what are the numbers? A contingency recruiter will typically take a fee of 15-20% of the first year’s salary.

If a contingency recruiter contacts you, what are the odds of you getting hired? 1 in 10 was the figure quoted to me. Sometimes it can be as low as 1 in 25. And if multiple agencies are involved, the figure may be even lower.

Retained search agencies

Retained agencies usually handle senior positions. These agencies are also known as executive search firms. The fee that a client company pays to a retained search agency is non-refundable and a part of it is typically paid in advance for carrying out the extensive searching needed. The remaining amount is paid once the client company hires an employee.

A retained search firm is a different proposition for the candidate. Typically, only 3-5 candidates will be put forward for interview with their client. And the agency will want to try and ensure that every single one is a good fit for their client. They also typically have a solus contract, so no other firms are involved. If you are approached by a retained agency, you should take it much more seriously than a contingency recruiter.

A retained search agency may well receive as much as 30% of the candidate’s annual salary as a fee. So for a £100,000 a year post, that’s £30,000. If you are dealing with a retained search agency, it’s not unreasonable for you to expect and receive some good support and help from them, assuming they consider you to be a good fit for the role.

If you are put forward for interview by a retained agency, then your odds are around 1 in 4 of getting hired.

Outsourcing

In the UK, James Caan (known for his Dragons' Den role on BBC television) was the first to develop Recruitment Process Outsourcing (RPO) in the 1990s and still offers global RPO solutions with his business partners Jon Bennett and Rachel McKenzie through his company, HB Retinue.

The popularity of RPO continues to grow as HR teams seek to spend more of their time on strategic activities rather than the fluctuating needs of their employer to find and hire new staff.

Outsourced recruitment specialists also suit small organizations without the facilities to recruit. Typically, a formal contract for services is negotiated with a specialist recruitment consultancy. Recruitment process outsourcing may involve strategic consulting for talent acquisition, sourcing for select departments or skills, or total outsourcing of the recruiting function.

The solo headhunter

These are similar to retained search agencies, but work on their own. From a candidate’s point of view, they have a great deal to offer. Although they do not have the resources of a larger firm, they work on a small number of assignments at one time.

They may arrange a meeting or a formal interview between their client and the candidate and will usually prepare the candidate for the interview and help negotiate the final deal.

A good solo headhunter will expect to place around one in three of their candidates.

Strategic talent acquisition

This may sound like a load of jargon, but it’s a distinct category of specialised recruitment. The way this works is that these people aim to secure a team with specific skills from a competitor. They thus set out to acquire a complete team that enhances the value of the business, whilst reducing that of their rival(s).

Such people are often an integral part of a firm’s management team and are found in specialist areas such as financial trading, sales and technology. If you're currently unemployed, it’s unlikely you’d be targeted, but if you work in a high performing business in these sectors it’s a distinct possibility.

The success rates are also correspondingly high…congratulations, you’re in demand, so you are in the driving seat!

Temp agencies

Sometimes temp agencies are also called staffing agencies. They hire candidates to fill temporary positions. This may be due to seasonal increases or an employee leaving the organization on a temporary basis e.g. for maternity leave. Usually, the client pays an hourly rate for the candidate it hires. The temp agency will pay the candidate’s wages, benefits etc. and add this fee to the bill they send the client each week or month.

Only a minority of candidates will be interested in short-term contracts. So if you are willing to take up such a post, you’ll likely have fewer competitors than for a permanent position. And there’s a hidden bonus too… many part time hires end up becoming full time employees, either in the same post or another which opens up whilst they are on contract.

Niche recruiting agencies

Specialized niche recruiters seek staff with a narrow specialty. Because of their focus, these firms can very often produce superior results due to their ability to channel all of their resources into networking for a very specific skill set. This specialization allows them to offer more jobs for their specific demographic, which in turn attracts more specialized candidates from that specific demographic. These firms invest resources and time in building large candidate databases.

Therefore, if you have a specialised skill, then building a relationship with a niche recruiter is an excellent long-term career investment. These niche firms tend to be much more inclined to develop ongoing relationships with their candidates as it is very common for the same candidates to be placed by the same firm many times throughout their careers.

