Hello everyone, BadConsultant here. How’s the conference? How’s the weather? How’s the networking?

[how’s the hot tub?]

Enough with the small talk, time for this BadConsultant to get down to undermining the artificiality, resetting the levels and making absolutely sure that s*** hits fans everywhere.

We’ll start with the basics.

There is no more important decision for any organization than who it hires.

[though my grammar-checker wants me to change that to ‘whom it hires’ – curse you Microsoft!]

Every day you help organizations make that decision. You must be very proud to be improving the growth, development and, above all else, performance of the organization.

[cue swollen ego, puffed-up chest, warm smiles and congratulatory mojitos by the pool]

Except.

From the manifest recruitment literature, including this conference agenda, BadConsultant isn’t sure if that’s how you see it.

Sure, we see the focus on attractiveness, sourcing, closing and everything else that happens before the decision to hire, but try as we might, BadConsultant couldn’t quite spot anything focusing on recruitment effectiveness, i.e. the difference the hire makes.

[except for one lonely pre-conference workshop focused on culture that… wait… no, that looks like its focused on web-site and corporate brand…]

Here’s our contention: Human Resources

[the last bastion of the abnormality that is the ‘modern’ corporation]

suffers from an inferiority complex to the business, which is why it is still obsessed with the saying “seat at the table”. And because every victim of bullying needs someone else to beat up, HR treats recruiting as its own ugly stepchild

[after all, every recruiter aspires to be a generalist when they grow up, right? Right?]

As it realized that HR was still basically the cost-laden administrative function it had been for the last 30 years, even with multiple sliver-thin veneers of “transformation”

[but I tell you, I’m a strategic business partner now, goddamit!]

the business started demanding savings. It started demanding efficiency. It started demanding metrics. And of course, rather than choosing to truly grasp its own potential, the HR function decided to slap the recruiters around a bit. Under attack, recruiters retreated to where they were unassailable – presenting the company in the market and landing the next generation of talent. Who they handed off to the HR generalist

[/business partner/strategic lead/representative/counsel/insert meaningless term here]

at point of hire to do with whatever they wished.

Battle-scars avoided. Job done. Collect the fee. Move on.

Coupled to the explosion of talent information and channels on the interwebs, recruiting quickly grew to more closely resemble sales and marketing – measured on similar metrics, operating in similar methodologies.

[cue Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glenn Ross – have I got your attention now?]

All of which is understandable. But it’s not good enough.

Not anymore.

HR is dying, you see, and what will replace it is a seamless talent continuum from customer to colleague. In the world that’s developing, recruiter performance won’t be judged by simply getting someone through the door, instead you will be judged on the outcomes created by that talent.

Stop.

Read that again.

[and, for executives who are too important, clever and busy to go back up the page, here it is again]

You will be judged on the outcomes created by the talent that you hire.

Recruitment effectiveness.

While it is hardly a new subject – BadConsultant recalls a long conversation with Dr John in 1999 on the very same subject – it is the next frontier and it’s time for recruiters to stop patting themselves on the back for efficiency and sourcing and attractiveness and all the other stuff that is important but not critical

[wait… you are doing all that, right? You don’t get a pass]

and start measuring what counts.

The outcomes created by the talent that you hire: Recruitment Effectiveness.

[Oh, and before anyone says it, measuring voluntary turnover in the first year doesn’t cut it – do you know how many people are staying employed just to maintain their health coverage?]

It is time to step beyond the sibling rivalry of the broken HR function, to step into the true responsibility of the recruiter to build the business, to step into the potential you have to shape performance, careers, lives and society.

[and you thought you were just trying to close the deal to get your placement bonus – sheesh!]

Which leaves BadConsultant with one question for you: What are you gonna do about it?

A bientot,

BC

http://badconsultant.wordpress.com

The Waiting Game

Only a few things in life make my skin crawl, frustrating me to the point of dropping F bombs all over everyone’s ass. Items on that list include blocked calls, plastic sealed packaging that is way too complicated to open, not getting a wave back from a car that you just let in front of you, and companies with awfully slow and unnecessarily long hiring processes.

