Defining What Effective Means

Gerry Crispin and Mark Mehler are well known in the staffing world, and with good reason. Their consultancy called CareerXRoads has been adding value to the world of talent acquisition for quite a while now. 

One of the things they do is to publish a (free) quarterly newsletter they call CareerXRoads Update. In the most recent edition, there was a piece called: Measuring the Right Thing is Crucial to Social Media in the Future*.  It is well worth the read for both recruiter and candidate alike.

Worth it for the recruiter because it helps to put some important factors into perspective such as the difference between what really constitutes a "source of hire" and the process by which hiring decisions are made.

After all, if one looks at the track record of hiring decisions that turn out to be really good ones, it becomes pretty clear pretty fast that the source from which a contact is first made isn't nearly as important as the quality of the process that leads to the decision to hire since it is common knowledge that a very high percentage of hiring decisions that everyone hoped were home runs end up going South.

Point being that at the end of the day, the corporate recruiters add up the "source of hire" stats and then pat themselves on the back because of all the money they saved on ads or search fees or whatever because they sourced "X"% of their candidates from Facebook, Twitter, employee referral or some other free source.

If you read the piece, you will quickly understand the foregoing assertion that the original point of contact is not nearly as important as the process in terms of trying to measure "effectiveness" fo the hire.

Worth it for the candidate because what is really (or should be) critical to them is not how they "found" the opportunity but rather did they do their homework before saying yes in order to do all they could to make sure that they were making the right decision. After all, if it turns out that what everyone hoped was going to be a good 'marriage' ends up in a divorce, it is the candidate's life that is the one most damaged, not the company's.

So, given that ExecuNet is not in the recruiting business, why would I take up space on this topic?

Answer: Because like any business, we are frequently asked by prospective members "how effective are you" or "what is your "success" rate? A very fair question if you happen to be in a job search and your definition of”success" or "effectiveness" is defined as "a job offer"

Now, don't get me wrong, we post jobs on ExecuNet (have for all 23 years that we have been around) and I lost count long ago as to the number of members who have ended up with acepting offers as a result. And if I were to extend the definition to "interviews" (F2F or phone) I couldn't even begin to count, but that's not the point.

The point that so many forget is the percentage of job changers who actually make a change as the result of responding to a job posting is quite small especially when compared to those made as the result of networking.

And at the senior executive level, those who get jobs as the result of ads (i.e. postings) even less.  While the stats I have seen over the years in terms of jobs obtained as the result of postings runs around 10-15% give or take, when I talk to our members who have 'landed' 70% tell us that the "source" was networking, and that's just those that I hear from, my guess is that the percentage is actually higher.

So where I am going with all this is simply to say to the corporate staffing world that Gerry and Mark's update makes a lot of sense.

To the executive job seeker my point is that in measuring the effectiveness of a resource you are utilizing in a job search, look at and determine the "value" of what you feel the resource brings to your effort so that when the opportunity surfaces, by whatever channel, are you better prepared to take full advantage of the opportunity than you otherwise might have been because of the investment of time and/or money that you have made in that resource.

Said differently, when the "what" (i.e. the interview) comes along, how much did the resource help you with the "how" so that you were able to sell yourself as the aspirin for their headache and actually get an offer? 

If you don't know what the "how's" are and more importantly how to use them, knowing where to see thousands of "what's" is more often than not nothing more than an exercise in frustration.


*  Re-published with permission of Gerry Crispin and Mark Mehler of CareerXroads, your staffing strategy connection. To reach Gerry or Mark, email mmc@careerxroads.com or visit their web site at http://www.careerxroads.com

Don't Get Mad, Get Even

My guess is that most everyone who stops by this blog from time to time will recognize the name CareerXroads. However, just for the record for those who might be experiencing short-term memory loss, CareerXroads is an enterprise founded in 1994 by Mark Mehler and Gerry Crispin.

For many years among other things, Mark and Gerry have published a newsletter called: CareerXroads Update. The name is appropriate for sure as it follows and comments on trends (both good and bad) in the world of recruiting. The result? It provides good reading for those on both sides of the recruiting process. It's free and if you are not on the distribution list, you can register by clicking here.

That said, what prompted all this was actually one of the articles that was included in the CareerXroads Update published last month. In it, was a entry entitled: The Candidate Experience Revolution. Let Them Eat Cake.

The central to item was an article written by Michelle Goodman who writes for the ABC News/Money site in which she writes about what she called the Five Worst Hiring Trends of 2009 from the perspective of a job seeker. It's a great read.

Mark and Gerry's comment was that the piece could easily have covered the "last decade" much less only 5 years. I could not agree more, and I am not sure that I would stop at a decade. If you are a candidate in this market, check out her list of topics and see what emotions it conjures up for you.

• Labyrinthine Job Application Systems
• Overly-Demanding Job Descriptions
• Unscrupulous Recruiters
• Endless Interview Loops
• No Follow Up With Finalists

Over the course of my career I have been on both sides of the desk and I would like to think that I have a pretty good feel for the rationale that is offered by the staffing side as well as the frustration felt by the candidate side, and certainly if I could wave the proverbial magic wand I would fix it all, because if there is one thing where there is common agreement it is that this stuff needs fixing.

That said, and probably as the result of wandering around the business world for the past 45+ years I long ago threw away those rose colored glasses they give you along with your degree.

Translation: I don't think much of this sort of thing is going to get fixed anytime soon, but that doesn't mean that those who feel it should be can't and won't continue to cause some discomfort for those who need to feel it.