So there you have it. A five minute explanation of the world of recruiters for job seekers. They are not all the same and for good reason – they all work to different business models, ranging from the exploitative through the high volume number crunchers to the super-specialised and professional.

I hope that this post helps you know the right questions to ask next time the phone rings and the voice on the other end, says , ‘Hello, I’m a recruiter...’

If you’re highly qualified, how come you can’t get a job?

By Neil Patrick

How can it be that so many highly skilled people are unemployed, while employers claim they cannot find people with the right skills?

Over the weekend I was reading The Third Industrial Revolution by Jeremy Rifkin. Although this book is about the economic, environmental, technological and social issues we face today, within its covers there is an explanation of this apparent contradiction.

And understanding this is of critical importance to anyone who wishes to prosper in their career over the long term.

We’re on the cusp of a new industrial era

Jeremy Rifkin has identified that industrial epochs are characterized by two determining factors. These are the dominant energy source and communication media.

So, the first industrial era was powered by coal and the prevailing communication medium was the printed word. Society organised itself around these…coal powered transport and industry and provided heat and light to homes and businesses. Print communicated everything from newspapers and novels to instruction manuals and bibles. All were committed to print.

The second industrial era is now in its death throes. This was driven by oil and the dominant communication mediums were radio, television and the telephone. In case you've not noticed, the oil is running out fast and TV and radio have ceased to be the dominant media they were in the last 60 or 70 years. Oh and it seems telephone landlines are becoming less and less popular too.

Rifkin believes that the third industrial era will be based on green energy and the internet. This change will have massive implications for the types of jobs we all do. The effects of the transformation will impact every one of us, not just those working in energy, communications and media. And there is clear evidence in many of the events that have unfolded over the last few years that he is right.

Rifkin even argues convincingly that the current financial crisis was a symptom of the end of the second industrial era, rather than the cause of it.

We’re all potential victims of accelerated obsolescence

So not only are we currently undergoing a transformation of society itself, the technologies which will define our society in the 21st century are undergoing a revolution too.

And because the pace of technological change is accelerating, very few people can assume that their skills will be current for much more than 10 years or so.

Google didn’t exist in 1995. Back then I would search the internet using a long forgotten search engine called Dogpile. Today, if a business doesn’t rank high on Google searches, it’s increasingly invisible and rightly or wrongly judged as second rate.

The credit industry was dominated by credit cards until 2008 and the financial collapse. Try finding a job today if you’re a credit card professional. Despite the credit crunch starting almost 6 years ago, one of the biggest UK credit card issuers, MBNA has been contracting now for years. It currently employs around 3,000 staff, down from 4,224 in 2011.

Yellow Pages was a huge global business for decades. But despite trying to shift its business online, it’s facing an inexorable decline in its relevancy. Not only that, it fails on environmental grounds too. The Product Stewardship Institute claims local governments spend $54 million a year to dispose of unwanted phone books and $9 million to recycle them. Phone books use low grade glues and are therefore difficult to recycle, and they often clog recycling machinery.

There’s no job security in established businesses either

Of course the decline in the fortunes of businesses is nothing new. What is new is that the speed at which a firm can move from established business and secure employer to contraction or even obsolescence. And if your career is tied up with one of them, your skills can become worthless very quickly.

The U.S. Postal Service suffered 30,000 layoffs in March 2010. Sears/K-Mart layed off 50,000 in January 1993. IBM layed off 60,000 in July 1993. And General Motors layed off 47,000 in February 2009. And these are just some of the biggest. For every one like this, there are hundreds of smaller less well reported downsizings and closures.

Organisations are very good at disguising their difficulties right up until the last moment. Are you really tuned in to the real situation at your employer? You need to be.