What I’m talking about is the communication and hiring process after the first contact has been made (usually a phone screen or e-mail). At this point, companies need to explain the process clearly, and move candidates through quick. Jobseekers already rank near the top of the “most neurotic people” list, so don’t make it worse.

There are two areas that frustrate me most. One is making candidates wait too long to hear back, and the other is incorporating far too many steps in their hiring process.

Frustration 1

Why must companies take so long to get back to people after phone screens and interviews? If you ask them, they’ll say, “We had two more interviews to get through and they weren’t for two weeks” or “We weren’t sure about the candidate, so we wanted to wait till we found someone better”. Assholes.

To fix this, schedule all of the phone screens or interviews around the same time. Not only is this better for candidates, it’s also effective for the interviewer. Keeping everything fresh in their mind is helpful when evaluating. And, if you need to wait to find someone better, why not just cut the first candidate loose? That’s just cruel.

Frustration 2

Honestly, is it really necessary to have two phone screens and two or three face-to-face interviews? Why not just one of each? When I hear of candidates coming back three separate times to meet a new person each time it just drives me nutty, and makes zero sense.

Gain a commitment from the entire interviewing team to clear their schedules. Is the position important to fill? If so, then act like it. Another option is panel interviewing. Maybe intimidating for the candidate, but once it’s over, it’s over. Each panel member sees and hears the same thing and they can make a decision as soon as the candidate leaves. Donzo.

Message to Employers

Top talent won’t wait around. While you’re busy taking your sweet ass time, they are busy talking to other employers. Also, don’t force them to come in multiple times, taking up their vacation days. It’s not appreciated.

Bottom line; treat your candidates like customers. Evaluate them thoroughly, but design your process with them in mind.

Message to Jobseekers

Don’t sit there waiting. Feel free to ask questions about timing, and the process (not everyday). Don’t sit back and wait on a company that’s making you play their waiting game.

*

Rich DeMatteo is the founder of Corn on the Job and Job Hunt Chat.

Would you believe that in January of this year there were just about enough jobs available in the US to employ every infant, child and adult in Chicago, the 3rd largest city with a population of just under 3,000,000?

Depending on your situation, it could be cause for merriment and celebration and send you lunging for your résumé, or feelings of inadequacy for not being able to find one of them despite your relentless search. In either case, it would at least leave you with a glimmer of hope that recovery is well under way, right?

Actually, it’s not really very exciting news at all. Despite the worst recession in the past 30 years, the number of available jobs in the U.S. has remained fairly steady with roughly 2.7 million jobs available for the past 12 months.

So, what’s the deal? How can there be so many available jobs with employment at 9.7 percent?

Apart from the 1.2 million discouraged workers not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them, here’s a thought from Jonas Prising, President of Manpower North America, “From our research it is clear that across the country employers are experiencing a mismatch between the talent their businesses need and the skills and abilities potential employees possess.”

Talent and opportunity don’t always match up logistically. Some companies do poor labor pool research during the site selection process. Others are not willing to source talent nationally or pay for relocation. Some companies have unbecoming reputations and no one wants to work there. Other jobs have such high turnover companies never take the postings for them off the job boards.

Many of the available jobs are for high demand hard to fill positions like engineers, engineering technicians, accountants, mechanics and IT staff. We simply do not have enough people trained in these occupations to fill the need. Maybe not enough people are interested in these careers?

On the other hand, occupations with the most openings are cashiers, retail salespersons, waiters and waitresses, customer service representatives and registered nurses. Without doubt these are grueling, stand on your feet, people in your face, physical jobs. With the exception of nursing, they are not generally well paid occupations. They’re burn and churn jobs, the kinds that never fall off job boards.

Sometimes due to personal circumstances no matter how much you would like to interview for the bank teller position in that small town in the Flickertail State, the salary doesn’t justify consideration of trying to sell your home in New Jersey in a flat real estate market and leaving the people you love, even though the cost of living would be less there.

*

Karla Porter is Director of Workforce Development and Human Resources for a mid-size metro chamber of business and industry where she fights the good fight trying to ensure talent meets opportunity in her community. She blogs at Karla Porter Human Capital & New Media.

