Don’t drop all the other job boards for Twitter just yet

Lately there has been a lot of buzz about  how Twitter is changing the face of recruiting and job searching.  Job seekers are praising Twitter for helping them find a job.  Corporate recruiters are talking about how posting on Twitter is saving them money (it’s free). But I heard warning bells when I recently read that some recruiters were using Twitter as their primary job posting tool because it has greatly reduced the number of unwanted applicants that are applying for jobs.  I am all for reducing cost per hire and streamlining the recruiting process.  But any tool that restricts your applicant pool by leaving out a segment of the population, that would be otherwise qualified, can appear to be discriminatory. 

You can use niche boards and restrict your ads to sites that would specialize in reaching candidates that have the skills and/or certifications that are REQUIRED for the opening.  But you should not use sites that may eliminate a segment of the candidate population based on their age, race, sex, etc. 

For example, it is acceptable to limit your posting to the Society of Actuaries  website if you have an opening for an actuary.    You are restricting your candidate pool to those people that would have the designation required for the role.  You don’t have to post that opening on a general job board where HR, Marketing, and Sales professionals would view it  But, if you only advertise your actuarial opening on Twitter, where the demographic could be skewed to people that are under a certain age, you may be unintentionally discriminating against older employees. 

So, by all means, use Twitter to reach out to more potential candidates.  Tweet about the openings at your company and provide a link back to the company website or to the job board where the listing can be found.  But don’t throw out all the other job boards just yet.  Don’t rely on Twitter as your main source of advertising for candidates, unless of course, you are hiring social media experts

“3 email rule” improves communication immediately!

One of my MAJOR pet peeves is abuse of email.  Way too often, email is used as a passive aggressive way of spouting off.  The sender wants to tell you something, but they really don’t want to hear what you think, because if they did they would have called you and SPOKEN to you.  Don’t get me wrong, I think email is a great communication tool – when used properly. 

So, today I am going to share my “3 email rule” with you in the hope that I can do my small part to improve email communication. 

Here is how the “3 email rule” works:

1. You send me an email asking for help or clarification or advice
2. I respond via email with my thoughts, comments, questions, etc.
3. You send another email back with additional questions, or the need for clarification.  (3 emails have been sent – hence the name of the rule.) 
4. I pick up the phone and CALL YOU to discuss the matter. 

Step 4 is critical and cannot be skipped or substituted!  

Seriously, we have all been involved in these endless email exchanges.  They are huge time wasters and even worse, they can lead to serious misunderstandings. 

A lot of times we use these quick back and forth emails as a way to avoid discussing something that needs more attention than a poorly thought out 5 second response.  We shoot off a little snippet and think, “Whew, painful conversation avoided”.  And then, 30 seconds later, we get a response back from the other coward we are “communicating” with who is also trying to avoid a converation, but wants to have the last word anyway.  Nothing really gets accomplished in these exchanges.

So, whether you are corresponding with your candidates, coworkers, friends or family – if there are 3 emails in the chain, don’t send a 4th email, please! 

PICK UP THE PHONE and TALK to each other.   

Oh, and while we are on the topic of email  – It drives me nuts when people hit the REPLY ALL button just to say “Thanks” .  Or worse yet, when they hit REPLY ALL just to ask a question of the person who sent the original email and now 20 of us see that they don’t understand………..

Is Sourcing the Silver Bullet of Recruiting?

This post is a little longer than usual, because it is actually an article I wrote for the January issue of The Source Newsletter  http://www.thesourcenewsletter.com/

The proliferation and accessibility of sourcing tools and techniques is exciting and fun and exhilarating. Who doesn’t want to have the most followers on Twitter or the biggest network on LinkedIn? But is sourcing the Silver Bullet of Recruiting? Are all these tools really helping us do our jobs or just distracting us? Are there really a lot of candidates out there using these cool new tools, or are we just running into other recruiters? If recruiters are spending the majority of their time on sourcing, who is talking to the candidates?

It wasn’t too long ago that only retained executive recruiters actually did proactive sourcing for candidates. Corporate and contingency recruiters were “inbox recruiters.” They were focused on screening the candidates that came to them in response to ads or employee referrals or those that they met at Career Fairs. That approach worked pretty well for a while. But now that social networking sites are gaining in popularity, classes on Internet search techniques are more affordable and recruiting budgets have been slashed; everyone seems too focused on the hunt for candidates!

It’s as if sourcing is a totally new concept – a silver bullet that will solve all recruiting problems! Recruiters are posting on multiple niche boards, searching Craig’s list and user groups, growing their Linkedin and Facebook networks and Googling for candidates. These are all great techniques, except that this has lead to the belief among sourcers, recruiters and hiring managers that if we just look hard enough we will find that purple squirrel at just the right price with just the right combination of skills at just the right time with no compromise necessary!

Don’t get me wrong, I believe that sourcing skills are important. Someone in your organization should be on top of all the new tools out there. I just don’t believe every recruiter has to be an expert in every new technology. I also believe that sometimes sourcing should be left to the outside experts. Recruiting has not really changed just because there is more information out on the Web. Technology and searching tools are necessary, but they will never replace the need to TALK to your candidates, find out what they think of the job, the compensation you are offering and who they know. You still have to get hiring managers and clients to compromise occasionally and you can’t do that till you can tell them what potential candidates have told YOU about employment market conditions.

My recruiting career began in Retained Executive Search where the distinction between sourcing and recruiting was very clear. “Recruiting” was the total process; Candidate ID and Candidate Development were separate and distinct parts of that process. Sometimes the recruiter did both parts of the process and sometimes the Candidate ID portion was outsourced. We didn’t call it “sourcing” though, we called it Candidate ID and it was narrowly defined as searching for names of people doing the job for which we were recruiting – it did not ever involve looking for posted resumes. Let’s face it – why would corporate clients pay huge fees to an executive search firm just to get a candidate that had posted their resume online and could have been found with a few clicks?  We did purchase directories, search for attendee lists and look for associations that our candidates would join. 

When we needed deep sourcing for hard to find individuals, we contracted that out to someone who specialized in Candidate ID. The recruiters did the upfront research on the companies to be targeted and the desired titles and the outside professionals usually did the phone sourcing. Those professionals utilized phone sourcing techniques to deliver org chart type documents listing the person heading up the department we were interested in along with all of that individual’s direct reports. The recruiters and outside sourcers worked together on developing and fine tuning the sourcing strategy. 

The goal in any search is to get on the phone and start Candidate Development as soon as possible. In a retained search firm, this involved contacting the candidates, selling them on the opportunity, assessing fit and negotiating. Because we knew we had a limited number of names from the Candidate ID phase, we had to be sure that we made the most out of each interaction with a potential candidate. We asked for referrals and industry information so that we could go find more candidates if needed. If a potential candidate was not interested, we found out why. If a number of candidates expressed opinions about the pay being too low, or all the skills not typically existing within one person, we reported back to the client with that information. We partnered with the hiring authorities to develop a realistic position description with an attractive compensation package so that we could fill the position to their satisfaction while addressing the needs of potential candidates.

So what can we learn from retained executive search?

• The best Candidate ID (sourcing) won’t help you fill a position without good recruiting skills as well. 
• If the Candidate ID requires specialized skills (phone sourcing, deep Internet searching), outsource it or develop an internal sourcing group.
• Successful recruiting and sourcing require good communication between all members of the team – sourcers, recruiters and hiring authorities. Sourcing, in and of itself, is not the answer.

A good sourcing strategy coupled with good strong recruiting skills and good relationships with the hiring authorities – that will seal the deal every time!