So if you are planning to work until you are 65 or beyond, you can fully expect that you’ll need to completely reinvent yourself at least 4 or 5 times over during your career. Note that I say ‘reinvent yourself’ not just change jobs…

Peter Weddle makes this comment on the ASQ blog. This is his take on it:

"Today’s turbulent economic environment has changed the way employers fill their vacant positions. Instead of using their traditional approach — hiring a person who is qualified for a job -they have turned to a new strategy that is best described as “talent staffing.” As a result, tens of millions of decent, dedicated and capable people — men and women who have successfully worked their entire lives — are now unemployed, unsuccessful in their search for a new job and unable to figure out why. No one has told them that the rules of the game have changed".

Do not confuse this with the economic downturn

It’s tempting to think that our recent woes are because of the recession. And that if and when things recover, we’ll all be much more secure in our jobs. Think again.

This isn’t a temporary state of affairs, it’s a paradigm shift which will continue to accelerate over the coming years and decades. It is this speed of change which means that often, skills which were cutting edge as recently as four or five years ago, can be obsolete today.

So you need to keep not just your skills but your TALENT up to date. And that’s the crux. If you are employed, you can fully expect that your employer isn’t going to react very enthusiastically to a request for a couple of weeks off work.  You're asking them to pay for you to learn some new stuff that may very well not be relevant to the job you are doing today, but which may be critical to the job you’ll need in say three or four years’ time…

If you are looking for work, you need to understand that employers will only hire individuals who have all of the skills to do a job and the state-of-the-art knowledge required to use those skills effectively on-the-job. They seek better-than-qualified persons to do a job, and they expect superior performance from them and from their first day of work.

This means they expect you to be the custodian of your talent value. That’s down to you not them.

What is talent?

Ironically, even though millions of people in Europe and the US are now unemployed and looking for work, a large percentage of employers believe there is a shortage of individuals with talent. They are quite wrong to think this of course. But perception is reality whether it is right or wrong.

Peter Weddle defines talent thus:

In practice, employers have defined a person of talent to be someone who has one or both of two attributes:

They have a skill that is critical to organizational success and a track record which demonstrates their ability to use that skill effectively on-the-job.

and/or

They perform at a superior level on-the-job which sets a standard that encourages their co-workers to upgrade the calibre of their work, as well.

The tragic irony is that employers do little or nothing to help their employees develop and hone their skills and talents for the future. So the moment you get hired is the moment your talent value starts to slowly but inexorably erode. You can be sure that your employers will only invest in you if they perceive a more or less immediate return on that investment.

What can you do about this?

Employers want to hire all-stars. Not just people who are good at what they do, but people who are clearly the best at that task. And the only way you can be such an all-star is if you are working with your talent.

First, make sure you know where your talent lies. Talent is not skill. Talent is an inherent capability, a natural capacity for excellence at a particular type of work. Talent is as individual as you are. But it cannot be universally used. No talent is compatible with all work, but every talent can be expressed in more than one career field. It can be developed to perform in one environment today and another tomorrow. But before you can do that, you have to understand precisely what you are talented at.

Second, make sure you are working in a career field and for an employer that enables you to express your talent. Employers aren’t hiring your skill, they’re hiring what they think will be your total contribution to their organisation. And right now if you have a job and your work isn’t allowing you to demonstrate your true talent, then it’s time to be looking elsewhere, even if you think your current job is OK.

Thirdly if you’ve identified your talent then you must do everything possible to nurture it, especially if you are not able to do this in your normal job. Because this isn’t something you can achieve in a few weeks or months, doing this while you are employed is vital.

Finally, you must step back and take the long view. The prospects for your firm and industry affect you. Directly. Whilst it’s easy to think that when Lehman Brothers collapsed in September 2008, it was an unpredictable event, the truth is that there were signs at least one year earlier that the firm was in financial difficulties. Moreover, five years earlier, in 2003, it had suffered an $80 million penalty from the SEC for using its researchers to unduly influence market prices.

Yes, it’s unfair that the rules of the game have changed. And yes, it’s even more unfair that employers never bothered to tell anyone about it. But if you step back and understand what is going on, you’ll be better equipped to deal with the reality. And if you fully embrace the reality, you’ll seek and find and the work you really love and build a sustainable career with it.