While I’m attending ERE, enjoy this guest post from Jason Seiden.

*

I gots me an issue.

The issue started last week when I took my daughter to the ER for what turned out to be an emergency appendectomy.

I was never really worried about the procedure—appendectomies and doctors are like ground balls and baseball players—but at one point, I did become concerned about the process.

That was right around the time when the ER nurse offered to give my daughter morphine to alleviate pain that was being caused by a preliminary procedure they were making her go through… as a CYA.

For those of you not keeping score, here’s that tally again:

Unnecessary procedure. Pain-causing. To the point of offering morphine. To a seven year old.

Now, I get it if the morphine is for the appendicitis. But it wasn’t. It was for something else.

Something unnecessary.

Which is why I responded by requesting a transfer to Children’s Memorial Hospital in Chicago, where the story ends happily.

Surprise: this isn’t a healthcare rant.

I know. It has the makings of a great one. But it’s not. My issue is not medicine.

It’s FEAR.

This story is a call to take up arms against those small, daily FEARS that turn smart people—like ER doctors—into unthinking, rule-following sheep.

You know exactly what I’m talking about, too, don’t you.

That ER doctor? She was a product of FEAR. She had been conditioned to fear insurance company paper pushers rather than care for patients, and as a result, her only question to me was why I wouldn’t want to race to put my child on narcotics. The idea of challenging a protocol that she knew and admitted was overkill simply never crossed her mind.

Look, folks: We can’t run a successful society when FEAR-based (non-)thinking is the norm.

But there’s good news: You are hereby recruited into the ongoing battle against FEAR.

The fight is already underway, the army huge, and you can’t say no. Heck, we even have shirts that proclaim our fearlessness: “Fail Spectacularly!” they scream.

Literally.

So choose your weapon: do you enjoy torching the status quo? Illuminating shining examples? Sticking everything in a blender? Whatever you choose, I promise, you’ll make a difference

The only question is, where do you find FEAR, and what have you done to help those trapped by it?

Answering that is the totality of your basic training.

Fall in, baby.

You can’t go wrong with The Onion on a Monday morning.

Breaking News: Some Bullshit Happening Somewhere

Today’s shout out is for my awesome friend, David Manaster. He is the CEO of ERE Media and is a really great guy. That’s a #fact. Twitter it.

I went to SHRM08 in Chicago and I didn’t know many people. I was about a year into my career as a Human Resources writer/blogger, and I had no idea what I was doing. I wanted people to know me as thoughtful, capable Human Capital expert — but I wanted to build the Punk Rock HR brand.

Hilarious. I was so clueless.

I was sitting in the press room at SHRM08 and David introduced himself. This was our first introduction in the flesh. Manaster smiled, I gave him a hug, and we became instant pals. Look at us. Dorks. At least Manaster is somewhat casual. I’m wearing Ann Taylor — although my shoes were Doc Marten ballet flats.

From SHRM V

I’ll be at EREExpo, this coming week, and I’m there because of David Manaster. He is a super guy, and I’ve been introduced to so many amazing professionals because of my association with ERE. David gave me an opportunity to speak at the first Social Recruiting Summit at Google where I was able to introduce my brand and speak to the broader HR/recruiting community. I was asked to chair the last Social Recruiting Summit in November. Then David hired my office spouse, Lance Haun, for a really cool job.

I would do almost anything for David Manaster, and it’s an honor to call him a friend.

I’ll have a few guest posts on Punk Rock HR while I’m at ERE Expo, this week. I’ll be on Twitter and Facebook, too. Feel free to leave a comment to this post and give your own Sunday shout out, too! Anyone deserve some recognition?

I don’t know about you, but my family is spread across the globe. We use social media to stay connected, and it’s so awesome. I get to see pictures of babies, read about graduations, and learn about my cousins and distant relatives who are rock stars.

Unfortunately, the dark side of this connectivity means that many family members (including me) violate the norms of etiquette because we make assumptions about the readers, the shared history, and the appreciation (or lack thereof) of nuance.

I believe in assuming good intent, but email totally sucks as a mechanism to communicate. My favorite example of this happened recently. It’s a random weekday night, I’m chatting with one of Scrubby’s buddies on Twitter, and I receive an email message from a distant relative who wants to re-litigate a family issue from 1964.

• I wasn’t even alive and I don’t care… but okay, thanks for blind copying me on the correspondence.

Is your family like this? Are you hyperconnected through social media tools? Does email become a passive-aggressive way to continue the family battles that will not die? Have you created a Facebook family page where you can just hash this shit out like social media gladiators?

Or is this just my crazy existence?

So it’s Friday. We are all happy. I am done talking about Human Resources and career advice. I want to talk about animals & pets.

I think it’s okay to have cats and dogs in your life, but only if they are rescued. I know that some breeders are great, but most are not. Also, in my world, I think it’s inhumane to keep fish as pets — unless the fish are rescued. Same thing goes for gerbils, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, ferrets, turtles, birds, and all other kinds of creatures. Again, you can rescue them. Please don’t buy them at your local pet store.

I know this doesn’t make a whole lot of sense — especially because I eat meat, I’m a fan of the adoption efforts at local pet stores like Petco and Petsmart, and I have five cats that I wouldn’t trade for the world.

This is my thought: in an ideal world, we wouldn’t own pets. We would care for animals that need our assistance, we might have some companion animals around us, and we would stop subsidizing puppy mills and gerbil mills and hamster mills.

Yes, there are hamster mills. Ferret mills, too.

What do you think? Is this going too far? Am I beyond the pale of a crazy cat lady?

It’s Friday and I feel like pushing some buttons — and having my buttons pushed. Let’s roll.

I watched the movie Good Hair while flying to London, a few weeks ago. It was an interesting movie  especially since I worked for Alberto-Culver, the company that owns the brands TCB and Motions.

Here’s what is weird about my work history: I recruited for a major organization that invests heavily in products that are bought & sold in the African American hair care community — and what I don’t know about black hair could fill a book.

Thankfully, Chris Rock made a movie.

There was a scene in the movie where a Gen Y student talked about her fear of being judged by potential employers based on her natural hair.

There is research out there that shows how pretty, handsome, tall, white, male, symmetrical, good-looking people have a competitive advantage in life. They get better jobs and earn more money. So let’s get back to hair. White hair. Black hair. Asian hair. Straight. Wavy. Curly. Dry. Nappy. Frizzy. Broken. Oily. All those words we use to describe our hair. Whatevah.

• Do you think you have an advantage/disadvantage in life because of your hair?
• Does it matter how hair is styled in the workplace as long as it’s not a safety hazard?
• Do you think the advantage of beauty — at work & in life — is overstated?

I’d love to know what you think.

I’ll be in New York City sometime during the month of March. I’ll be attending The Human Capital Summit to talk about employer branding.

You know what I think about employer branding, right? I think that a company has a brand, a reputation, and a relationship with its consumers and employees. Those relationships are complex, multifaceted, and bigger than a splashy website and an overstated benefits package that offers you access to the company gym.

When I look for a job, I look for fiscal solvency. I review products and services. I don’t want to work for a company that manufactures poisonous toys for kids. I make sure the last couple of CEOs haven’t been perp walked on CNN. Then I look at the career website. I review the benefit page, the obligatory statement on culture, and the rest of the Human Resources propaganda. If it all adds up, and if I know some people who work for the company and aren’t miserable, I accept the interview.

To me, employer branding is much like consumer branding. A company is trying to override my free will with the goal of  selling me a flawed product — a job that will eventually break my heart and never pay me enough money.

*

So I’ve been asked to come to NYC and talk about what employer branding means to my readers. Specifically, “What do you see in the marketplace?”

I know several fancy bloggers who focus on this area of expertise, and I’m good friends with many HR professionals who are charged with employer branding strategies in their organization. I don’t care about them.

What does employer branding mean to you? Does it mean anything? Does your HR department care about employer branding? Are you working in tandem with marketing to create an overarching strategy for your organization? As a job seeker, do you give a crap about employer branding? What are your priorities?

I would love your thoughts. I would like to speak to issues that impact the lives of real HR professionals, real job seekers, and the real employees who deal with this stuff on a daily basis.